Screw the new airport extreme...

[jsw]

I find that positioning it behind the 24" iMac works a treat.

Jealousness.

Yeah, I suppose that would work, too.

i was going to stack my Extreme on the mini stack I have now (mini + two externals), but the location wasn't ideal, so it's now sitting hidden behind the crown molding on top of an armoire (APX, CyberPower UPS w/AVR, USB hub, and two USB drives).

It's all ready to broadcast to the Apple TV, once it arrives.

 

[rogersmj]

#1. Isn't it true that very few of LinkSys routers can run hacked firmware, especially the more recent models? Do you know for sure if any of LinkSys's pre-802.11n routers can?

No, a great many of Linksys routers can run third-party firmware. Even the latest revisions of any of their Linux-based routers can, sometimes it requires a little more work, but they can. I don't know anything about their pre-N routers, and I won't be buying one. I do expect them to continue using Linux in at least part of their line when N is finalized, and as soon as someone figures out how to replace it -- or it, by chance, Linksys offers the features I want in their default firmware -- I'll get one.

#2. Have you used the new AirPort Utility? It gives you way, way more access to settings and performance data in all models of Airports (not just the new Extreme model) that Apple previously hid from users.

Still not anywhere close to the amount of control I get over my router using DD-WRT.

I haven't seen a benchmark/review yet that shows a consumer-model access point that can move pre-802.11n data faster than 90Mpbs. Where are you getting your info that wifi can outpace 100Mpbs ethernet connections?

I haven't seen such a benchmark either, but this is still all with pre-N cards in the laptops conducting the tests. I expect it will get faster once everything is finalized. But that's neither here nor there, because I have a gigabit network, and I won't buy a router at this point that doesn't have gigabit. Once Linksys comes out with a final-N, good performance gigabit router, I'll be all over it.

If you like the APX, that's fine, get it. You seem to be pretty defensive of it. As for myself, I see no need to buy Apple networking products because I don't need my hand held when setting up a network, and I know I'll be able to pay less and get more flexibility out of something like a Linksys. I love Apple design and simplicity in most things, but this is one area where I don't need or want it. For me, it would be wasted expense. Just like my file server will always run Linux, because it is less expensive, more flexible, and since I know what I'm doing I can leverage those advantages.

 

[Grimace]

I've never followed network switching too carefully -- just to clarify, the APX works like this - right?

1. If N signal comes in, N signal (30MB/sec) can go out via wireless
2. If N signal comes in, up to 10/100 signal (9MB/sec) goes out via wired connections.

Does anyone actually have N speeds coming in? Hard to make lemonade with a bag of oranges...

 

[wakerider017]

Not to rain on everyone's anti-APX parade but:

Wireless networking's theoretical speeds are just that, theoretical. Real world conditions and protocol overhead drop actual speeds substantially. Draft n APX was clocked at 90 Mbit. And wireless clients all share the same bandwidth, which means adding clients cuts individual client bandwidth down.

Ethernet is full duplex 10/100/1000 Mbit, wireless is not full duplex. So again, the theoretical speed is not truly representative of real world speed.

And unless you are streaming HD video all over the place, most networking is mostly infrequent bursts as you load an un-cached web page or fire off an email check. Or play network-based games (Xbox, PS3, PeeCee).

No one said you *had* to buy an APX. Steve Jobs will not come to your house/business and smash your Linksys router and shove an APX on you. I have had several Linksys routers and recommend them to others. Despite the fact that I have been a Mac user since 1985 and own Apple, Inc. stock, I don't buy only computer Apple products.

That's great that you like Linksys, but I don't care that you simply hate the APX and try to justify it with another non-Apple product that is designed to cover a much wider marketplace than what Apple is targeting.

This post is completely uncalled for.

I described some key features that were lacking in the APX...

Thanks for the painstakingly obvious "lesson" about home networks.

 

[Diatribe]

USB hub ftw? I know they should have thought about putting at least two usb ports in.
But you can just throw in a usb hub and tape the hub to the airport

Yeah, I know, but you shouldn't have to though.

I think one question will be what Apple's next follow-up product is, as right now, it's either 802.11g + Airtunes or 802.11n + NAS. Especially with Time Machine, the line between home / prosumer / whatever is blurring, as the NAS features of the AEBS are really going to be appealing to a lot of home consumers, although I'd guess they'd also want Airtunes.

A hub is certainly a solution to the problem you highlight, although... it does defeat the whole visual elegance of the Apple products.... I haven't been paying such close attention, but is the AEBS the same footprint as the Mini? There's a hub that looks like the Mini, right? And there're several hard drive enclosures that do as well. So you could have a tower of little white and silver squares.

Yeah, it does kinda defeat the elegance. And yes, it is the same footprint, but I am not too sure white and sliver mix too well.

 

[jsw]

And yes, it is the same footprint, but I am not too sure white and silver mix too well.

Better not look at the top of a mini, then.

 

[Diatribe]

Better not look at the top of a mini, then.

Hehe, yeah, almost forgot about that. I don't think it matches too well either but at least the top of the mini doesn't look like cheap white plastic.

 

[aristobrat]

If you like the APX, that's fine, get it. You seem to be pretty defensive of it.

I was in a pissy mood. Sorry to have come off as defensive.

I don't think that some people understand that unless they own exactly two or three (no more, no less) 10/100/1000 devices, have those devices wired to the new Extreme, and plan on moving a lot of data between them, the lack of gigabit ports will not effect the performance of their network.

There also seems to be a fair amount of people out there who think that pre-802.11n wireless performance is really "300Mbps" and that the 100Mbps ports on the Extreme will cause their wireless data to "having to hit the brakes".

 

[islandman]

Thanks for the pic. It sure is sexy

 

[logandzwon]

As posted before, the lack of gigabit does not in anyway cause a slowdown in anyway. If you were already using gigabit you already have a gigabit switch, so just plug the apx into that. The real world speed of the N can not the 100 mb full duplex connection.

However, I do not advice anyone get this product because it rather sucks. Read other posts here and abroad if you want to know why.

I'd like to get a WRT350N when they port openwrt to it. It has a gigabit switch in it, faster proccessor, and usb port.

 

[wakerider017]

As posted before, the lack of gigabit does not in anyway cause a slowdown in anyway. If you were already using gigabit you already have a gigabit switch, so just plug the apx into that. The real world speed of the N can not the 100 mb full duplex connection.

However, I do not advice anyone get this product because it rather sucks. Read other posts here and abroad if you want to know why.

I'd like to get a WRT350N when they port openwrt to it. It has a gigabit switch in it, faster proccessor, and usb port.

This post is not true.

You can hook up a gigabit switch and this will solve the problem with networked gigabit computers. BUT (and this is a big but) a 10/100 switch has a "theoretical" 100 mbps throughput (12.5 Mbps). 802.11n has a MUCH higher "theoretical" what is it (something like 300 mbps (37.5 Mbps))

You are not taking full potential of 802.11n when it gets bottle-necked through the 10/100 router.

 

[aristobrat]

BUT (and this is a big but) a 10/100 switch has a "theoretical" 100 mbps throughput (12.5 Mbps). 802.11n has a MUCH higher "theoretical" what is it (something like 300 mbps (37.5 Mbps))

I think you're absolutely wrong, and here's why.

No consumer-grade pre-802.11n router (Linksys, Belkin, DLink, Apple, etc) is getting 100Mpbs of wireless throughput, much less the theoretical 300Mpbs that you're talking about. Regardless of the ports on the back of the router.

Here is the average speed for moving a 1GB file wirelessly from a MacBook Pro to a mini connected via CAT5 to the new Airport Extreme.

802.11g (54Mbps connection) = 20Mbps
802.11n (300Mbps connection) = 78Mbps
Wired (100Mbps connection) = 90Mbps

Do you see where the average speed of 802.11n is SLOWER than the average speed of 10/100 wired?

How are you able to say that the ports are bottlenecking 802.11n traffic?

Let me ask this a different way. Since 802.11n isn't even taking advantage of the full potential of the 100Mbps port on the back of the router, how would adding an even faster port improve wireless speed?

 

[wakerider017]

I think you're absolutely wrong, and here's why.

No consumer-grade pre-802.11n router (Linksys, Belkin, DLink, Apple, etc) is getting 100Mpbs of wireless throughput, much less the theoretical 300Mpbs that you're talking about. Regardless of the ports on the back of the router.

Here is the average speed for moving a 1GB file wirelessly from a MacBook Pro to a mini connected via CAT5 to the new Airport Extreme.

802.11g (54Mbps connection) = 20Mbps
802.11n (300Mbps connection) = 78Mbps
Wired (100Mbps connection) = 90Mbps

Do you see where the average speed of 802.11n is SLOWER than the average speed of 10/100 wired?

How are you able to say that the ports are bottlenecking 802.11n traffic?

Let me ask this a different way. Since 802.11n isn't even taking advantage of the full potential of the 100Mbps port on the back of the router, how would adding an even faster port improve wireless speed?

This test you did is FAR from controlled. There are more factors out there than you can even imagine

Just because that is what you are getting does not mean that is the "standard".

Look at it this way:

802.11g - Theoretical 54mbps - Actual 20mbps - 37% throughput
802.11n - Theoretical 300mbps - Actual 78mbps - 26% throughput

Do you think 26% actual throughput is ideal?

You can justify your purchase all you want but the 10/100 switch is a major flaw

On a side note I never buy "draft/pre" products

Oh and I downloaded a little "Net Monitor"

With my Linksys WRT54G I got a solid 3.5 MBps transfer rate.
Wow that sure beats your 2.5 MBps with your G router....
That is a 40% difference in speed.

This shows how "much" your little test means.

If my 802.11n was 40% faster than yours that would be 109.2mbps... Wouldn't you call that a bottleneck?

I think it is time for you to get off your high horse

EDIT: Just a bit more math

MY WRT54G - 802.11g - Theoretical 54mbps - Actual 28mbps - 52% throughput

 

[rogersmj]

Yeah, even though I lament the lack of gigabit ports on such a high-end product like APX, aristobrat is correct that no current wireless-N products would benefit from them *for wireless-to-wired transmissions* because N doesn't even hit 100Mbps in real-life performance.

 

[wakerider017]

I don't know what is up with the APX itself. It is supposed to be 5X or more faster than 802.11g. I am have an actual throughput of 28mbps on my 802.11g setup. (And I am pretty far away.)

28mbps*5 = 140mbps

I am sure actions (maybe firmware updates) will be taken in the future to improve the APX performance.

If not then there is 1 more reason not to get one.

 

[aristobrat]

If my 802.11n was 40% faster than yours that would be 109.2mbps... Wouldn't you call that a bottleneck?

Please post a link to a review of an Airport Extreme getting over 100Mpbs of pre-802.11n performance.

Until then, all you're doing is spinning.

 

[wakerider017]

Please post a link to a review of an Airport Extreme getting over 100Mpbs of pre-802.11n performance.

Until then, all you're doing is spinning.

I created this thread. It is called "Screw the new airport extreme..."

You are just proving my point of why the APX is not a good wifi router.

In the very first post I wrote:

"Just for the record I will be waiting for the final draft of n to be released before I purchase any n wireless networking product."

I am going to wait for all the bugs to be sorted out and I will get 802.11n when it is no longer draft. When it will be capable of 140mbps.
Most likely the APX just needs a few firmware updates.

 

[aristobrat]

Couldn't find a benchmark showing that pre-802.11n wireless moves faster than 100Mbps, huh?

 

[macman2790]

the fastest speed my mbp gets with my belkin n router is 144 mbps which is when i'm close to it, and about 100 ft from it, it never changes which is good. and with my pc's wireless n card, which is a linksys, gets over 250 mbps and its in my room which is about 100 ft from my n router. I would like to get better speds from my mbp's n card.

 

[wakerider017]

Couldn't find a benchmark showing that pre-802.11n wireless moves faster than 100Mbps, huh?

More like I am not going to waste my time searching the internet for some tests. (For a product which JUST came out)

I am not going to jump when you say jump.

Pay for a variety of n routers shipped to my house and I will be more than happy to perform the tests for you.

It really just seems like you are arguing for the sake of arguing now.

If you are saying 802.11n routers will never be able to obtain 100+mbps fine.

What ever floats your boat bud.

 

[logandzwon]

If you are saying 802.11n routers will never be able to obtain 100+mbps fine.

Not only are we saying that, aristobrat is backing that up with his finding in an uncontrolled experiment showing that in the anticipated application for this product, the lack of gigabit will never be a bottleneck for wifi to ethernet transmissions.

 

[aristobrat]

It really just seems like you are arguing for the sake of arguing now.

I'm not arguing. I'm simply asking you to provide us with some data that backs up your point.

You started a thread about a new, hot product that uses a technology (802.11n) that most people aren't familiar with.

That means a lot of people are going to go through this thread hoping to learn more about both, and I think you're doing them a huge disservice by trying to make the claim that if the Extreme only had 1000Mbps ports on the back, its wireless would work so much faster.

If you think the Extreme sucks because you can't hack the firmware like Linksys routers, that's fine.
If you think the Extreme sucks because it uses pre-802.11n and you don't buy "pre" products, fine.

But to say its wireless performance sucks because of the 100Mbps ports, without having any real-world data to back up your claim, is irresponsible.

 

[wakerider017]

Not only are we saying that, aristobrat is backing that up with his finding in an uncontrolled experiment showing that in the anticipated application for this product, the lack of gigabit will never be a bottleneck for wifi to ethernet transmissions.

Don't you think you should read the whole thread?

Mr. mad scientist aristobrat was also obtaining 802.11g speeds 40% slower than me!!!

What he did means NOTHING!!!

Like I said earlier if my 802.11n was also 40% faster than aristobrat, then I would have 109.2mbps throughput...

If you don't think 802.11n will ever obtain throughput speeds of 100+mbps (12.5MBPS) then by all means buy the APX with a 10/100 switch. I certainly am not holding you back.

It is quite funny that you guys are so certain that 802.11n will never surpass 100+mbps (12.5MBPS)

aristobrat obtained 78mbps (9.75MBPS) only 22 more mbps (2.75MBPS) until the 10/100 switch is overwhelmed. It is doubtful that aristobrat had ideal conditions. (comparing his 802.11g test to mine)

 

[wakerider017]

I'm not arguing. I'm simply asking you to provide us with some data that backs up your point.

You started a thread about a new, hot product that uses a technology (802.11n) that most people aren't familiar with.

That means a lot of people are going to go through this thread hoping to learn more about both, and I think you're doing them a huge disservice by trying to make the claim that if the Extreme only had 1000Mbps ports on the back, its wireless would work so much faster.

If you think the Extreme sucks because you can't hack the firmware like Linksys routers, that's fine.
If you think the Extreme sucks because it uses pre-802.11n and you don't buy "pre" products, fine.

But to say its wireless performance sucks because of the 100Mbps ports, without having any real-world data to back up your claim, is irresponsible.

Well APPLE claims that the APX is 5 times faster than 802.11g.

I do 28mbps all day on my iMac about 50ft away from my 802.11g router.

28mbps*5=140mbps (17.5MBPS).

That is what Apple says it is capable of.

Not sure how you expect me to come up with all this 802.11n data since this technology is BRAND NEW.

Additionally this is a draft release. There will probably be firmware updates as time goes on which may improve performance.

Why don't you do the searching and find credible articles that says 802.11n actual is not capable of 100+mbps?

 

[jeremy.king]

Not sure how you expect me to come up with all this 802.11n data since this technology is BRAND NEW.

Wakerider, I have the same beef about lack of gigabit, however, I am confused how you can say one product "sucks" and recommend another when you don't own either one

Have you been hanging out with buckwheat?