What is Digg?53 Comments
- smackfu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21If home users don't need Gigabit ethernet, why does every computer Apple sells come with Gigabit?
Especially silly since this thing supports external drives, the one common thing that actually needs Gigabit. - ExSlashdotter, on 10/12/2007, -8/+24ATTN DIGG:
Please, just because you have wifi on your laptop does not make you a network engineer.
802.11x never was meant to, and never will replace wired ethernet. Don't just take it from me, go pick up any CCNA book. - Goatman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14I'm a home user... and could use Gigabit ports.... considering now a days the implementation of them isn't that much more than a 10/100 port... why not. Considering all current Macs have Gigabit ports
- REBELinBLUE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7So what if it is meant for home users, Macs have included Gigabit ethernet for some time now so it would make sense for this to do so.
I use a gigabit connection between my iMac and Macbook from time to time, although most of the time I am on wireless so the lack of gigabit speed isn't a huge deal breaker to me. If Apple release an updated airport card for the original Macbook (I bought mine in September, just before the update :() since it seems it is possible to replace (http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Mac/MacBook/Complete-Disassembly-Page-13-Airport-Card although obviously I'd pay Apple to do it) I'd be very tempted to get one of these, but I can't see that happening - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Your external connection may be limited, but within the network you can max the connection.
- derkles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7If you work from home and have a file server, then Gigabit is helpful. I know a lot of SMB and SOHO type users that have always used Airports. They are much cheaper than Cisco Aironet and easier to manage for those users. Gigabit would have been nice for the wired users.
Good news on the antenna connectors. One can hide the router in a closet and route antennas where you need them.
My building has firewalls (the kind that block fires) and hardly any radio can penetrate those (hee hee.) I have had some luck with Cisco Long Reach Ethernet but the bandwidth is skinny. - atmodiws, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14jakebarnes: Are you kidding? 10 Gigabit/s is standardized for cabled networks and you jump through the roof for *almost* Fast Ethernet speeds? Wireless is and will always be crap performance wise.
- LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5N should not only provide more bandwidth than your superG connection, but also drastically improve range using MIMO technology as well. Also, N is capable of operating at the less congested 5 Ghz range (sort of like 802.11a).
It really is a Win-Win-Win. More bandwidth, without having to sacrifice range. Actually IMPROVES range. - passive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Does the previous airport really only do < 750KB/s at 5 feet?
I've got a US Robotics 802.11G router, and with my Intel IPW3945 in my Dell, I get 4500 KB/s at 20 feet, through at least two walls, and a closet full of clothes.
The 802.11n spec calls for a max speed of about 67MB/s, and an average speed of about 25MB/s, so the fact they were able to get 9MB/s isn't all that impressive.
That said, I doubt my laptop HD could write more than 9MB/s consistently, and the range is pretty good. It would be a much better connection for sharing with your neighbours. - mingistech, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5no... once it's been standardized a simple firmware update will bring it up to spec.
- jman8888, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6But wont people be limited by cable?
- devo6273, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It doesn't really do anything that other draft-N routers do. But if you do a quick search of pricegrabber, the 180 (160 with educational discount) is in the mid-high range of draft-N routers. Yes, you can get a really cheap one in the ~100 dollar range, but most of the big brand names are running in the 150-200 range. I agree though, the article needs to compare it to some other routers.
And personally I think the apple one looks much nicer than the linksys ones (unless you're into the hardcore crazy antennas). - derkles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I gotta agree with you here. Copper and fiber are just better than radio. Period. Wireless is for convenience and physical limitations (e.g. Legacy buildings that cannot have fiber or copper run. Metro point-to-point bridging. Sipping a pint on the deck reading Digg.)
- jman8888, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Prada
W..T..F.. Was that. Your a pschopath arent you? - MikeGlenn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The rates they achieved seem a little disappointing. I was under the impression that typical data rates are around 25MB/s while it can go up as high as 67MB/s. 9MB/s at short range seems slow. What am I missing here?
- darksheer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There are lots of "draft-N" products on the market. No, it hasn't officially been officially standardized, but with so many people releasing "draft-N" products, they are becoming commonplace and may draft-N may become the de facto standard.
That said, it is my understanding that the standards group has all but approved draft-N to become 802.11n - tdhurst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4As a laptop user, I can TELL YOU WHY. It's simpler and more efficient not to have to plug and unplug cables all the time. Sometimes I work with my laptop on my lap, sometimes I take it to the couch, etc. It's a pain to constantly switch networks and unplug cables.
- bluering, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Could you not add a gigabit switch for the wired portion of the lan? I am seriously considering replacing my hacked WRT54g and assortment of hubs with this thing. I think I have about 10 devices using my wired lan at home. If I could go with this unit for my WAN hookup, wifi serving, network printer, and NAS, with an off the shelf gigabit switch for my wired devices I would be stoked.
- yabos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ bearowned
Actually it's made with Keynote and you can tell quite easliy by the textures on the bars. - yabos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3To name a few, it automatically shares a USB 2 drive as NAS, workes as a print server. Maybe you don't need those so get something else.
- Barlo_Mung, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@atmodiws
Performance is relative to the task at hand. We are at or close to the point where wireless is fast enough for the tasks most people do. When a new way of doing something is both good enough for most people and much more convenient than the old way it reaches a tipping point very quickly. - viriiman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't see why you couldn't. I think the allure, though, would be to not have to purchase two separate pieces of hardware to achieve your goal. That, and if you plugged in an external storage device, it wouldn't be able to be accessed at gigabit speeds.
It's a cool device, but I'll wait for gigabit to be built in. Until then, I'll stay with my "hacked" WRT54G. - capran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I was wondering about those reported transfer rates too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11#802.11n - EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3NOTE: review is in megaBYTES not bits. I was disappointed for a second there.
I am disappointed that its not the same color as the mini! - CPUGUy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"I'm accustomed to keeping an ethernet cable at my desk to plug in when I need to make large transfers. With 802.11n, I'll be able to get rid of the extra cable."
Here's a thought, why would you be using the VASTLY inferior Wi-Fi connection if you have a cable right next to your computer anyway? - atmodiws, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1uvscwolverine, barlo_mung: I was replying to this other guys comment about wireless replacing -all- wired networks. There is no doubt wireless will be fast enough for normal use (it even is today), but it'll never replace wired networks completely. And as the throughput thing just think back when you thought the 56k modem thing was the fastest ever :) Point is that wired is, and will always be, ahead of wireless when it comes to performance, stability, throughput, latency and all that good stuff.
- Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My guess is that either Apple thinks most users don't really care about or need gigabit connections... or they want to wean their users off wired connections and use more of the wireless. I don't necessarily agree with either point-of-view, but I can understand both.
Is WiFi N any more stable than G? I know it has better range... If so, I could kinda understand #2. - kacole2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Wireless N hasn't been standardized yet has it? are we getting a little pre-mature?
- austindkelly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Okay so assuming it did have gigabit, you are still wireless, and can't achieve those speeds wirelessly.
But if you are the wired type (as i am usually), I would think that gigabit would be intigrated. espically with things like AppleTV coming out that will require a pretty good amount of bandwidth to pull movies over the internal network. Perhaps Apple will make an ExtremzorMegaAirport with gigabit included. - Sixcolors, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"THIS DEVICE WORKS AT 100MB a sec only"
I think you mean 100Mbps. Networking on the home scale is in bits, not bytes. - usefuljenkins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1802.11N Wiki Site
According to the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Project Timelines, [2] the 802.11n standard is not due for final approval until October 2008, but released in January 2007. At the January 2007 meeting, the 802.11n Task Group reviewed and made adjustments to this timeline, which will be updated on the Project Timelines web page shortly. - uvscwolverine, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7@atmodiws
Soooo...you're saying that wireless networks will NEVER have good throughput? Ever? Do you realize that people have said things like that about technology for years...and just like you, they were all wrong (well...maybe not all, but most). Granted, wireless is slower than wired RIGHT NOW, but that doesn't mean that it always will be. - EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think you bit off more than you can chew. Take a smaller byte of The Idiots Guide to Networking next time and You'll see that the performance of this new Apple toy is fine.
- mistafreeze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Anyone know if there is an ethernet bridge for 802.11n yet? Or a game adaptor as it may be known to some. I want to buy this, but I also need to purchase 3 wireless bridges throughout. If this is not out yet, any in development? I currently use a Buffalo Technology AirStation (802.11g), I know that it is backwards compatible with apples new router, however I need to buy 2 more bridges, and would prefer them to be 802.11n oppsed to the 802.11g spec. The main reason I need the 802.11n opposed to g is distance. I have a 802.11g card in a machine that I want to install a wireless bridge on, and it's always loosing signal strength. With the purported increases in distance brought forth by 802.11n, this would seem to solve the problem.
- yabos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Of course, just hook up a gigabit switch to one port and plug in your devices to the switch.
- yabos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So just hook up a friggin gigabit switch if you need gigabit. You notice that their max throughput on the wireless was under 10MB/s which you can get on 100Mbit ports easily. That means if you had gigabit on the router itself, transfering from wired to wireless wouldn't be any faster anyways.
- jakebarnes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What trick is that?
- yabos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My experience with Airport g version is that it doesn't have a sustained rate, it just bursts data and not at a very fast speed either.
- Sargasso_C, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yes.
- Barlo_Mung, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That's great but why is it so expensive? What does it do that other routers that cost half as much don't do? The benchmarks in the article are nice but it would have been better to get a comparison to other brands.
- Sargasso_C, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The Pringle can trick, is unlikely to work with these N wireless routers.
- animo47, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree, these numbers don't seem too mindblowing, I've reached 12 mbps with my G card, i was expecting something in the 20's at least.
- Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"If home users don't need Gigabit ethernet, why does every computer Apple sells come with Gigabit?"
Because Apple likes high-end hardware.
Most home-users are never going to do any local file transfers or anything else that could use Gigabit's bandwidth.
It doesn't really matter much though, as the price-difference between a Gigabit chip and a 10/100 chip is only a few pounds now.
(I'm not anti-Apple, but the fact is that most people don't need Gigabit, or even Fast Ethernet, as they use their network for Internet access and little else.) - Eyebee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I am still using a DI-624 here, (108mbps) and have three computers, and Vonage connected to it. I stream an audio feed to shoutcast from one, and often listen to other online audio feeds on the other two machines. I find it all works fine. What would I need to move to draft-N for?
- darksheer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1nevermind...I read wrong...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -19/+18THEY ARE NOT GIGABIT PORTS THIS DEVICE WORKS AT 100MB a sec only BOOOOOOO!
- andylockran, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0I think homeplug and ethernet through the cabling is going to be far more useful than wifi....
- jakebarnes, on 10/12/2007, -15/+7If you don't think that wireless networks will eventually replace all wired, unless there is a need for maximum security (in which case they will be wired to a highly secured closed, or no network at all), then you are wrong.
- PradaPete, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1chris, exactly, you don't know, but that didn't keep you from writing a dumb pro-Apple fanboy comment
- SLOviper, on 10/12/2007, -22/+9Wow, impressive! Maybe we can finally ditch those wired connections.
-
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is