why? the cards have an upgradable firmware. if they just put the chips that are in the card on the motherboard how would anything change?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some upgrades involve a bit more than a mere firmware update.
(You wouldn't really think you could give GBit ethernet to an old mac by flashing the firmware either, would you?)
[quote]<strong>
Apple charges us a premium to own a mac. We should at leats get incentives like standard wireless networking for that premium.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you're suggesting they should just cut their margins to more PC-like levels while maintaining the prices, and use the saved money to put additional stuff into the Macs?
Sure, I'd love that too, but I don't think that's gonna happen any time soon.
[quote]Some upgrades involve a bit more than a mere firmware update.
(You wouldn't really think you could give GBit ethernet to an old mac by flashing the firmware either, would you?)<hr></blockquote>
you're misunderstaning me. I know you would not be able to flash it to the new speed. you can't flash an airport card to the new speed either and most likely a new high speed card wouldn't even work in the current slot on machines so your not limiting your future options at all. they are the same.
[quote]So you're suggesting they should just cut their margins to more PC-like levels while maintaining the prices, and use the saved money to put additional stuff into the Macs?
Sure, I'd love that too, but I don't think that's gonna happen any time soon.<hr></blockquote>
I'm with Applenut....integrated Airport would probably cost Apple very little to implement, and it would go a long ways towards differentiating Macs from PCs, and towards adding "value" to Macs. I think it would be awesome to have Airport standard on all Macs.
Add a software base station to OS X, and anyone with more than one Mac has wireless network...that's an awesome thing for Apple to be known for!
you're misunderstaning me. I know you would not be able to flash it to the new speed. you can't flash an airport card to the new speed either and most likely a new high speed card wouldn't even work in the current slot on machines so your not limiting your future options at all. they are the same.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What makes you think the interface to the AirPort card has been crippled in a way as to not allow for higher data rates?
Especially if they indeed (as their tech docs state) use the ATA bus to connect it to the system. It's not like we're going to see BGit Airport any time soon, and 50MBit are unlikely to be too much for any internal interface these days.
[quote]<strong>
it's not exactly a foreign idea.
gigabit ethernet
firewire
</strong><hr></blockquote>
... both of which are integrated into UniNorth anyway, so the impact on price is probably rather small.
[quote]<strong>
superdrive (almost standard now)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure, but it's only standard on the more expensive models, and I think during the course of their introduction, Apple did charge for them in a way, because they only dropped prices by a smaller extent and more slowly than usual.
<strong>I'm with Applenut....integrated Airport would probably cost Apple very little to implement, and it would go a long ways towards differentiating Macs from PCs, and towards adding "value" to Macs. I think it would be awesome to have Airport standard on all Macs.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Integrating Airport doesn't give you as much of an advantage as integrating ethernet, 'cos AFAIK there's no way of putting 802.11b on-chip (i.e. into UniNorth) at this time.
Thus, since a) benefits would be considerably less than in the case of ethernet or firewire (both price-wise and in regards to saving PCI bandwidth), b) WLAN is generally much more expensive than either of those, and c) 802.11b, as opposed to the other two aforementioned technologies actually is a bottleneck for many users right now, I think leaving the option to the user is a good thing at this point.
[quote]<strong>Add a software base station to OS X, and anyone with more than one Mac has wireless network...that's an awesome thing for Apple to be known for!</strong><hr></blockquote>
But everyone who has more than two Macs can just go and buy Airport cards as needed. Why not let them decide for themselves? I mean, in other threads, people are bitching and complaining b/c they can't decide whether they get the Apple Pro Mouse with their system, and now all of a sudden making AirPort non-optional is a good thing?
I wouldn't see a problem with integrating, or rather, factory installing Airport cards into every iBook and Powerbook, as they do on the high end Powerbook G4. If you are a college student or live in a metropolitan area, there is probably an 802.11b wireless LAN you can sign up for. I use Cafe Connection <a href="http://www.cafeconnection.net/"; target="_blank">http://www.cafeconnection.net/</a>; as my sole ISP and for that I get wireless DSL at a number of cafes for only $11 per month. CompUSA installed my Airport Card free of charge when I bought my iBook and an Airport Card from them. Airport is a great selling point for a portable, and Apple would do well to pre-install them on all their portables, or at least on the higher spec models.
PowerMacs are for Pro users. They will want to move big files around. Airport, as someone pointed out, is not the solution at current speeds. Pro users don't want to pay for stuff they aren't using. There have been many discussions through the years about not being able to get a stripped down high-end Mac. No extra hardware and software. Just a bare high-end Mac that Pro could trick out with lots of Ram and disk.
For portables, I do agree that Airport is the correct solution. It makes more sense for it to be factory installed.
I'm sure Apple is crunching the numbers and as soon as it makes sense (most users buying it and cheap enough), it will be factory installed or integrated.
By providing airport on a seperate card apple is leaving the option open for users to upgrade to other wireless protocols in the 2.4Ghz band. 802.11g is an example of a new standard in this frequency. Since .11b and .11g use the same frequency users will be able to just switch cards to upgrade. (802.11a uses the 5Ghz range and requires a different antenna length than .11a and .11g)
<strong>By providing airport on a seperate card apple is leaving the option open for users to upgrade to other wireless protocols in the 2.4Ghz band. 802.11g is an example of a new standard in this frequency. Since .11b and .11g use the same frequency users will be able to just switch cards to upgrade. (802.11a uses the 5Ghz range and requires a different antenna length than .11a and .11g)</strong><hr></blockquote>
IIRC, 11g is backwards compatible with 11b. So, an 11g basestation (theoretically) would be able to handle 11b clients.
Comments
<strong>
why? the cards have an upgradable firmware. if they just put the chips that are in the card on the motherboard how would anything change?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some upgrades involve a bit more than a mere firmware update.
(You wouldn't really think you could give GBit ethernet to an old mac by flashing the firmware either, would you?)
[quote]<strong>
Apple charges us a premium to own a mac. We should at leats get incentives like standard wireless networking for that premium.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you're suggesting they should just cut their margins to more PC-like levels while maintaining the prices, and use the saved money to put additional stuff into the Macs?
Sure, I'd love that too, but I don't think that's gonna happen any time soon.
Bye,
RazzFazz
(You wouldn't really think you could give GBit ethernet to an old mac by flashing the firmware either, would you?)<hr></blockquote>
you're misunderstaning me. I know you would not be able to flash it to the new speed. you can't flash an airport card to the new speed either and most likely a new high speed card wouldn't even work in the current slot on machines so your not limiting your future options at all. they are the same.
[quote]So you're suggesting they should just cut their margins to more PC-like levels while maintaining the prices, and use the saved money to put additional stuff into the Macs?
Sure, I'd love that too, but I don't think that's gonna happen any time soon.<hr></blockquote>
it's not exactly a foreign idea.
gigabit ethernet
firewire
superdrive (almost standard now)
built in video in.out on old powermacs
etc,
Add a software base station to OS X, and anyone with more than one Mac has wireless network...that's an awesome thing for Apple to be known for!
<strong>
you're misunderstaning me. I know you would not be able to flash it to the new speed. you can't flash an airport card to the new speed either and most likely a new high speed card wouldn't even work in the current slot on machines so your not limiting your future options at all. they are the same.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What makes you think the interface to the AirPort card has been crippled in a way as to not allow for higher data rates?
Especially if they indeed (as their tech docs state) use the ATA bus to connect it to the system. It's not like we're going to see BGit Airport any time soon, and 50MBit are unlikely to be too much for any internal interface these days.
[quote]<strong>
it's not exactly a foreign idea.
gigabit ethernet
firewire
</strong><hr></blockquote>
... both of which are integrated into UniNorth anyway, so the impact on price is probably rather small.
[quote]<strong>
superdrive (almost standard now)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure, but it's only standard on the more expensive models, and I think during the course of their introduction, Apple did charge for them in a way, because they only dropped prices by a smaller extent and more slowly than usual.
[quote]<strong>
built in video in.out on old powermacs
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You didn't have to pay for that?
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>I'm with Applenut....integrated Airport would probably cost Apple very little to implement, and it would go a long ways towards differentiating Macs from PCs, and towards adding "value" to Macs. I think it would be awesome to have Airport standard on all Macs.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Integrating Airport doesn't give you as much of an advantage as integrating ethernet, 'cos AFAIK there's no way of putting 802.11b on-chip (i.e. into UniNorth) at this time.
Thus, since a) benefits would be considerably less than in the case of ethernet or firewire (both price-wise and in regards to saving PCI bandwidth), b) WLAN is generally much more expensive than either of those, and c) 802.11b, as opposed to the other two aforementioned technologies actually is a bottleneck for many users right now, I think leaving the option to the user is a good thing at this point.
[quote]<strong>Add a software base station to OS X, and anyone with more than one Mac has wireless network...that's an awesome thing for Apple to be known for!</strong><hr></blockquote>
But everyone who has more than two Macs can just go and buy Airport cards as needed. Why not let them decide for themselves? I mean, in other threads, people are bitching and complaining b/c they can't decide whether they get the Apple Pro Mouse with their system, and now all of a sudden making AirPort non-optional is a good thing?
Bye,
RazzFazz
For portables, I do agree that Airport is the correct solution. It makes more sense for it to be factory installed.
I'm sure Apple is crunching the numbers and as soon as it makes sense (most users buying it and cheap enough), it will be factory installed or integrated.
<strong>By providing airport on a seperate card apple is leaving the option open for users to upgrade to other wireless protocols in the 2.4Ghz band. 802.11g is an example of a new standard in this frequency. Since .11b and .11g use the same frequency users will be able to just switch cards to upgrade. (802.11a uses the 5Ghz range and requires a different antenna length than .11a and .11g)</strong><hr></blockquote>
IIRC, 11g is backwards compatible with 11b. So, an 11g basestation (theoretically) would be able to handle 11b clients.