Airport Extreme-N - Why?

[buckwheat]

I know what you guys are thinking before I start - another Buckwheat rant. But hey, this one may have some teeth.

Why would I want the new Airport-N? Apple just forgot all the other stuff in the router that pertains to IP, routing and ethernet. It makes the unit no better than the old Extreme.

If I connect at 5.4ghz, my Network Utility says I'm at 300bps. THATS fast for wireless. But so what? I get to the router quicker with N, but the entire router is wrapped around 100-bps [not giga-bit] ethernet!

Apple also made the unit unusable with your non-10.0.x network if you're using a Cable/DSL modem. I'll give the Apple IP guys a 2 on that one.

Well wait a minute - maybe I can use this N stuff for the hard drive. Makes sense. So I connected the USB drive first to the Macbook Pro and did some throughput tests. Very fast indeed actually. About 200mB/sec (that's Bytes not bits).

So I connected the same drive to the Airport-N. After the usual permissions snafu that Apple hasn't dealt with, I did the same testing. About 30mB/sec via the fastest N connection available. And the computer sits right next to the Extreme-N.

So Ok the HDD is a bust, well what about Cable/DSL? Whoooosh - it's off to the router at 300bps, then another slam on the brakes to 1/3 the speed for the Ethernet-Router connection. Then of course Cable is running about 5mbp/s anyway. Oh well, no gain there.

Well wait a minute I'm told by a die-hard Apple fan. "What about your LAN"? he asks. Ok, I'll take a Linksys "G" router ($39.95) and we'll see. Copied files to/from a Sun array, and I'm getting the usual 30-40mBp/s. "Now" said my friend "Now I'll show you what N can really do".

He hooked up the Airport-N to the LAN, and we did the same test. Sure enough, the usual 30-40mBp/s throughput. "But how can that be"? he was almost crying. I reminded him it was still 100mb Ethernet on the Airport-N. Apple did not do Gig ethernet on this unit, it would have increased the costs dramatically, almost $1.67 per/unit.

And besides, Apple said we (consumers) didn't need it, and wouldn't know what to do with it anyway. They didn't want us to hurt ourselves.

Dang. Another one going back to California. I have GOT to get away from this ordering the day Apple announces something

[quigleybc]

Dang. Another one going back to California. I have GOT to get away from this ordering the day Apple announces something

And I have GOT to stop reading threads like this about products I'm excited about....so what are you saying..? That it sucks? Should I not get it?

[himansk]

may i ask you how you got 200MBps throughput out of a USB hard drive when the connection speed of USB is only 480Mbps (theoretically around 60MBps)? transferring data from a usb hard drive, i get around 13-18MBps for large files(~2-3GB), since usb has really bad sustained throughput.

[aristobrat]

Well wait a minute I'm told by a die-hard Apple fan. "What about your LAN"? he asks. Ok, I'll take a Linksys "G" router ($39.95) and we'll see. Copied files to/from a Sun array, and I'm getting the usual 30-40mBp/s. "Now" said my friend "Now I'll show you what N can really do".

He hooked up the Airport-N to the LAN, and we did the same test. Sure enough, the usual 30-40mBp/s throughput. "But how can that be"? he was almost crying. I reminded him it was still 100mb Ethernet on the Airport-N. Apple did not do Gig ethernet on this unit, it would have increased the costs dramatically, almost $1.67 per/unit.
I don't believe you.

I have a mac mini plugged directly into the Airport Extreme. This mini has an external firewire drive that's shared to everyone in the house via SMB and AFP. We have the Perian codes installed on this mini, which means Front Row can play pretty much anything that you drop in the ~/Movies folder. This mini is hooked up to our TV.

Needless to say, with tvtorrents, this mini is getting a lot of use. Everyone in the house will download an episode (or season) of {whatever} on their own laptop and then using 802.11n to copy it over to the mini.

With 802.11g, it'd take 2-3 minutes to copy a ~300MB file to this mini. With 802.11n, it takes about 30 seconds.

I have a dual-mode network setup (an older Extreme/Express WDS network for legacy 802.11g devices). I'll give you screenshots tonight when I'm home of the difference in speed between copying a huge file with 802.11g vs. 802.11n to a device connected over the ethernet.

[ChrisA]

I was disappointed too to read the router only had 100BaseT Ethernet but I figure the reason they kept the wired speed down to 100 was because that was all that the internal CPU could handle. If there was a gigabit port then the machine would have to ROUTE packets at that speed the internal CPU would have to work 10 times faster. That would mean they (maybe) couldn't use an ARM processor. (What processors do we typically see inside gigabit capable routers from Cisco and the like?) My guess is the device would cost at least double

If you want a very capable router that can do "N" and serve files at full or even multiple gigabit speeds and be low cost it's easy to build one. Get a 3 year old PC. Install all the network cards you want for wired and wireless connectivity and then install one of the ultra-small Linux distributions on it. Some even boot off the CD-ROM and run in memory, diskless. OK, you are a full-on Apple fan. You can use either (1) run Darwin rather than Linux on the PC or (2) Get an older Power PC rather then a Pentium PC. Either way you get a darn powerfull router for nearly free.

I ran one of these for a long time because I needed to have some feature none of the home routers would do (act as a SIP proxy for an Astrix PBX phone system)


With 802.11g, it'd take 2-3 minutes to copy a ~300MB file to this mini. With 802.11n, it takes about 30 seconds.


This mirrors my experiance exactly. I find that 100BaseT Ethernet can move data at 10MB per second (best case). So 30 seconds for a 300MB file is right on.

But wouldn't 1000BaseT have been better? It's 10X faster so you could do the same copy in 3 seconds. (Assuming you had a disk that fast. It would have to by an array.) The point is that Gigabit speeds are as fast is a locally attached SATA drive so you don't need to copy files. With a network this fast the network drive is as fast as your boot drive.

Give Apple some slack, it is unrealistic to expect them to sell a gigabit speed file server/router/print serer for under $200. Not in 2007.

I expect the best use of the routers file serving feature will be "Time Machine". This will be an automated backup that runs at (say) 2:00am and we really don't care about the speed as long as it is done by the time we wake up in the morning. My plan is to hook up a small RAID bo and use it as a shared network backup device. For this application I want a low watts/gigabyte ratio My high powered file server sucks 250 watts 24x7. I'd like to shut it down.

[aristobrat]

But wouldn't 1000BaseT have been better?
Oh, definitely -- no argument there!

I think I misread one of the OPs points.

If he's trying to say when you have multiple 10/100/1000 wired devices hooked into the new Extreme that it copies no faster than the old Extreme, then I agree. 100Mbit/s is 100Mbit/s. Although the obvious solution is to network those devices with a GigE switch, and hook the switch to the Extreme.

My post above was to point out that if you're copying from wireless devices to wired devices, 802.11n is quite an improvement, and after you factor in the overhead, 802.11n's "300Mbit/s" rate is hardly that, meaning the 100Mbit/s ports don't significantly slow down wireless to wired transfers as wireless can hardly push 100Mbit/s.

[buckwheat]

may i ask you how you got 200MBps throughput out of a USB hard drive when the connection speed of USB is only 480Mbps (theoretically around 60MBps)? transferring data from a usb hard drive, i get around 13-18MBps for large files(~2-3GB), since usb has really bad sustained throughput.
You're confusing bits and bytes. Direct USB is as measured [above] - on Macs it's FAST. With both an 802.11 layer and IP tossed in, it goes to about 20% of that as it travels through the Extreme-N and it's even slower processor.

So no matter. 300mbps to the Extreme-N is worthless, as this little unit will always bottleneck on ANY of it's other interfaces. Apple just didn't engineer around the unit's looks.

Somebody mentioned gig ether cost. Netgear has a 4port gig-ether Super-G (I think they claim about 120mbps on 802.11) router for $59.95 at BestBuy. I run a FC over IP through one with tremendous throughput.

If I put the new Extreme-N on the same switch, it just backs down to 100mb, circa 1998 technology and that's that.

Whomever mentioned the giga PC w/Linux hit the nail on the head. True, you've got to do it yourself, but after a 1/2 bottle of tequila and 1-2 nights it's done. And you're CERTAINLY not locked into one of Apple's three subnets for your LAN.

Give Apple a break? Well, alright, I'll always give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't hold grudges or otherwise have a bone to pick (other than the displays on 17" pros). It's just this new little wonder-box Extreme-N in reality is a non-event. It's costly, sexy, heavy, looks cool. And for those of us who've spent the $200 or so need to straighten up and swallow it. I'm one too.

Point is - we've gained absolutely nothing with this piece of equipment. Other than you can look at Network Utilities and see 300bps. It's functionality and practicality is utterly pointless. And it's competition blows it away for 1/4 the cost. Sorry, that's the truth

[phuong]

If I put the new Extreme-N on the same switch, it just backs down to 100mb, circa 1998 technology and that's that.



you mean if you got a GigE switch connected to your modem, and then you hook the AEBS to this switch, the whole system's speed is now reduced to 100?

[aristobrat]

Point is - we've gained absolutely nothing with this piece of equipment.
Hardly. :rolleyes:

For mainly wireless environments (like my house), 802.11n devices can now transfer files amongst themselves (and to wired devices plugged into the Extreme) *many* times faster than they did when they were on a 802.11g network.

I couldn't be more pleased with the performance of the new Airport Extreme router or how easy the AirPort Utility made it to setup a dual-mode network out of my two other older AirPorts. (802.11n on 5ghz, and a separate 802.11g WDS network on 2.4ghz so the slower devices in the house (TiVo, etc) don't slow down the N network).

And I didn't even have to find multiple WRT54Gs with the correct serial numbers that would allow me to blow away the factory image and replace it with OpenWRT in order to make it all work. :)

[jeremy.king]

So I connected the USB drive first to the Macbook Pro and did some throughput tests. Very fast indeed actually. About 200mB/sec (that's Bytes not bits).
You're confusing bits and bytes. Direct USB is as measured [above] - on Macs it's FAST.

Um, no he's not - it seems you are. USB2 is rated at a theoretical maximum of 480 MegaBitsPerSecond (Mbps) or 60 MegaBytesPerSecond (MBps). The fact you claim 200 MegaBytesPerSecond (MBps) throughput on a directly connected drive is well...IMPOSSIBLE!

Wait there's more!

Ok, I'll take a Linksys "G" router ($39.95) and we'll see. Copied files to/from a Sun array, and I'm getting the usual 30-40mBp/s.

Its also IMPOSSIBLE to copy a file at 30-40 MegaBytesPerSecond over a wireless G connection, since Wireless G theoretical max is 54 MegaBitsPerSecond or only 6MegaBytesPerSecond.

Edit: And more

If I connect at 5.4ghz, my Network Utility says I'm at 300bps. THATS fast for wireless. But so what? I get to the router quicker with N, but the entire router is wrapped around 100-bps [not giga-bit] ethernet!

Of course here, you really meant Mbps not bps. Big difference!

Seriously, if you are going to rant. Check the accuracy of any numbers and units you are going to use. Care to revise your initial post?

I cry BS! Just another toothless Buckwheat rant...


So Ok the HDD is a bust, well what about Cable/DSL? Whoooosh - it's off to the router at 300bps, then another slam on the brakes to 1/3 the speed for the Ethernet-Router connection. Then of course Cable is running about 5mbp/s anyway. Oh well, no gain there.

This "gripe" confuses me too. A wireless N router will NOT make your internet connection any faster - you didn't think it would, did you?

[himansk]

So I connected the USB drive first to the Macbook Pro and did some throughput tests. Very fast indeed actually. About 200mB/sec (that's Bytes not bits).

like u say above, u got 200MByte throughput on a usb drive connected to ur mbp.
i am comparing it to 13-18MByte transfer rates of a usb hdd on my MBP. theoretically usb connection can do around 60MByte of peak transfer rate if u ignore the overheads etc.
so i am not confused between bits and bytes. my question still remains, how did u get 200MByte transfer speed out of a usb drive?

[aristobrat]

my question still remains, how did u get 200MByte transfer speed out of a usb drive?
Maybe it was part of that Sun array he was talking about. :eek: Not. :D

[himansk]

Maybe it was part of that Sun array he was talking about. :eek: Not. :D

as far as i know, even the internal sata drive in the mbp cant go over 150MByte/s (theoretical), dont think there is a sataII drive in the mb pros.

[yellow]

It's simple. Because to Kevin Wifirouterpurchaser, 108 > 54. End of story.

[jeremy.king]

It's simple. Because to Kevin Wifirouterpurchaser, 108 > 54. End of story.

I thought it was 300 > 54 :confused: 5x as fast, and 2x the range.

[buckwheat]

While you guys were out trying to save face from your "big-N" purchase, you totally IGNORED the bottlenecks on this new unit. Some of you may be living in a dream world, and AWFULLY angry when you're little bubble gets popped. *I* had the balls to admit it - do YOU?

Suck it up and admit it - the "N" does absolutely nothing for total end-to-end data throughput on THIS ACCESS POINT. NOTHING. In fact, this unit makes it worse.

Especially for wireless-disk to host speeds. It's so slow moving through the Extreme's little processor, that it is slower than USB by a factor of 5 (1/5 as fast) and 1GB disk IP by a factor of 4 - in other words it's 1/4 as fast.

Go test it yourself and tell me your results rather than clinching your fists and arguing your theory numbers. Go ahead - tell me the ACTUAL difference between max connect speed throughput between an Extreme router and your networked mount points.

Please - just tell me those numbers. But you won't. Because you're in a denial mode having just spent $200 on a worthless technology that Linksys, Netgear etc do better with enhanced-G. Not to mention what 1GB ether has already done for years. Apple will catch up with the next release, but this unit is far from it.

And lastly - how many Enstiens like "kingjr" have moved SCSI-IP traffic to a Mac host? Tossing a tantrum and trying to make this little Extreme box more than it it is, or what you so gleefully (but mistakenly) recommended to others is again, pointless. You're just embarrased - admit it.

Next post is you'll come up with all sorts of figures you've read about on the internet, and how they're SUPPOSED to work. But which one of you is going to post YOUR results?

And speaking of enhanced G, purportedly carrying about 150mb/s, I get better throughput through one of those than this "N" machine. Only problem is my beloved Mac's don't (and can't) handle these technologies - yet

[yellow]

I thought it was 300 > 54 :confused: 5x as fast, and 2x the range.

Sorry.. was thinking about something else.

Release Date Op. Frequency Data Rate (Typ) Data Rate (Max) Range (Indoor)
Unfinished 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz 200 Mbit/s 540 Mbit/s ~50 meters (~165 ft)

Specs according to wikipedia.

[buckwheat]

I thought it was 300 > 54 :confused: 5x as fast, and 2x the range.

Well there's your problem - you're trying to outTHINK everyone instead of outDOING it

[buckwheat]

Mapquest says I can drive from Boston to New York in 4:00 hours. But by the time you leave your driveway and pull into the driveway in NY it will ACTUALLY take you 8 hours.

So while you're kicking your feet in a tantrum and screaming "Mapquest said I can do 80 mph all the way" and quoting other theoretical numbers, you forgot about the actual, practical, realistic conditions. Both in driving and real-world data throughput.

You conveniently ignored the one way streets, road blocks, 3-4 wrecks, icy roads, and police chases.

So you pop up screaming you've just purchased a Mercedes S-600, and the salesman said you'd be faster than anyone else. But we're all using the same roads, now you are pouting mad that the 1987 Toyota pick-up actually beat you to your destination. But you quickly claim you sure looked good getting there in that Merc, just like the Extreme-N looks good sitting on your desk

[jeremy.king]

And lastly - how many Enstiens like "kingjr" have moved SCSI-IP traffic to a Mac host? Tossing a tantrum and trying to make this little Extreme box more than it it is, or what you so gleefully (but mistakenly) recommended to others is again, pointless. You're just embarrased - admit it.


I'm not the one posting impossible benchmarks, which you still haven't addressed. :rolleyes:

Here are the facts.
Wireless N is faster than G.
Wireless N has better range than G
AEBS includes a print server
AEBS includes NAS capabilities
AEBS doesn't have gigabit - I wish it did.

It's far from a waste and is quite a nice upgrade for us with plain old Wireless G AP/routers without those capabilities.

You are right - I am embarrassed - embarrassed that you made it through our educational system not knowing a bit from a byte or how to spell Einstein, embarrassed, or even kingjr3. If you are going to attack me, at least get my handle right!

Finally, if you are going to make an argument, check your numbers for accuracy.

This thread is pointless now.

[buckwheat]

I'm not the one posting impossible benchmarks, which you still haven't addressed. :rolleyes:

Here are the facts.
Wireless N is faster than G.
Wireless N has better range than G
AEBS includes a print server
AEBS includes NAS capabilities
AEBS doesn't have gigabit - I wish it did.


Yes, and Mapquest said I'd be from Boston to NY in 2:58 because the speed limit was increased from 55 to 220 for one mile, between mile marker 301 and 302.

The traffic jam @ 15mph you go for 10 miles is like the N router's 100mb ethernet and the slow USB disk channel

[yippy]

Look, I realize there is a bottleneck without the gigabit ethernet. However, I challenge you to find any router with the same or better features as the airport extreme that costs less.

You can find wireless n-gigabit ethernet for less (not much though), but find even a wireless-g router with 100BaseT ethernet plus print server, plus any form of NAS support and you will be out of luck.

Plus, to say that the new Extreme is not an upgrade from the old one in any way is bull.

You are saying it could be faster. We are saying it is still better than almost anything you can pick up from Bust Buy, hands down.

About this bottleneck. You are trying to make it sound like a 300mbit wireless network crippled to 100mbits is slower than a 108mbit wireless network with 100mbit wired. That is bull as well. It is the same speed, just not INCREASED as much as it should be, not slowed down.

[buckwheat]

Look, I realize there is a bottleneck without the gigabit ethernet. However, I challenge you to find any router with the same or better features as the airport extreme that costs less.

You can find wireless n-gigabit ethernet for less (not much though), but find even a wireless-g router with 100BaseT ethernet plus print server, plus any form of NAS support and you will be out of luck.

Plus, to say that the new Extreme is not an upgrade from the old one in any way is bull.

You are saying it could be faster. We are saying it is still better than almost anything you can pick up from Bust Buy, hands down.But that's the point - it's not "hands down". It's at best only marginal. I'll be generous and give the Extreme-N maybe a 2% performance if tuned correctly. Just 2% in what really matters - data from your host to your destination. But in most cases it's downright slower from the ill-engineered bottlenecks, especially in disk I/O.

Apple had the chance to hit one out of the ballpark and they blew it. Instead they got a double with 2 outs. Everyone that bet on Apple winning the ball game is feeling the hit. I was like everyone else - by reading the marketing slicks I was absorbed and convinced. Until I tried it.

N is HOW much faster than high-perf G? Not much. N technology will certainly be here. But not in this unit

[yippy]

So it doesn't live up to marketing hype, neither does the rest of the competition.

You say it is slower? Slower than what? USB? Well a direct connection will always be faster than Network attached.

All I am getting from you is that you are mad that the gains are not as big as you think they should be. Gains do not have to be light and day to be worth it. Even you say it is faster than before. Apple released a product that is better than what they had before, even if marginally, I fail to see how that is a bad thing.

[buckwheat]

If you are going to attack me, at least get my handle right!


Hey, I'm sorry Enstien kingr. Please accept my apologies for not attacking you politely LOL

This thread is pointless now.

Oh my, you no longer approve. This could be a mess for the whole Extreme-N community [buckwheat hangs head and staggers off the stage, a cohort throws cape over his shoulders. He turns back to the crowd and says into the microphone "That'll be $1.98 please"]

[jeremy.king]

Yes, and Mapquest said I'd be from Boston to NY in 2:58 because the speed limit was increased from 55 to 220 for one mile, between mile marker 301 and 302.

Actually, you would only save approx. 1.5 minutes in this so-called analogy of yours. The only consistency you have here with your original rant is that once again, you just made up numbers.

For your 216 mile trip from Boston to NY to take 2:58, you would need a stretch of approx 70 miles with a speed limit of 220, with 55mph the rest of the trip.

146 miles @ 55mph = approx 159 min
70 miles @ 220mph = approx 19 min
Total trip = approx 178 mins = 2:58

Can't help it I'm a numbers guy :eek: :D

You still are dodging the age old question as to how you got 200 MB/s transfer rate with a directly connected USB drive or 40MB/s over wireless G connection (or even N for that matter). Instead, you turn to the usual insulting attacks when you have been found to be in the wrong.

Thanks for the fun and good luck with your campaign!

[aristobrat]

Here are some benchmarks obtained by copying a 952MB file (last Sunday's episode of Battlestar Galatica, which I pulled from my TiVo).

Benchmarks were done using Net Monitor 4.3.9

01:27.0 @ 11.3MB/s = MBP -> CAT5 -> Extreme -> CAT5 -> mini
01:41.0 @ 9.8MB/s = MBP -> 802.11n -> Extreme -> CAT5 -> mini
06:32.0 @ 2.5MB/s = MBP -> 802.11g -> Extreme -> CAT5 -> mini

The two 802.11x tests were done over a full-speed connection (54/300).

And if anyone wanted to see all of the equipment, ...

[aristobrat]

01:27.0 @ 11.3MB/s = MBP -> CAT5 -> Extreme -> CAT5 -> mini
01:41.0 @ 9.8MB/s = MBP -> 802.11n -> Extreme -> CAT5 -> mini
06:32.0 @ 2.5MB/s = MBP -> 802.11g -> Extreme -> CAT5 -> mini

please help me wonder how much faster is n?
At my house, 802.11n is 3.92x faster than 802.11g.
13% slower than wired (100Mbps).

[buckwheat]

These guys also think you're hallucinating :

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=845854&tstart=0

My host to disk tests are as follows:

All GB ether (unless is went through "new model" Extreme), all to FC array, 5gb file (but not a homo Space-Trek episode)

From Sun V490 via 2GB FC Qlogic: 17 seconds (must have been cached)
From OSX host to array, all GB ether FC over IP: 1.5 minutes
From OSX host to array, all GB ether NFS: 3 minutes
Using Linksys 150mb 802.11g w/GB ethernet: 16 minutes
Using Extreme-N "G" (of course bottlenecked to 100meg ether): 28 minutes
Using Extreme-N "N" (of course bottlenecked to 100meg ether): 16 minutes
To USB disk plugged into Macbook Pro: 5 minutes
To USB disk plugged into Extreme-N: 12 minutes
PC, using 802.11N via Linksys WRT300N w/4 GB Ethernet ports: 7 minutes

Internet speed is less than 50% across the board if run through Extreme-N's WAN interface.

This thing is NOT ready for primetime

[jdechko]

All I know is I picked up a refurbished Netgear G router w/ 4-port switch for $16 at Frys. It works on my laptop and works with my Wii. :)

(But I'd have picked up the ABSE if I had the extra cash).

I agree that it's fine the way it is right now, but a little tweaking could make it even better.

And without actually looking up prices (cause I really don't care that much) I don't think you're going to do much better than $180 getting an N-Router w/4-port (10/100) switch (linksys is 120-130) and a print server (which would have to be wired in, taking up a port, or set up as a separate device) and a NAS device (which, again, would have to be wired in, taking up a port, or set up as a separate device). Not to mention that there'd be 3 separate power supplies, taking up 3 outlets in my already-strapped-for-space power strip, not to mention that it wouldn't look as nice having 3 devices, whereas if I'd just spent less money on the ABSE, I'd have a better looking device that did everything that it took 3 other devices to do.

[aristobrat]

This thing is NOT ready for primetime
Works great for me!

As you saw from my benchmarks, I can get my homo Space-Trek episodes (:rolleyes: you seriously said that about Battlestar Galactica???) ~4x faster with the new Airport Express (802.11n) than I could with my old Airport Extreme (802.11g). That alone should answer the title to your thread. "Airport Extreme-N - Why?" Because when you're on a mostly wired network, things work a whole hell of a lot faster.

Furthermore, if I do a wired connection to the new Extreme to another wired device on the new Extreme, I get even faster through-put that I do with 802.11n. It'd be nice if the new Extreme had GigE ports, but it's definitely not a bottle-neck from the wireless side.

And FWIW, my WAN speed hasn't slowed down any (at least not according to speedtest.net).

[buckwheat]

It'd be nice if the new Extreme had GigE ports, but it's definitely not a bottle-neck from the wireless side.

Of course it slows it down on the ethernet side. Your little router doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it must immediately move data from the wireless interface to one of the two slow 100mb ethernet interfaces (the switch is considered one interface). In your case it goes from 300 down to 100.

Notice the 802.11N Linksys router noted above - now *IT* has GB ethernet throughout. It's about twice as fast as the Apple. Period. (and about half the cost).

So I can't take advantage of the wireless "n" speed, because like yours it'll hit a slow 100mb port in short time and kill ANY advantage the N's speed gave us earlier. Yours, mine, whomevers - they ALL hit the wire eventually.

Just cause you chose Space-battle thingie doesn't make yours any faster, except maybe in the year 4059, about 2000 of your earth years from now (or is that parsacts or something)

[aristobrat]

In your case it goes from 300 down to 100.
No, it doesn't go from 300 down to 100.

Just like 802.11g doesn't give you 54, 802.11n doesn't give you 300.

Here's some CNET benchmarks on 802.11n routers:
http://reviews.cnet.com/Linksys_WRT300N_Router/4505-3319_7-31851121.html

93.8Mbps = Netgear WPNT834 RangeMax 240 router
71.5Mbps = Linksys WRT300N
45.7Mbps = Belkin Pre-N router
40.7Mpbs = Linksys WRT54GX2 SRX 200

See any of them getting anything near 300??????????????

I was getting 9.8MBps from my Extreme, which converts out to 78.4Mbps, which on the chart above is slower only to the Netgear RangeMax.

I'm not sure what's wrong with yours, but I was just able to pull 5.0GB of files from my mini (GigE) -> CAT5 -> 802.11n -> MBP (via the Extreme) in 9 minutes, a full 7 minutes faster than your benchmark.

[Kelmon]

For me I've gained an excellent solution to my network woes. I've gained a router with a longer range and a great backup solution for the laptops in my house. The speed boost is useful but having a compact solution to some of my biggest headaches is worth its weight in gold.

My solution, incidentally, was the Airport Extreme router stacked on top of an Iomega MiniMax 320Gb hard drive/USB hub. Very happy and Time Machine ready now...

[alFR]

buckwheat, can you address these points please?

USB2 is rated at a theoretical maximum of 480 MegaBitsPerSecond (Mbps) or 60 MegaBytesPerSecond (MBps). The fact you claim 200 MegaBytesPerSecond (MBps) throughput on a directly connected drive is well...IMPOSSIBLE!

Its also IMPOSSIBLE to copy a file at 30-40 MegaBytesPerSecond over a wireless G connection, since Wireless G theoretical max is 54 MegaBitsPerSecond or only 6MegaBytesPerSecond.

Given that, I don't see where you got your "About 200mB/sec (that's Bytes not bits)" over USB and "30-40mBp/s" over 802.11G numbers from.....

[skunk]

For me I've gained an excellent solution to my network woes. I've gained a router with a longer range and a great backup solution for the laptops in my house. The speed boost is useful but having a compact solution to some of my biggest headaches is worth its weight in gold.

My solution, incidentally, was the Airport Extreme router stacked on top of an Iomega MiniMax 320Gb hard drive/USB hub. Very happy and Time Machine ready now...Similar to mine: I have a AExtreme stacked on a Micronet Minimate 500GB drive/USB hub with an Epson SPR800 USB printer plugged into it, and my Cube, Intel iMac and Epson SC3000 A2 printer all plugged in to the ethernet ports, and my MacBook connected wirelessly. Since Epson's PPC and Intel drivers do not allow printer sharing, this solves my problem very elegantly.

[quigleybc]

Can someone sum up this thread in 4th grade terms?

I'm about to buy this new airport X

I could buy the old one for much less $$ or I could go get a linksey's for much less $$


what should I do....

[aristobrat]

What computers are on your network, and are you going to use them mostly for Internet, or copying files between them?

[quigleybc]

What computers are on your network, and are you going to use them mostly for Internet, or copying files between them?

I'll have a desktop PM G5

and a Macbook

and I'll want it for internet, and sharing files

thanks :)

[iW00t]

Well wait a minute I'm told by a die-hard Apple fan. "What about your LAN"? he asks. Ok, I'll take a Linksys "G" router ($39.95) and we'll see. Copied files to/from a Sun array, and I'm getting the usual 30-40mBp/s. "Now" said my friend "Now I'll show you what N can really do".

He hooked up the Airport-N to the LAN, and we did the same test. Sure enough, the usual 30-40mBp/s throughput. "But how can that be"? he was almost crying. I reminded him it was still 100mb Ethernet on the Airport-N. Apple did not do Gig ethernet on this unit, it would have increased the costs dramatically, almost $1.67 per/unit.

And besides, Apple said we (consumers) didn't need it, and wouldn't know what to do with it anyway. They didn't want us to hurt ourselves.

Dang. Another one going back to California. I have GOT to get away from this ordering the day Apple announces something

I call hogwash on your rant. I own the exact same WRT54G router previously and file transfers wirelessly are such a serious pain. Exact same performance as the 802.11n based AEBX? You must be joking, if I get a penny each time I attain the full channel capacity of 54mbps on a WRT54G, I would be... a poor man.

I am sure Apple does things in unique ways for good reasons, a good reason why Apple didn't include a gigabit ethernet port would be the fact that then a single user can copy files from that Raid-1 array on his Mac Pro and completely saturate the wireless channel, killing off Internet access for all the other users.

Do you want that?

Do you want to use a router where your internet drops everytime someone copies a file?

I don't.

Of course the other reasonable explanation is that Apple wishes to save $0.50 on each router by opting for fast ethernet, but that's just Dell Troll talk. You can go ahead and buy the equivalent Netgear/Linksys/D-link/PeeCee branded router. Last time I checked in the local Harvey Norman they are barely cheaper than the AEBX, do not offer file sharing capabilities and in some limited cases only offered printer sharing (obviously not via Bonjour which is basically a big "**** you" to us Mac users) and of course in the Netgear, they have bonus undocumented features such as "requiring you to leave your seat and walk down to your basement to power cycle your modem, burning 10 calories in the meantime and prolonging your life". The AEBX is an excellent product with a very good feature set, at a very competitive price.

Don't trash talk it.

[Kelmon]

It might also be worth mentioning, as a plus point for the Airport Extreme, that you administer it using a real application rather than some god awful web-based system. They all pretty much for the same thing but the application is well designed (as best as I can tell) and much more responsive than a web-based administration system.

[ezekielrage_99]

Another troll :confused:

[skunk]

It might also be worth mentioning, as a plus point for the Airport Extreme, that you administer it using a real application rather than some god awful web-based system. They all pretty much for the same thing but the application is well designed (as best as I can tell) and much more responsive than a web-based administration system.Unfortunately, for all its elegance and responsiveness, mine is still buggering something in my network up somewhere. :(

[macminor]

So in reality what sort of speed / performance would I get if I buy a AEBX plug a 500gb WD mybook into it and try to wirelessly stream movies and music to a MBP which is one floor downstairs?

Oh and I take it if I have only got 802.11g then it will be roughly 4x slower then 802.11n.

[Christina1971]

I wish I could tell from these discussions whether I should buy the damn thing. Can someone answer that question? This is all so over my head. All I want to do is easily connect to the internet wirelessly, maybe run a printer wirelessly, maybe get an external hard drive. I want to set it up once, and I don't want to worry about it anymore. All the stuff about speed and bytes is just geek speak to me.

[buckwheat]

You guys still whining about this thing? All this crying about my post and only one person has put up their own numbers. All this pouting and screaming and just ONE of you did your own homework. Come on guys, get off your butts and prove something.

I'd suggest all you noodle-spined "numbers types" put your research where your mouth is and post some proof. Almost every post on this thread has been a direct quote from Apple Marketing, with your own little rants tossed in for sugar. I see you've tried the spelling attacks, the get-a-life attacks, and all sorts of other attacks like attack the attacker, the usual Repertoire. You guys are getting downright boring.

And which one of you analytical mouse-clicky guru's is going to put down your name and recommend to our friend up there that she's ok to go ahead and buy one? What's the matter - no one want it on their conscience? lol

I just did a quick "N" home-router search on macconnection.com, and came up with 18 different models of N routers under the price of $100.00 - ALL of which have GIG Ether. ALL of which claim to beat the performance of the Extreme-N.

Something interesting came up the other day - a "reverse" troll. Yes, the same guy that is stuck on ONE solution not being able to see through peripheral vision that there is yet a whole world out there outside of their little cushy nest. You know who you are.

The Extreme-N is NOT ready for prime time. We'll try version 2

[aristobrat]

I'll have a desktop PM G5

and a Macbook

and I'll want it for internet, and sharing files

thanks :)
To get the speed advantage out of either the new Airport Extreme (or Linksys 802.11n), your MacBook would need to be the C2D model that supports 802.11n, and your PM G5 would need to be connected to the Extreme via an ethernet cable, or have a 802.11n card (which I don't know if they make).

If that's your situation, then I wouldn't buy the slower, older Airport Extreme, no matter how cheap it was. You'd be sharing files 4x slower.

If your choice is between the new Extreme or a Linksys 802.11n access point, remember that 802.11n is in its "pre" release right now, and will likely change before it's ratified next year.

I personally put more faith in Apple to update the new Airport Express (and the 802.11n cards in its computers) to work with the final, ratified protocol than I do Linksys, but that's just me.

[aristobrat]

I wish I could tell from these discussions whether I should buy the damn thing. Can someone answer that question? This is all so over my head. All I want to do is easily connect to the internet wirelessly, maybe run a printer wirelessly, maybe get an external hard drive. I want to set it up once, and I don't want to worry about it anymore. All the stuff about speed and bytes is just geek speak to me.
I have no reservations recommending the new Airport Extreme. None-what-so-ever.

It's increased the speed of my wireless network by 4x. I've posted screenshots of that improvement.
It's increased the range, although I don't have an easy way of proving that.

You plug it in, follow the wizard, and it's up and running.

I know Skunk's had some problems with his, but mine's been rock-solid for the two weeks that I've had it. It handles (via 802.11n) two MacBook Pros and a Dell Insperion. Via Ethernet, it handles a TiVo, an older 802.11g network, and a mac mini. Via USB, it's sharing a printer and a hard disk.

[aristobrat]

I just did a quick "N" home-router search on macconnection.com, and came up with 18 different models of N routers under the price of $100.00 - ALL of which have GIG Ether. ALL of which claim to beat the performance of the Extreme-N.
I swear you're just making things up!

I just looked at macconnection.com too.

If you browse to their selection of Networking products, and then drill down to Wireless, and then to Wireless LAN Routers, and then filter by 802.11, they have FOUR choices, and one of them isn't a router ...

Apple Airport Extreme
Belkin N1
Something from Zyxel

None of them claim to be faster than the other, and none of them are under $100.

Where are you coming up with the stuff you're posting?

The best I can tell is you're purposefully coming up with the crap just to scare people away from the new Extreme.

[buckwheat]

I wish I could tell from these discussions whether I should buy the damn thing. Can someone answer that question? This is all so over my head. All I want to do is easily connect to the internet wirelessly, maybe run a printer wirelessly, maybe get an external hard drive. I want to set it up once, and I don't want to worry about it anymore. All the stuff about speed and bytes is just geek speak to me.

Christina, yes go ahead and buy one. Just don't expect to get blown away by the thing.

I've tried for days to beat some good info out of these guys, but to no avail. What they were trying to say between hissing breathing and clinched fists is the unit is certainly a better performer than it's parents, probably across the board. But temper some of those improvements as marginal.

Apple screwed up the $1.98 thing, the 100mb Ethernet etc, but it's got it's plusses also. The configurator is still top notch, just like it's parents. "N" is still "N" - everyone is claiming their current version is the REAL "N". But you can rest assured with Apple hosts this unit will be ok.

I'm so dissapointed at this pool of experts. I was really hoping they could shed some light on Apple's dimwited engineering on what we were all hoping would be the home run

[alFR]

You guys still whining about this thing? All this crying about my post and only one person has put up their own numbers. All this pouting and screaming and just ONE of you did your own homework. Come on guys, get off your butts and prove something.

Actually, what we were asking you to do was explain how you got a higher data rate out of both USB2 and 802.11G than they can actually support, which you've consistently failed to do. Since you can't explain that, I guess I'll have to conclude that you are either (a) a bit hard of thinking or (b) just making it up.

[yellow]

I'm so dissapointed at this pool of experts. I was really hoping they could shed some light on Apple's dimwited engineering on what we were all hoping would be the home run

What makes you think any of us are experts? :confused: It's just a forum.

[jeremy.king]

Something interesting came up the other day - a "reverse" troll. Yes, the same guy that is stuck on ONE solution not being able to see through peripheral vision that there is yet a whole world out there outside of their little cushy nest. You know who you are.

I prefer the title FanBoy Extreme Base Station™.

What makes you think any of us are experts? :confused: It's just a forum.

Yellow, don't be so modest.


This image made me giggle, act like a youngster and get treated as one.