Slashdot Mirror
Apple's New, Improved Airport
timbck2 writes: "Apple has just released a new and greatly improved version of their Airport 802.11b wireless network access point, with better WEP encryption (128-bit now instead of 40-bit), better non-Mac PC integration, and a new LAN connection port. Here are the tech specs." An anonymous reader pointed to Apple's rather bland press release as well. This is a good upgrade to the Airport, with thanks probably due in part to companies like Linksys who are making much less expensive 802.11 base stations (which work great with Airport cards, too), though lacking a modem.
On a related note, anyone have a link to that guy who hacked the airport and attached a Yeag directional antenna to get 11 Miles or something out of it?
This is excellent new for those looking for an excuse to jump into the wireless networking pool, It will be interesting to see how this will compete with Intel's upcoming 802.11A spec for wireless networking, speeds, security, etc. As we all know, the wireless field has potential, but enormous security holes need to be patched in order for it to gain widespread acceptance, and this is a step in the right direction.
I hate sigs.
While most people here probably don't use AOL, this is probably the most important change. Sure, they upped the encryption to 128-bit, increased the number of client computers it will support, and added a LAN ethernet port, but what really makes this a big deal is that it is the first time I've heard of a home router product supporting AOL. It's not too shocking to have one that will handle standard PPP connections, but to have it handle AOL's proprietary protocol is very noteworthy.
This was probably done with AOL's support; Apple wouldn't want to risk problems with AOL tweaking its protocol to block AirPorts. So what sort of terms were involved in the deal? Did AOL do it in their own interest (it seems to me that they benefit), or did Apple pay them (they also benefit)?
It's funny they mention Linksys in the blurb here and 'how good they work'. Ever try and upgrade a Linksys device from your Mac? You CAN'T DO IT! Well, there are no instructions for it at linksys. There is no little tftp program on their site for Mac's to do it. They don't support Mac. (note the period). In an email I received this morning from Linksys they flat out told me that.
;)
While linksys is cheap, they won't support anything but windows users. That's all their is to it.
Cheap hardware with no support - take your chances and hope someone on your LAN has a Windows box when you need an upgrade to your linksys (like to make the linksys work with your airport card
j
-- There is no sig line, only Zuul.
The Airport Base station was long the only good value, as its competitor was Lucent, selling theirs for upwards of $700, so this was the only viable option. Then came Linksys. I really think they have a better product, since it does ethernet-ethernet wireless bridging, something apple has yet to add in. This is formerly something only $1900 Cisco Aironet Bridges could do, but linksys will do it for $200 or so.
Apple does a good job with these though, they have only gotten better with the firmware updates. We own several at work, and throughput, reliability and multi-rate support has just gotten better through the versions.
Trying is the First Step to Failing --Homer Simpson
The thing that makes Airport so WONDERFUL is the integration on both their desktops and laptops.
:-)
/C revision of the card was secretly 128-bit. :-)
The built-in antennae make for some excellent reception on the laptops!
On the other hand, the base station, while it looks cool, isn't that impressive. I bought a Linksys wireless station / firewall / router / 4-port 10/100 switch for $159. It was well worth the cash, and the range seems better than on the airport stations.
On the other hand, the fact that it all integrates so perfectly (between Apple's airport, the Linksys, and my neighbor's PC laptop) speaks very highly of the whole thing.
--nbvb
p.s. Also, just a heads up -- Apple's been shipping a 128-bit version of the Airport *CARD* for months. The
silly me, i thought the range for 802.11b was supposed to be 150 ft. you must live in a ridiculously tall house, or have a lot that's several acres in size to be complaining about range. the example i remember is that if you stick a base station in the middle of a (american) football field, you'd get a signal all the way to both goal lines.
now, if you have some kind of interference, then you're SOL. as for me, i've never had any problems with the range in my average-sized home, or in my average-sized back yard between my base station and my ibook, whereas my cordless phone breaks up walking out the back door.
- Entertaining Bits from the Ancient Kernel Tree
And why did other companies start making less expensive wireless base stations? Because everyone was buying Apple base stations...
Apple has been putting out an affordable wireless product for much longer than Linksys.
The original product may have had its bugs but I have ben using one for over a year now and that was just not possible with a PC (without a lot of moolah).
I've used the AirPort Base station since it's release and it's great at wireless for a mixed PC and Mac environment. Any 802.11b PCMCIA card will work with it, I use Orinoco and LinkSys cards with no problems.
It's the best wireless base station around but it did have the WEP encryption vulnerability that was very publicized. If you crack one open you'll find a straight-off-the-shelf Orinoco Silver 64-bit card. I upgraded one of our base stations with the Gold version, which provides me with 128-bit WEP, but I'm glad that Apple finally decided to do the same.
You can also attach a Lucent Range Extender antenna, which dramatically improves performance. Just pop the cover off, pull the little round tab off the PCMCIA card, attach the antenna lead, drill a hole in the cover to run the wire out and presto!
I am surprised that they did not apply the 802.11a standard that some other base station makers have recently announced for increased bandwidth over the wireless portion of the LAN. Oh well, I'll just have to wait...
For $300 the new airport base gets you:
-A 50 user wireless node.
-Built-in modem that even supports AOL access.
-Connects to Cable/DSL "modems" to act as a router.
-Built-in firewall for simple security setup.
-Works with loads of different operating systems.
-Looks really, really cool. Definately beats those ugly blue boxes with flashing LEDs and antennae.
Is it just me, or should Apple marketing be pushing these to non-Apple users? This thing is incredible, especially for the cost. Steve Jobs should tell them to send review samples to the editors of all the PC magazines and web sites.
Exactly, That's what should be happening, but instead we are seeing hardware-based encryption of the frames themselves, this is bad for several reasons:
1. You must upgrade hardware if the security is cracked.
2. It's bound to cause standards wars amongst vendors, all rushing to get better security, but producing a tangled web if incompatability.
3. Why should frames be encrypted when we already have IPsec? This just throws a wrench in the works.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
Does anyone know if Apple intends to offer firmware updates to current Airport owners (or if this is even possible), or if those who previous shelled out $299 for an Airport will be out in the cold?
I didn't see it mentioned, but according to Apple's web site the 2.0 version of the Airport s/w that's included with the new base station and available for download will upgrade any customers existing Airport card to 128-bits. Even if 128 bit isn't as secure as everybody would like it's nice to see that Apple isn't soaking everybody for a new Airport card to go with the 128-bit base station!
Once you lick the lollipop of mediocrity, you'll suck forever!
The AirPort basestation is a x86 single board computer. I've been trying to find out about rolling a Linux distribution to get VPN running on the device. That would solve the 802.11b security problems and make it _much_ more useful. The RADIUS server is nice, though.
Enjoy life, eat out more often.
SE Rykoff
Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
Is it just me, or should Apple marketing be pushing these to non-Apple users?
The question is, do you think they would stand to gain more or less money/marketshare by doing such a thing? I suspect the answer is less. It also means less differentiation between Mac and wintel.
I know the instinct is "I want this on my PC," but Apple has more to consider than that -- like do they really want to make a business out of selling cross-platform gadgets, possibly at the partial expense of their computer business?
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
Does anyone know if it will support PPPoE without having to use an additional gateway/router? I know this was a limitation with the original version of the airport hub software.
perhaps I'm responding to a troll, but --
:) I may have certain objections to Apple, but I also have a lot of praise for them. Apple has a remarkably good user interface (less bad than most alternatives in most aspects), good industrial design for their hardware (the G3/G4 case is genius, better by far than the pricey Antec cases on my PCs), and intelligent focus on the user experience in general.
:) They'll either add features (like they've just done), drop prices (like the not-bad pricing on current Apple laptops), or otherwise try to make people find it worthwhile to buy their version. Or maybe they won't, and that aspect of their business will falter. OK -- no problem, at least long term.
I'm not knocking Apple -- I've liked Apple's hardware for a long time. I own and use an Apple computer, and have had a string of 'em before the current iBook (IIfx, SE/30,* Classic II, Performa 636*, powerbook 140, powerbook 240 duo, and maybe a few others in there, too). For the past several years, I've been a lot more interested in software-with-source-code-available, a category that Mac OS (excepting the Darwin part of OS X) does not fall into. OK; that doesn't mean that Apple become a bad company making bad computers, it just means that people have different preferences and interests. OK, no problem. (Several of the Slashdot authors and coders use / enjoy Macs, btw.)
For reasons outlined in some other comments, I actually prefer the Linksys AP+4-port switch to the Apple Airport, but lighten up, alright?
Apple has done more to open up home wireless networking than most of the other companies involved in it combined. The airport is functionally brilliant (wish my Linksys had a modem, I do) and for a while was the best deal in home wireless by a long shot. Right now though, Linksys and SMC (and others) are making products which for many people can bring the benefits they'd get from an Airport for much less money. So? Apple isn't dumb
If you still think my post was hard on Apple, or negative, I don't know what else to tell you. I generally like Apple, though like a lot of other armchair critics, there are a lot of things I wish they did differently. No crime in that, eh?
Cheers,
timothy
*The only real dog of the bunch, but still a useful machine.
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5