PDA

View Full Version : Airport Extreme - 5x faster in US vs 2.5x in UK?


MajorTom
Jan 11, 2007, 01:01 PM
Just noticed that the new Airport Extreme page on the US Apple site states that it is 5x faster wereas on the UK Apple site it is described as 2.5x faster than 802.11g!!!

Is there a valid technical reason for this that anyone is aware of?! :confused:

dalvin200
Jan 11, 2007, 01:04 PM
Just noticed that the new Airport Extreme page on the US Apple site states that it is 5x faster wereas on the UK Apple site it is described as 2.5x faster than 802.11g!!!

Is there a valid technical reason for this that anyone is aware of?! :confused:

wow.. didn't spot that one.. that is weird..

i thought standards were.. erm.. standard whereever you are?

MacVault
Jan 11, 2007, 01:10 PM
Just noticed that the new Airport Extreme page on the US Apple site states that it is 5x faster wereas on the UK Apple site it is described as 2.5x faster than 802.11g!!!

Is there a valid technical reason for this that anyone is aware of?! :confused:

The new AirPort Extreme is a piece of crap anyway because the network ports are only 10/100, not Gigabit :mad:

TheAnswer
Jan 11, 2007, 01:12 PM
I dunno know about technically, but since 2.5 is roughly $5 US...maybe it is performance/cost? :rolleyes:

dalvin200
Jan 11, 2007, 01:20 PM
I dunno know about technically, but since 2.5 is roughly $5 US...maybe it is performance/cost? :rolleyes:

LOL.. r u serious? LMAO!!! :confused: :eek:

MajorTom
Jan 11, 2007, 01:31 PM
The new AirPort Extreme is a piece of crap anyway because the network ports are only 10/100, not Gigabit :mad:

I agree that this is a bit disapointing considering that most recent macs include 10/100/1000 Base-T ENET ports! And didnt the old Airport Basestations include Gigabit ENET? Why go back to old standards... doesnt make sense?! :confused:

Anyways both the speed issue in the UK and the lack of GB ENET have convinced me to wait a while before purchasing the new Airport. I'd like to know if there are valid reasons for these shortcomings first before i purchase... perhaps the speed issue in the UK has something to do with the fact that 802.11n is not an offical standard yet?

If so then my old belkin router (802.11g) which does a decent job will just have to do me untill Apple releases an Airport Extreme which doesnt give me these concerns... maybe Rev.B will address these concerns and by that time 802.11n 'should' hopefully be an offical standard. ;)

TheAnswer
Jan 11, 2007, 01:32 PM
LOL.. r u serious? LMAO!!! :confused: :eek:

Not serious at all, especially since the US price at $179 should convert to around 92 not the 119 it is in the UK Apple Store, but then I think their price includes tax.

I'm actually assuming it's a fellow American with the same subpar mathematical education that I received assuming that they have to covert the numbers for the sole reason that they are different over there. I'm surprised that 802.11n didn't become 412.566n :D

MacDonaldsd
Jan 11, 2007, 01:36 PM
Thats a bit odd, I hope its typing error of some sort :confused:

MajorTom
Jan 11, 2007, 01:50 PM
Thats a bit odd, I hope its typing error of some sort :confused:

Unfortunately i dont think its a typo... both the US and UK Airport Extreme pages have fancy 'graphics' to emphises the 5X / 2.5X speeds...

UK site:
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/2152/picture1np3.png

US site:
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/1854/picture2py7.png

A typo in standard text can be easily overlooked but i doubt someone would have spent the time it would take making such a fancy icon and not noticed such an obvious typo staring back at them! :p

psychofreak
Jan 11, 2007, 01:52 PM
Unfortunately i dont think its a typo... both the US and UK Airport Extreme pages have fancy 'graphics' to emphises the 5X / 2.5X speeds...

UK site:
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/2152/picture1np3.png

US site:
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/1854/picture2py7.png

A typo in standard text can be overlooked but i doubt someone would have spent the time making such a fancy icon with such an obvious typo staring back at them! :p

The icons are all over the store...not made especially

wakerider017
Jan 11, 2007, 01:58 PM
The new AirPort Extreme is a piece of crap anyway because the network ports are only 10/100, not Gigabit :mad:

Not really...

I never use my router as a "switch" any way. I have way too many computers.

The Airport Extreme can only handle 3 computers. (I have 7 in my house)


All you need to buy is a gigabit Switch and everything will be peaches and cream!

Here is what you can do:

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/1110/muckyyj2.jpg

jsw
Jan 11, 2007, 02:01 PM
Just noticed that the new Airport Extreme page on the US Apple site states that it is 5x faster wereas on the UK Apple site it is described as 2.5x faster than 802.11g!!!

Is there a valid technical reason for this that anyone is aware of?! :confused:
Read the fine print on the main page (http://www.apple.com/airportextreme/):
The AirPort Extreme Base Station is based on an IEEE 802.11n draft specification and is compatible with IEEE 802.11a, IEEE 802.11b, and IEEE 802.11g. The following countries do not allow wide-channel operation: Austria, Estonia, Germany, Japan, Latvia, Slovakia, Spain, United Kingdom.

MacDonaldsd
Jan 11, 2007, 02:03 PM
So is it crippled by software or the hardware ?

jsw
Jan 11, 2007, 02:04 PM
So is it crippled by software or the hardware ?
I'm guessing hardware (which would mean a US one would be faster), in order to pass the approval stages, but obviously I could be wrong.
The new AirPort Extreme is a piece of crap anyway because the network ports are only 10/100, not Gigabit :mad:
Yup. It's a complete piece of crap, at least for all of those people who have internet broadband that's faster than 100Mbps.

For those with sub-100Mbps connections, which probably includes at least a few people, it's quite useful.

balamw
Jan 11, 2007, 02:07 PM
I'm guessing hardware (which would mean a US one would be faster) in order to pass the approval stages, but obviously I could be wrong.
It's probably just a firmware limitation like that for the 802.11b/g channels > 11 in current hardware.


B

stephenmckeague
Jan 11, 2007, 02:14 PM
Well if they're going to make a specific UK version why not include an ADSL modem as 99% of UK broadband uses that. This doesn't apply to the US but I think integrated router/modem has become an unofficial standard in the UK. If the roles were reversed and the virtually all of the US used a specific broadband technology Apple would be infinitely more likely to integrate the modem :mad: As it stands I don't see why I should pay the apple premimum for design when an ugly 3rd party external modem ruins the look anyway. [/rant]

balamw
Jan 11, 2007, 02:20 PM
Well if they're going to make a specific UK version why not include an ADSL modem as 99% of UK broadband uses that. This doesn't apply to the US but I think integrated router/modem has become an unofficial standard in the UK. If the roles were reversed and the virtually all of the US used a specific broadband technology Apple would be infinitely more likely to integrate the modem :mad: As it stands I don't see why I should pay the apple premimum for design when an ugly 3rd party external modem ruins the look anyway. [/rant]

Most people in the US use the router their ISP provides for broadband, which is integrated, there are however many flavors for each provider and region. (DSL, Cable, Fiber, ...)

The point here though is that it is not a hardware limitation it's a firmware setting that can/will be overcome as soon as it's legal to use wider channels in those countries. Kinda like the France imposed volume cap on the iPod. That was firmware only and plenty of French iPod users updated their 'Pods to US or other foreign firmware to gain their extra volume.

B

MajorTom
Jan 11, 2007, 02:35 PM
Read the fine print on the main page (http://www.apple.com/airportextreme/):

Ahh well spotted! :)

Well thats a shame... i sure hope the UK allows for 'wide-channel operation' soon! If i was certain that this limitation was simply a firmware revision then i think i would be happy purchasing the current AE afterall. The lack of GB ENET is not that big of a deal to me. :rolleyes:

SimonTheSoundMa
Jan 11, 2007, 02:36 PM
Well if they're going to make a specific UK version why not include an ADSL modem as 99% of UK broadband uses that. This doesn't apply to the US but I think integrated router/modem has become an unofficial standard in the UK. If the roles were reversed and the virtually all of the US used a specific broadband technology Apple would be infinitely more likely to integrate the modem :mad: As it stands I don't see why I should pay the apple premium for design when an ugly 3rd party external modem ruins the look anyway. [/rant]
I thought the same. Pu me right off. My Netgear DG832Gv2 so happens to be gloss white like my iMac, goes quite nice.

It only has a WAN socket, means I have to spend more on an ADSL modem, and decent standalone ones start at about 100.

stephenmckeague
Jan 11, 2007, 02:39 PM
there are however many flavors for each provider and region. (DSL, Cable, Fiber, ...)


There's only one (commercial) flavour ever used here in the UK (ADSL), thats why it's annoying that the modem's not included.

jsw
Jan 11, 2007, 02:41 PM
It's probably just a firmware limitation like that for the 802.11b/g channels > 11 in current hardware.
Of course. :o

Silly me. Responded without thinking enough....

Spanky Deluxe
Jan 11, 2007, 02:45 PM
Not really...

I never use my router as a "switch" any way. I have way too many computers.

The Airport Extreme can only handle 3 computers. (I have 7 in my house)


All you need to buy is a gigabit Switch and everything will be peaches and cream!

<snip>

While that is true to some extent, the limitations arise in that 802.11n is supposed to technically have a data rate of 200 Mbit/s and a maximum data rate of 540 Mbit/s. Both of those values are quite a bit higher than the 100 Mbit/s ethernet ports on the thing can handle.
For the amount of money they charge for the Airport Express I really think they should have put in gigabit ethernet. I mean the last Apple computer sold that *didn't* have gigabit ethernet was the last iBook which was replaced over half a year ago and was a consumer level product anyway.

Edit: Do these have a configuration utility where you can set it to only use 802.11n? I'm sure people will want to do that since otherwise if a single 802.11b unit is added then the speed of the wireless for all devices is dropped down to 11Mbit/s.

balamw
Jan 11, 2007, 02:46 PM
There's only one (commercial) flavour ever used here in the UK (ADSL), thats why it's annoying that the modem's not included.

Yeah, but there are 5X (or is it 2.5X :p) of us compared to you lot, not to mention the 6 billion other people in the rest of the world...

B

skunk
Jan 11, 2007, 02:48 PM
I assumed it was just "typical British understatement".

jsw
Jan 11, 2007, 02:50 PM
I assumed it was just "typical British understatement".;)

At least this thread spared me from asking why 802.11g was twice as fast over there. :D

stephenmckeague
Jan 11, 2007, 02:52 PM
not to mention the 6 billion other people in the rest of the world...


They simply don't count :p

balamw
Jan 11, 2007, 02:54 PM
;)

At least this thread spared me from asking why 802.11g was twice as fast over there. :D

I too was wondering if one of the various 108 Mbps "speed booster" flavours was "standard" in the UK.

They simply don't count :p
;)

Anyhow here's the skinny. While others may beat us on adoption levels the US has 31% of the broadband users in the world. http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0611/

B

OllyW
Jan 11, 2007, 03:06 PM
Well if they're going to make a specific UK version why not include an ADSL modem as 99% of UK broadband uses that. This doesn't apply to the US but I think integrated router/modem has become an unofficial standard in the UK. If the roles were reversed and the virtually all of the US used a specific broadband technology Apple would be infinitely more likely to integrate the modem :mad: As it stands I don't see why I should pay the apple premimum for design when an ugly 3rd party external modem ruins the look anyway. [/rant]

I think you will find NTL Telewest has got a lot more than 1% of the UK broadband market so why should their customers have to pay a premium for a useless integrated ADSL modem.

Integrated router/modems seem to carry a premium of about 30 over the cost of a standalone wireless router so that would probably mean an extra 50-60 from Apple ;)

dongmin
Jan 11, 2007, 03:07 PM
The new AirPort Extreme is a piece of crap anyway because the network ports are only 10/100, not Gigabit :mad:

Yes, your LAN will top out at 100 Mbps.

But your WLAN will reach 250 Mbps. It's not Gigabit, but it's not bad.

IEatApples
Jan 11, 2007, 03:26 PM
In Norway:

The first picture states that you get up-to 2,5 times as fast performance, and 2 times the range. But the Icon speaks for itself.

The second picture states that you get up-to 5 times as fast data-transfer, and more than twice the range.

balamw
Jan 11, 2007, 04:23 PM
In Norway:

The first picture states that you get up-to 2,5 times as fast performance, and 2 times the range. But the Icon speaks for itself.

The second picture states that you get up-to 5 times as fast data-transfer, and more than twice the range.

Norway's not on the list mentioned earlier in the thread http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3240080&postcount=12 so 5X is probably right. The 2.5X probably came from Germany or the UK.:p

B

IEatApples
Jan 11, 2007, 04:25 PM
Norway's not on the list mentioned earlier in the thread http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3240080&postcount=12 so 5X is probably right. The 2.5X probably came from Germany or the UK.:p

BSorry, I didn't see that. :o

weckart
Jan 11, 2007, 05:22 PM
Well if they're going to make a specific UK version why not include an ADSL modem as 99% of UK broadband uses that. This doesn't apply to the US but I think integrated router/modem has become an unofficial standard in the UK. . [/rant]


Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

Because Telewest and NTL provide less than 1% of all broadband connections between them, sheesh.

Tack on an ADSL modem and you can throw the whole thing away when fibre or adsl+ or whatever the next big thing/upgrade happens.

maverick808
Jan 11, 2007, 10:09 PM
There's only one (commercial) flavour ever used here in the UK (ADSL), thats why it's annoying that the modem's not included.

Really? Funny then that my NTL cable modem isn't connected to the telephone line (and therefore by definition can't be DSL).

I'm glad the Airport Extreme doesn't have an integrated DSL modem. I hate integrated DSL in routers and access points because I don't have a DSL connection so the inclusion of one would annoy me.

macboy62
Jan 11, 2007, 11:12 PM
Ummmm, Here in Japan the image icon states 5X faster and the write up says it has a maximum of 5 times faster. The small print at the bottom says that Japanese law means that the bandwidth is restricted by half.

So only 2.5X here in Japan until they change the law. :(

maverick808
Jan 11, 2007, 11:37 PM
I had ordered one but I've cancelled my order. The reason being that it only has 100Mb wired connections. Why!? Every single Mac they sell now has gigabit (1000Mb) Ethernet. The speed of 802.11n is a theoretical max of 540Mb, but with a typical rate of 200Mb. This means that if I have say a Mac Mini plugged into the Airport Extreme on the wire, and copy from that to my laptop using 802.11n, the wire will slow the copy down, as it'll only be half the speed of the wireless (100Mb on wire compared to 200Mb wireless)!!!

Are they mad? Why on earth would this thing have wired connections that are slower than the wireless? Why would it have wired connections that are 10 times slower than every single machine they sell now?

aswitcher
Jan 12, 2007, 12:09 AM
Australia has x5 - happy about that.

aswitcher
Jan 12, 2007, 12:11 AM
Are they mad? Why on earth would this thing have wired connections that are slower than the wireless? Why would it have wired connections that are 10 times slower than every single machine they sell now?

One of the reasons I am not buying a Mini until it gets updated.

I wonder if there will be a way of using the USB2.0 port for data transfer, because at 400Mbps it should keep up with that transfer speed.

maverick808
Jan 12, 2007, 12:15 AM
One of the reasons I am not buying a Mini until it gets updated.

The current Mac Mini does have Gigabit Ethernet. I know because it says so in the tech specs and because I have one plugged into a gigabit router here, and it definitelly talks to my iMac, and my MBP when I plug it into the wire, at gigabit speeds.

Every single machine Apple sells has Gigabit Ethernet now.

EDIT: ...or did you mean that you aren't buying a Mini until the Airport Extreme gets updated, because you want to buy them together?

aswitcher
Jan 12, 2007, 12:19 AM
EDIT: ...or did you mean that you aren't buying a Mini until the Airport Extreme gets updated, because you want to buy them together?

Yep ;)

I figure with an AE and a Multimedia Mac (A mini unless Apple do something truely nice between the mini and the tower) they can talk at up to 200mbps sustained for transfer. My MBP does not have N but by July/Aug should have been updated to that.

What I really want to know is if a G device is on the wireless network does it slow down N devices not talking to it?

macboy62
Jan 12, 2007, 12:26 AM
What I really want to know is if a G device is on the wireless network does it slow down N devices not talking to it?

Good question!
Plus when are Airport Extreme (g) Cards going on sale? I will replace my G4 iMac soon but not the G4 iBook too. So I would like to buy just a new card for that if it affects the speed of the whole network.

maverick808
Jan 12, 2007, 12:33 AM
Yep ;)

I figure with an AE and a Multimedia Mac (A mini unless Apple do something truely nice between the mini and the tower) they can talk at up to 200mbps sustained for transfer. My MBP does not have N but by July/Aug should have been updated to that.

What I really want to know is if a G device is on the wireless network does it slow down N devices not talking to it?

I have more or less the setup you describe. I have a Mac Mini and an iMac plugged into a gigabit router, as well as an 802.11g access point. This allows gigabit speeds between the Mini and the iMac, and the maximum 802.11g can provide to my MBP. The Airport Extreme seemed like a perfect product for me, until I realized the 802.11n on it would be crippled by the awful wired speeds. Now I'll just buy any other 802.11n access point that isn't crippled so that I get the full 802.11n speed.

My understanding of 802.11n is that having any b or g clients on the network will indeed slow it down, as it will have to hop frequencies. I imagine that, at best, you would get the 2.5x speed if you had any g clients on the network. I plan to keep my current 802.11g access point even when I get an 802.11n one so that I can have two wireless networks to support both types of client. I know the interference between them will slow N down slightly, but it should be far far less of a slowdown than you'd get if you had an actual g client on the same network as the n.

aswitcher
Jan 12, 2007, 01:20 AM
My understanding of 802.11n is that having any b or g clients on the network will indeed slow it down, as it will have to hop frequencies. I imagine that, at best, you would get the 2.5x speed if you had any g clients on the network. I plan to keep my current 802.11g access point even when I get an 802.11n one so that I can have two wireless networks to support both types of client. I know the interference between them will slow N down slightly, but it should be far far less of a slowdown than you'd get if you had an actual g client on the same network as the n.

I might do the same, run a N and a G seperately.

aswitcher
Jan 12, 2007, 01:24 AM
So this means that Airport Expresses getting streamed music are going to slow the whole network down...

maverick808
Jan 12, 2007, 01:31 AM
I imagine that having a g client on an n network would be as bad as having a b client on a g network. As you can see from this quote, that's VERY bad...

To illustrate how dramatic this effect is, an 802.11g client could be humming along at 22 mbits/sec, yet if an 802.11b client starts transmitting data, both clients operate in b mode and they each end up crawling at 3 mbits/sec.

aswitcher
Jan 12, 2007, 01:32 AM
I wonder if the iPhone has N - if not everytime you get home with it things slow down...

Steven Jackson
Jan 12, 2007, 05:04 AM
Hi,

I live in the UK and have NTL (cable) 4mbps broadband going into my Airport Express. I run a G4 iBook and (soon) a Core 2 Duo MacBook on the network. I will be buying an ApppleTV and iPhone as soon as they become available.

Would I see any benefit at all, in any way, from replacing my Airport Express with a new Airport Extreme. The AppleTV would be positioned close enough to the Airport Extreme to have a wired connection, but I won't be able to stop using the iBook (802.11g) for the forseeable future. I would also be connecting a hard-drive to the Airport Extreme if I decided to go with this option.

So... any benefit, or should I just stick with the Airport express and connect all devices (iBook, Macbook, AppleTV, iPhone(!)) with 802.11g?

Thanks in advance for any info. You might be saving me 119 quid.

Cheers,

Steve.

dalvin200
Jan 12, 2007, 05:07 AM
You might be saving me 119 quid.

Cheers,

Steve.

i could use that 119 quid if its going spare :D hehe..

personally, i would hang fire for a while and use the standard airport.. but that's just my opinion

gnasher729
Jan 12, 2007, 05:39 AM
I had ordered one but I've cancelled my order. The reason being that it only has 100Mb wired connections. Why!? Every single Mac they sell now has gigabit (1000Mb) Ethernet. The speed of 802.11n is a theoretical max of 540Mb, but with a typical rate of 200Mb. This means that if I have say a Mac Mini plugged into the Airport Extreme on the wire, and copy from that to my laptop using 802.11n, the wire will slow the copy down, as it'll only be half the speed of the wireless (100Mb on wire compared to 200Mb wireless)!!!

Are they mad? Why on earth would this thing have wired connections that are slower than the wireless? Why would it have wired connections that are 10 times slower than every single machine they sell now?

You are a late victim of the Megahertz myth.

Ethernet at 100 Mbps will transfer data faster than 200Mbps wireless.

maverick808
Jan 12, 2007, 10:31 AM
You are a late victim of the Megahertz myth.

Ethernet at 100 Mbps will transfer data faster than 200Mbps wireless.

Yes, but 802.11n is rated at 540Mbps and NOT 200Mbps. 200Mbps is the typical data rate that you can expect to see in practice, but won't on the Airport Extreme due to the wire being only 100Mbps.

It's the same with 802.11g which has a theoritical maximum speed of 54Mbps, but actually delivers a typical rate of 25Mbps.

So my point still stands, 100Mbps wired Ethernet is simply not enough to feed 540Mbps wireless.

Also, I don't see how this in any way relates to the Megahertz Myth, which is relevant only to CPUs. Mbps is a pure rating. Whilst one cycle on a CPU can result in more bits being processed than 1 cycle on another CPU, 1 bit transferred by one router will always be identical to 1 bit transferred by any other router. A CPU cycle has many factors that can affect its throughput (such as bandwith, pipeline construction, word size, etc), and this is why there can be a Megahertz Myth with CPUs, but not with network throughput.

Anuba
Jan 12, 2007, 10:49 AM
All you need to buy is a gigabit Switch and everything will be peaches and cream!

If all you need to do to be happy with the new Airport Extreme is to buy another product, the new Airport Extreme isn't quite cutting it.

Apple always does this. There's always one weak point/bottleneck, one item in the specs that makes you go hmmmm. Usually it's completely unnecessary because you know every Dell and HP and his brother is already offering a newer and better component. They should be cutting edge on *all* fronts. It's like some damn British Hotel Syndrome.

maverick808
Jan 12, 2007, 10:54 AM
Not really...

I never use my router as a "switch" any way. I have way too many computers.

The Airport Extreme can only handle 3 computers. (I have 7 in my house)


All you need to buy is a gigabit Switch and everything will be peaches and cream!

So with your proposed setup can you tell me what speed you would achieve copying a large file (e.g. a movie) from any of your wired computers to an 802.11n client?

MacVault
Jan 12, 2007, 11:43 AM
If all you need to do to be happy with the new Airport Extreme is to buy another product, the new Airport Extreme isn't quite cutting it.

Apple always does this. There's always one weak point/bottleneck, one item in the specs that makes you go hmmmm. Usually it's completely unnecessary because you know every Dell and HP and his brother is already offering a newer and better component. They should be cutting edge on *all* fronts. It's like some damn British Hotel Syndrome.

"British Hotel Syndrome" - Halarious! You're right, Anuba! This is pure CRAP from Apple. They probably do it just so they can add the little feature in a few months and get us to give them our money one more time. Oh, and talk about one weak point with the iPhone - it's the "lock-in" to a provider that makes that thing SUCK. Otherwise it would be an awsome product. Apple is turning into Microsoft... DRM, lock-in exclusivity to #$^$&%^ cellphone contracts, etc. It's got to stop! Completely UNACCEPTABLE! Do you hear us, Steve Jobs????? :mad:

Anuba
Jan 12, 2007, 01:03 PM
"British Hotel Syndrome" - Halarious!
Well, ya know... I stayed in a hotel in that area in London, umm... Bayswater. Every hotel had this shiny white facade with fancy ornaments and all sorts of stuff. But then I looked out a back window and saw that the back of each hotel was just a shabby brown brick wall with broken windows and loads of garbage strewn across the yard.

When the first Mac Mini came out, I bought one, and only after a while did I realize it had a 32 MB video card. "32?? They don't even MAKE those anymore. Apple must have bought the last ones in the world, from some scrap dealer, and shoved them into the Mac Minis. Anything that's in the fine print where most people don't look, you can be sure Apple has snuck something outdated in there.

And why isn't there an option for a 7200 RPM drive in MacBook when every major PC manufacturer offers an optional 7200 drive in their notebooks?

And how the hell can the iPhone not support 3G when this has been a staple of PDA-class phones for like 2 years?

Be cutting edge across the entire spec sheet, dammit, don't get cheap on us in places where you think we won't look.

infomatique
Jan 12, 2007, 02:48 PM
The reasons are to do with local UK regulations.

Get a cheap Ryanair flight to Dublin as it would appear that they will be available here at 5X. This is a bit strange as the regulations in Ireland are usually the same as those that apply in the UK.

Just noticed that the new Airport Extreme page on the US Apple site states that it is 5x faster wereas on the UK Apple site it is described as 2.5x faster than 802.11g!!!

Is there a valid technical reason for this that anyone is aware of?! :confused:

wakerider017
Jan 15, 2007, 03:25 PM
So with your proposed setup can you tell me what speed you would achieve copying a large file (e.g. a movie) from any of your wired computers to an 802.11n client?

Oh come one give me a break. I provided the best solution possible. Cut me some slack.

Besides most MB's and MBP's come with slower 5400RPM drives.

They won't be able to keep up with the ACTUAL 100mbps wireless transfer rate...

maverick808
Jan 15, 2007, 04:45 PM
Oh come one give me a break. I provided the best solution possible. Cut me some slack.

Besides most MB's and MBP's come with slower 5400RPM drives.

They won't be able to keep up with the ACTUAL 100mbps wireless transfer rate...

I wasn't trying to be mean. I was merely pointing out that even with your setup, which I agree is the optimal one for the Airport Extreme, you still won't get true 802.11n transfer speeds. The problem remains the Airport Extreme and its awful wired speeds.

As to your point about hard drive speeds, I'm sorry but I think you've made a mistake and assumed MB means Megabits when you've looked at drive speeds, when it in fact means Megabytes (a capital B means byte and a small b means bit).

I think you'll find that even the worst 5400RPM drive on the market could easily keep up with 100Mbps transfer rates. Hard drive transfer rates are typically rated in MB/s (Megabytes per second) and not Mb/s (Megabits per second) as network devices typically are. For example, even the standard drive for the MacBook has a maximum transfer rate of 150MB/s, which will give an average sustained transfer rate of about 50MB/s. I'm quite positive that 50MBytes/s, which is 400Mbits/s, is more than enough to saturate a 100Mbits/s wire.

I'm sorry, but I am sure that the 100Mbps wire on the Airport Extreme was a poor choice by Apple, and will definitely be a bottleneck if anyone tries to get full 802.11n speeds when talking to any machine wired to an Airport Extreme.

wakerider017
Jan 15, 2007, 05:05 PM
I wasn't trying to be mean. I was merely pointing out that even with your setup, which I agree is the optimal one for the Airport Extreme, you still won't get true 802.11n transfer speeds. The problem remains the Airport Extreme and its awful wired speeds.

As to your point about hard drive speeds, I'm sorry but I think you've made a mistake and assumed MB means Megabits when you've looked at drive speeds, when it in fact means Megabytes (a capital B means byte and a small b means bit).

I think you'll find that even the worst 5400RPM drive on the market could easily keep up with 100Mbps transfer rates. Hard drive transfer rates are typically rated in MB/s (Megabytes per second) and not Mb/s (Megabits per second) as network devices typically are. For example, even the standard drive for the MacBook has a maximum transfer rate of 150MB/s, which will give an average sustained transfer rate of about 50MB/s. I'm quite positive that 50MBytes/s, which is 400Mbits/s, is more than enough to saturate a 100Mbits/s wire.

I'm sorry, but I am sure that the 100Mbps wire on the Airport Extreme was a poor choice by Apple, and will definitely be a bottleneck if anyone tries to get full 802.11n speeds when talking to any machine wired to an Airport Extreme.

I know, I was not not trying to be mean either. I think you read that post wrong. Was supposed to be kinda sarcastic ;)


Yes your are correct I did make that mistake. I thought that Mb's were the same as MB's. My mistake.

I just looked and

1MB = 8Mb

So at 100Mbps you are only transfering 12.5MBps (Wow I did not know that!)

At 1000Mbps you are doing 125MBps (This is more than most computers can handle.)


No doubt that 100Mbps was a bad choice.


I thought that 802.11n was created to handle HD video streams. I don't think 12.5MBps will cut the mustard.

Jo-Kun
Jan 24, 2007, 05:40 PM
I agree that this is a bit disapointing considering that most recent macs include 10/100/1000 Base-T ENET ports! And didnt the old Airport Basestations include Gigabit ENET? Why go back to old standards... doesnt make sense?! :confused:


none of the Airport versions had anything faster then 10/100...

Pooldraft
Mar 4, 2007, 12:48 PM
The new AirPort Extreme is a piece of crap anyway because the network ports are only 10/100, not Gigabit :mad:

E"motherfu*king"xactly that is what I am taliking about, the network drive is a nice feature but i would like to us gigabit to send data to and from it. 10/100 and 802.11N just can't do the speeds I want and need for large files:D

Sesshi
Mar 5, 2007, 08:06 AM
It was probably a sensible idea. With the brain inside the AE it's unlikely to be able to push gigabit data down the ethernet line even if it had a gigabit interface anyway.


Apple always does this. There's always one weak point/bottleneck, one item in the specs that makes you go hmmmm. Usually it's completely unnecessary because you know every Dell and HP and his brother is already offering a newer and better component. They should be cutting edge on *all* fronts. It's like some damn British Hotel Syndrome.

There are compromises Apple has to make with the AE. Like practically every Apple product, it's a product to do something that the average user of it doesn't understand, and does it quite well. It's not a high-performance component. Apple is not cutting edge for the sake of it, it's more about current technology made usable and productive for the relatively clueless.

skunk
Mar 5, 2007, 04:23 PM
Apple is not cutting edge for the sake of it, it's more about current technology made usable and productive for the relatively clueless.Sounds about perfect for me, then. :)

maverick808
Mar 5, 2007, 04:29 PM
Apple is not cutting edge for the sake of it, it's more about current technology made usable and productive for the relatively clueless.

Might be more usable, but how is a *slower* wired speed going to make it, or the user, *more* productive?

I've bought an AirPort Extreme, and obviously it's faster than my previous 802.11g router. However, I still think Apple cheaped out on this one. There is no doubt Gigabit Ethernet would have increased both wired to wired and wired to wireless speeds. The price difference between Fast Ethernet and Gigabit Ethernet is likely a few dollars at most. I see no compelling reason for Apple to put only Fast Ethernet in the AirPort Extreme other than to scrimp every cent they can out the product at the cost of performance. Poor show.

aristobrat
Mar 5, 2007, 05:01 PM
E"motherfu*king"xactly that is what I am taliking about, the network drive is a nice feature but i would like to us gigabit to send data to and from it. 10/100 and 802.11N just can't do the speeds I want and need for large files:D
I haven't seen a benchmark yet that shows where the Extreme can write faster than 6MB/s (48Mbps) to a shared USB drive. Even with GigE, unless Apple addresses that huge issue, this isn't the product for you.

netdog
Mar 5, 2007, 05:11 PM
My two Airport Extreme Ns both seem to think that they live in Dublin, and hence are 5x.

Who am I to correct them?

skunk
Mar 5, 2007, 05:20 PM
My two Airport Extreme Ns both seem to think that they live in Dublin, and hence are 5x.

Who am I to correct them?It appears to be a default delusion. :)

Sesshi
Mar 6, 2007, 01:00 AM
Might be more usable, but how is a *slower* wired speed going to make it, or the user, *more* productive?

I've bought an AirPort Extreme, and obviously it's faster than my previous 802.11g router. However, I still think Apple cheaped out on this one. There is no doubt Gigabit Ethernet would have increased both wired to wired and wired to wireless speeds. The price difference between Fast Ethernet and Gigabit Ethernet is likely a few dollars at most. I see no compelling reason for Apple to put only Fast Ethernet in the AirPort Extreme other than to scrimp every cent they can out the product at the cost of performance. Poor show.

I answered that in the first bit of my post. For the money, especially Apple money, you aren't going to get a device that pushes data down the wire at anywhere near 'true' gigabit speeds. The price difference isn't just down to the Gigabit Ethernet interface which as you say is minimal - but it's also the difference of the horsepower required to power the interface. And the CPU on the AE is already pretty busy doing other stuff. So Apple most likely said 'well lets not give people false ideas' and limited it to megabit interface. You could have an 'Airport Pro' which has that horsepower, but then with such a device you'll be getting into a significant percentage of the Mini pricewise.

The problem with many Apple owners might be that they start thinking they do know what they're talking about after a while of being in the Apple-simplified playground. Whether this is a good or bad thing, I can't say. But if you gave them a gigabit interface and it didn't deliver near-wire speed, I for one can see class action lawsuits, etc looming on the horizon.

As an Apple exec, I'd probably know my end user demographic quite well. Who knows, maybe it is a gigabit interface but given the above I'd say "**** that, let's lock it down to 10/100".

NATO
Mar 7, 2007, 07:24 AM
If all you need to do to be happy with the new Airport Extreme is to buy another product, the new Airport Extreme isn't quite cutting it.

Apple always does this. There's always one weak point/bottleneck, one item in the specs that makes you go hmmmm. Usually it's completely unnecessary because you know every Dell and HP and his brother is already offering a newer and better component. They should be cutting edge on *all* fronts. It's like some damn British Hotel Syndrome.

I absolutely agree with you on this. I really, really want to buy an Airport Extreme as it looks good and has a lot of functionality at a fairly decent price. However as always with Apple, there's one major drawback that you either need to decide whether to accept or not and in this case it's the lack of Gig-E. With a lot of various computers, network drives etc, a 100Mbps interface just isn't good enough, especially as the likes of Netgear etc are capable of offering an almost-identical product with Gig-E at a cheaper price point.

I also wish Apple would consider making an Airport Extreme with an ADSL modem built-in. Right now an Airport Extreme would have to go in alongside an existing ADSL Router (its practically impossible to get a standalone ADSL Modem), which is a waste of power, space and money. Especially as I can get the Netgear router which offers the modem, the Gig-E switch and 802.11n Wi-Fi all in a nice compact box (priced approx 33% less than the Apple Router)

iW00t
Apr 24, 2007, 10:08 PM
I absolutely agree with you on this. I really, really want to buy an Airport Extreme as it looks good and has a lot of functionality at a fairly decent price. However as always with Apple, there's one major drawback that you either need to decide whether to accept or not and in this case it's the lack of Gig-E. With a lot of various computers, network drives etc, a 100Mbps interface just isn't good enough, especially as the likes of Netgear etc are capable of offering an almost-identical product with Gig-E at a cheaper price point.

I also wish Apple would consider making an Airport Extreme with an ADSL modem built-in. Right now an Airport Extreme would have to go in alongside an existing ADSL Router (its practically impossible to get a standalone ADSL Modem), which is a waste of power, space and money. Especially as I can get the Netgear router which offers the modem, the Gig-E switch and 802.11n Wi-Fi all in a nice compact box (priced approx 33% less than the Apple Router)

The netgear probably requires a power cycle every few days too...

PCMacUser
Apr 26, 2007, 05:37 AM
Hmm, more speed is good. Although there's a bit of a health scare going on regarding the use of wireless networks in schools... who knows whether this will have any effect on where the technology goes?

iW00t
Apr 26, 2007, 06:16 AM
Hmm, more speed is good. Although there's a bit of a health scare going on regarding the use of wireless networks in schools... who knows whether this will have any effect on where the technology goes?

Considering the amount of money there is in wireless technologies, and how long it took for a (relatively) minute tabacco industry to come clean, we'd all be dead from cancer before there'd be any word on the harm from extensive use of wireless tech.

Anonymous Freak
Apr 26, 2007, 11:22 AM
Hmm, more speed is good. Although there's a bit of a health scare going on regarding the use of wireless networks in schools... who knows whether this will have any effect on where the technology goes?

Well, I've been bathed in WiFi for about the past 8 years, and haven't suffered any other ill effects so far.

And WiFi runs on the 2.4 GHz spectrum, the same that cordless phones have used for over a dozen years. And we haven't heard a rash of complaints from people who have 'cordless phone cancer'...

Admittedly, it's only been in the last 20 years that all this radio noise has been introduced into the environment, so we may find that 50 years from now, everyone has cancer; but one person individually having WiFi in their house won't matter to them.

orangemacapple
Apr 26, 2007, 02:54 PM
Well, I've been bathed in WiFi for about the past 8 years, and haven't suffered any other ill effects so far.

And WiFi runs on the 2.4 GHz spectrum, the same that cordless phones have used for over a dozen years. And we haven't heard a rash of complaints from people who have 'cordless phone cancer'...

Admittedly, it's only been in the last 20 years that all this radio noise has been introduced into the environment, so we may find that 50 years from now, everyone has cancer; but one person individually having WiFi in their house won't matter to them.

i smoked cigarettes for 40 years before having any ill effects!

mrfuseruk
May 13, 2007, 08:40 AM
Somewhere among all the settings in the Airport Extreme utility is one for the country. I live in the UK but mine was set to Ireland and really zips along. Rather than make specific country versions I wonder if Apple made the unit flexible so that by changing the country setting to a non UK setting the configuration and thus the speed changes?