Airport Extreme - 5x faster in US vs 2.5x in UK?

Discussion in 'Event Archives' started by MajorTom, Jan 11, 2007.

  1. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Location:
    Glasgow
    #1
    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:
     
  2. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Location:
    Nottingham, UK
    #2
    wow.. didn't spot that one.. that is weird..

    i thought standards were.. erm.. standard whereever you are?
     
  3. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2002
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    #3
    The new AirPort Extreme is a piece of crap anyway because the network ports are only 10/100, not Gigabit :mad:
     
  4. macrumors 68030

    TheAnswer

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    #4
    I dunno know about technically, but since £2.5 is roughly $5 US...maybe it is performance/cost? :rolleyes:
     
  5. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Location:
    Nottingham, UK
    #5
    LOL.. r u serious? LMAO!!! :confused: :eek:
     
  6. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Location:
    Glasgow
    #6
    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. ;)
     
  7. macrumors 68030

    TheAnswer

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    #7
    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
     
  8. macrumors 65816

    MacDonaldsd

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Location:
    London , UK
    #8
    Thats a bit odd, I hope its typing error of some sort :confused:
     
  9. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Location:
    Glasgow
    #9
    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:
    [​IMG]

    US site:
    [​IMG]

    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
     
  10. Retired

    psychofreak

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #10
    The icons are all over the store...not made especially
     
  11. macrumors 68000

    wakerider017

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Location:
    US of A
    #11
    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:

    [​IMG]
     
  12. jsw
    Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #12
    Read the fine print on the main page:
     
  13. macrumors 65816

    MacDonaldsd

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Location:
    London , UK
    #13
    So is it crippled by software or the hardware ?
     
  14. jsw
    Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #14
    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.
    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.
     
  15. Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #15
    It's probably just a firmware limitation like that for the 802.11b/g channels > 11 in current hardware.


    B
     
  16. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    #16
    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]
     
  17. Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #17
    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
     
  18. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Location:
    Glasgow
    #18
    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:
     
  19. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    #19
    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.
     
  20. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    #20
    There's only one (commercial) flavour ever used here in the UK (ADSL), thats why it's annoying that the modem's not included.
     
  21. jsw
    Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #21
    Of course. :eek:

    Silly me. Responded without thinking enough....
     
  22. macrumors demi-god

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #22
    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.
     
  23. Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #23
    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
     
  24. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #24
    I assumed it was just "typical British understatement".
     
  25. jsw
    Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #25
    ;)

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

Share This Page