Waste of space
Simply waste of space to make room for a 3.5 disk - why not make the Airport smaller?????
Simply waste of space to make room for a 3.5 disk - why not make the Airport smaller?????
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Teardown of Apple's New AirPort Extreme Reveals Hard Drive Slot, but No Connectors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I just use the one. Surely a simple bridge and/or switch would be far cheaper than another router?
They are distributed through the home, so they serve to improve performance in all rooms while bridging to wired devices in several locations.
No doubt that it could be done cheaper, but my experience with Apple's networking products is that I set them up and never touch them again. My experience with other networking products has been far less satisfactory.
When I don't need multiple ports, I use Airport Express. I have several of them as well.
Excellent point. I think you're correct. Not just with the Extreme. My first views of the innards of the new MP screamed Cray. I just wish I could afford one.
I have done exactly that moving from version to version of the previous Time Capsules, but I have not seen anybody with this new one post that they did it. I suspect it would work. I'll be able to tell you on Monday when my new TC shows up.
Apple could print in the instructions to ELEVATE the box for best reception and achieve the same effect with a smaller box and/or an optional stand. In other words, some of us have read and now choose to THINK!
And if you honestly believe you will actually get anywhere NEAR that kind of performance in the real world with WiFi, I have some swamp land to sell you....
I have a 4 yr old Cisco valet plus for a few iPhones iPad and a 2012 cmbp. Not sure if my cmbp would benefit from this. We do stream a lot of movies from my mbp to our Apple TV which buffers at times. Would this help even though my 2012 cmbp isn't ac ready?
I think you have a lot more house than I.
----------
I hope you aren't expecting anyone here to actually know. But it would seem likely to be this year since the MBA and these routers now have it.
OK, then return to IDE drives, 64 MB RAM, and 54 MBit/s networks, if you hate progress.And if you honestly believe you will actually get anywhere NEAR that kind of performance in the real world with WiFi, I have some swamp land to sell you....
One reason why the new AirPort Extreme may only support USB2 is that USB3 causes pretty significant interference with 2.4GHz wireless devices (WiFi, Bluetooth, etc.). Apparently this is a serious enough issue that Intel has even written a white paper on this problem.
The website SmallNetBuilder also noted that in their test of the latest D-Link 802.11ac router that when you enable USB3 capability on that device the D-Link firmware gives you the following warning: "Please note that enabling USB 3.0 may adversely affect your 2.4 G wireless range."
In fact, D-Link only advertises USB2 support even though their hardware is USB3 capable (if user enabled via firmware). SmallNetBuilder also tested the hard drive access with and without USB3 enabled and they found that USB3 only added about 4MB/s to the file transfer speeds. Even with USB3 enabled the transfers topped out between 12 and 27MB/s which is easily within the range of USB2.
One can conclude, therefore, that in terms of wireless access the lack of USB3 support in the new AirPort Extreme is a non-issue (in fact, it may be a good thing if you need to use the 2.4GHz band for WiFi).
The only remaining issue might be what if you don't need 2.4GHz support and you want to access the USB drive over a wired network (1Gb ethernet)? In that case you might GUESS that USB3 would help but given that the total throughput on any device is finite it might not make much of a difference there either (given the chipset, firmware, etc.).
The website SmallNetBuilder also noted that in their test of the latest D-Link 802.11ac router that when you enable USB3 capability on that device the D-Link firmware gives you the following warning: "Please note that enabling USB 3.0 may adversely affect your 2.4 G wireless range."
In fact, D-Link only advertises USB2 support even though their hardware is USB3 capable (if user enabled via firmware). SmallNetBuilder also tested the hard drive access with and without USB3 enabled and they found that USB3 only added about 4MB/s to the file transfer speeds. Even with USB3 enabled the transfers topped out between 12 and 27MB/s which is easily within the range of USB2.
One can conclude, therefore, that in terms of wireless access the lack of USB3 support in the new AirPort Extreme is a non-issue (in fact, it may be a good thing if you need to use the 2.4GHz band for WiFi).
The only remaining issue might be what if you don't need 2.4GHz support and you want to access the USB drive over a wired network (1Gb ethernet)? In that case you might GUESS that USB3 would help but given that the total throughput on any device is finite it might not make much of a difference there either (given the chipset, firmware, etc.).
But when Apple doesn't include USB 3, it's the biggest sin in the world and "they do this just because they want to throttle you now and sell you a faster one next year" - typical macrumors trolls
Back to the topic, having read the report about speed and reception improvement on 802.11n equipped MacBooks, it seems that it may be good for me to upgrade from my 2009 AEBS!
I highly doubt they don't work with PCs, a wireless client is a wireless client
----------
I don't think you've thought much about Apple if you had it in your head that they would ever do something like thisApple could print in the instructions to ELEVATE the box for best reception and achieve the same effect with a smaller box and/or an optional stand. In other words, some of us have read and now choose to THINK!
My Airport Extreme + external harddisk set up has always worked for all of my Macs and PCs since it uses WiFi and file sharing (SMB) standards.
I think the 2TB Time Capsule is quite attractive since the price is similar or cheaper than an Airport Extreme + external 2TB 3.5" HDD setup. But the 3TB Time Capsule is too expensive.
Actually my current Extreme has already lasted 4 years, so it lasting 3-5 years isn't that outlandish!
So you've never commented on anything in MacRumors forums that you haven't bought or needed?
SMH.
This argument doesn't wash with me. Most users don't care about internals and they know that.
You could argue that they got lazy.
I ordered mine and it is stuck at FedEx awaiting customs clearance release as it isn't in the system yet. Hope apple gets on the ball and gets the info to them quickly.
To all those that think a router needs USB 3 - check what the actual transfer rate of a hard drive is - it will come nowhere close to saturating USB 2, let alone USB 3.
Unless you're connecting an SSD to this - but what would be the point of that?!?
Unless you're connecting an SSD to this - but what would be the point of that?!?
Qos and VPN?
I be happy if i can add static routes rather then have to NAT for traffic to come back. I have multiple LANs behind the extreme.