Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Airport Extreme-N - Why?

buckwheat said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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, ...
 

Attachments

  • Wired.png
    Wired.png
    26.7 KB · Views: 388
  • 80211n.png
    80211n.png
    25.4 KB · Views: 396
  • 80211g.png
    80211g.png
    25.6 KB · Views: 402
  • FileInfo.png
    FileInfo.png
    131.3 KB · Views: 94
  • IMG_0012.jpg
    IMG_0012.jpg
    106.2 KB · Views: 84
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
 
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.
 
buckwheat said:
This thing is NOT ready for primetime
Click to expand...
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).
 
aristobrat said:
It'd be nice if the new Extreme had GigE ports, but it's definitely not a bottle-neck from the wireless side.
Click to expand...
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)
 
buckwheat said:
In your case it goes from 300 down to 100.
Click to expand...
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.
 

Attachments

  • Picture 1.png
    Picture 1.png
    25.5 KB · Views: 328
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...
 
buckwheat, can you address these points please?

kingjr3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.....
 
Kelmon said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
What computers are on your network, and are you going to use them mostly for Internet, or copying files between them?
 
buckwheat said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Kelmon said:
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.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, for all its elegance and responsiveness, mine is still buggering something in my network up somewhere. :(
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
quigleybc said:
I'll have a desktop PM G5

and a Macbook

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

thanks :)
Click to expand...
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.
 
Christina1971 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
buckwheat said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 

Attachments

  • 80211n.JPG
    80211n.JPG
    93.8 KB · Views: 85
Christina1971 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back