What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Smart Guys Keep Their Faces Looking Young view!
howlifeworks.com - Why men have finally started to use certain anti-aging skin care products...
41 Comments
- No13Baby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17I have one of these. It is a nice piece of hardware and the software is much simpler to use than my old netgear, but at the end of the day, it’s just a wireless router.
- Quix, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12@No13Baby: Yes, it's just a wireless router. With software that's "much simpler to use." See the distinction?
Why do people not understand that making things "much simpler to use" is Apple's bread and butter?
Yes, you pay more. And yes, it's generally worth it. - EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Forget the shape its still not Gigabit. Please no comments on how man people do. I need it and I can't buy it in this thing. Total bummer!
- KirinDave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Another shoddy Engadget review. It seems that they didn't actually bump it up to 5ghz to do their speed tests. Nearly every other review got significant speed improvements and observed poor write speed on disks.
It seems like they didn't even try. - Quix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8To undersky:
"In Soviet Russia, joke blows you!"
See how it works? - bradleyland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's especially strange considering that:
A) Apple's entire computer lineup comes with gigabit ethernet now days
B) Your wireless network throughput theoretically exceeds that of your wired network, so even if you bridge it to an ethernet switch, your 802.11n network will be bottlenecked to 100 mbit when connecting to wired computers. - dgolding, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wireless-N routers with print servers and network storage mount capability routinely cost this much. I was a bit surprised when I comparison shopped it against routers with similar capabilities.
- malliemcg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The USB disk functionality is slow, slow, slow! (1MByte/s - 2.2MB/sec peak write - consistent ; 500kByte-1.5MByte/sec - inconsistent read)
However - using the 802.11n (5Ghz) only mode (Australia - claimed 300Mbit/sec connection speed) I have been able to get consistent throughput of 9MByte/sec from my Windows box to my Mac. I have found it to be a mixed experience. - venvision.org, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6This is awesome, and I'm so glad apple dropped the strange "orb/ufo" shaped hub, I might now be convinced to buy one.
- Burn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What's your point?
- DrGonzo1184, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I miss the UFO shape... I always thought it was cool.
- valkraider, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It leaves port 53 open, and you can't close it. You also can't "stealth" your ports via a setting. You can "hack" a stealth setting by creating a bogus "default host" (dmz). But the lack of a true "stealth mode" setting, and the fact that you cannot close port 53 - is a big SNAFU.
Apple, time to release the firmware update to bring the capabilities of your BaseStation up to the level of the $70 competitors.
Oh, and then there is that IPv6 "issue" too that is kinda weird. - malliemcg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I should add - the following:
Windows Box - 100mbit lan
Macbook Pro - 802.11n (5Ghz)
Base station - Airport Extreme (802.11n)
USB Disk - USB Disk functionality offered by the Base station.
The speeds of the USB Disk functionality are horrific. There is no indication on the Apple Website that they would be so much below the speeds that the base station is capable of pushing packets wirelessly.
As a pure wireless packet pusher - I'd give it the thumbs up - damn near full 100mBit network speed from across the house, but the additional functionality it is advertised as having is pathetic. - sleepwalkers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Way to not understand how Soviet Russia jokes work.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2er... what product are you comparing it against???
- tdowling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Although being able to wirelessly share out an external hard drive and printer at the same time is pretty spiffy. It really opens things up for home networking.
- sam10685, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the person that took those pics obviously has no life.
- tedc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I just replaced a cheapie router (D-Link) with a new Airport Extreme, and I've been kicking myself for not doing so sooner. I've been through my fair share of sub-$100 routers, and it's always something with them. You change an innocuous setting in say the encryption and all of a sudden, you can't see the rest of the LAN, or it's done something weird with your DHCP or your port mappings. One router I bought (TRENDnet) claimed on the box that it was a web-administered Mac-compatible unit. They forgot to mention you must be running Internet Explorer for certain esoteric functions like...oh...setting a password, for example. Firefox wouldn't cut it. Safari? What's that? (Eventually, I got it to work in Opera of all things, but really.)
The Extreme I got going in about 20 minutes. In that time, I had WPA2, port mappings, 802.11n connectivity with a MacBook Pro, a USB backup drive, and all the cabling set up. It has not caused me a moment's grief since. 802.11n seems plenty fast, but the range is what impressed me. My broadband comes in through a bedroom at one end of the house, and I have always had weak signals in the sunken living room at the other end. No more. I can surf at full speed from the sofa. Even 802.11g range might be a little better than with the old router, though that's hard to say for certain. - dgolding, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2few folks need a home or SOHO gigabit router. Some people think they do, but their upstream bandwidth is usually the constraint
- Tirial, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1it is draft-n. However, draft n passed the 15 day proceedural with 97% of the vote. I suspect the current draft n will not change significantly before it is released.
- tdowling, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What's the typical price range for routers that can share out hard drives and printers?
- moisie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And of course those lovely black MacBooks that they sell.
- Burn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Which is also about the max anyone ever sees out of a 100mbps wired ethernet connection. It probably is possible that you could get >80mbps throughput connected to a 1000mbps wired network, but I doubt you'd get much more.
- Foma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1From Wikipedia:
"The maximum rate currently (2006) attained with real devices is about half, 30 MB/s. Most hi-speed USB devices typically operate at much slower speeds, often about 3 MB/s overall, sometimes up to 10-20 MB/s."
1MB/s over USB doesn't seem quite so horrific to me, after reading that. - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1dgolding: some of us use our LAN for more than surfing digg, like to share things between comptuers. I have terrabytes of data on my LAN that I like to access from any computer.
- BWhaler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The reality with people like this is even if it were $100, you' complain that you really want it for 40 bucks. And if it were $40...well, you get the point.
As others pointed out, ease and simplicity, is worth a premium. A big premium.
My list Cisco router didn't work out of the box. I spent 1.5 hours on the phone with some dude in India I couldn't understand and he never got it working. It ended going back to Amazon.
What was that time and frustration worth to me? A lot. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1this IS 100mbs AND NOT the min 300mbs because it does not have gigabit ports!
- aristobrat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't think your assumption about B) is right, ... at least not with my MacBook Pro and the new Airport Extreme.
The fastest I've been able to send data through it via 802.11n is 10.3MB/s, which is 82Mbps -- well under the 100Mbps.
So if 802.11n throughtput doesn't exceed 100Mpbs
and the WAN input isn't exceeding 100Mpbs
... the only time the 100Mpbs ports would be a bottleneck is if you tried to use the router as a switch for 2+ wired 10/100/1000 machines.
Hopefully you're not trying to do that. - aserer511, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I lol'd at the soviet satellite joke because that's really what the d-link one is haha
- gemmakicn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This has a huge limitation for me, when the wired network is slower than the potential wireless network speed, is it me or is this a big bottleneck?
- dodeja, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I think it is too expensive.
- AliBomaYe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Am I the only one that thinks Apple's entire lineup is starting to be white and grey boxes?
- aristobrat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0You know how 802.11g really didn't produce 54Mbps throughput?
Guess what???
802.11n doesn't produce 300Mbps throughput.
Most people are seeing a max of 9-10MB/s with 802.11n, which roughly equals 72-80Mbps, .. well under the 100Mbps the ports on the back max out at, and well well well under the 300Mbps you seem to think that 802.11n gets. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"It also made totally unthrottled bandwidth testing to gig Ethernet impossible, bummer."
this device is not 802.11N it may have the range but does not have the gigabit ports for the 802.11n 300 mbs
i own two macs and couldn't believe that this is such a peace of *****!
DO NOT BUY THIS PRODUCT!
THIS IS FAKEWARE - bigkm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1they really missed something there. come on apple what are you thinking ?
- flag564, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"3 lan ports for $179 USD = overpriced."
But, dude, it has an Apple logo. I would sell my 1st born for a 3-port router with an Apple logo. /s - Moody636, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0underski's put a whole new twist on the Soviet Russia jokes. Give credit where credit is due.
- ZepFloyd, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Somehow I just cant be super excited about this when newegg already has 56 802.11n devices on their site...
slow news day? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+33 lan ports for $179 USD = overpriced.
- tc811, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2If there's one thing that's preventing me from buying this, it's the price. $170 is just way too much; if it were say, $100, then I might consider buying it.
- undersky, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2In Soviet Russia, rabbit antenna grows on your head!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is