Yeah, it's too bad that fellow posted as an AC or I woulda modded him down. (well ok, I can't now that I've posted, but you get what I mean:-).
Losing half the bandwidth seems acceptable to me, though, I've seen a WDS network (with multiple Airport Extreme units) and it works pretty good. I guess half of 54 (or whatever the "real-world" vs theoretical bandwidth is) is still good enough.
What I haven't seen is multiple-vendor WDS implementations, though - anyone here got an apple WDS system working with a non-Apple one and can vouch about it?
Apple worked out their own deal with Cisco to get LEAP support for their chipsets, even since the original Airport (Lucent-based) days. My personal guess is that this was separately licensed/paid for because the edu market is very important to Apple and plenty of institutions depend on LEAP for security (since it was, for a while at least, the only "safe" encryption once airsnort appeared. If anyone would be trying to crack WEP encryption, it'd be college students, innit?:-).
the existing airport extreme units do WDS (Wireless Distribution System) - I think this is what they mean by "repeater" mode.
In which case your D-link needs to be able to handle WDS, or else you can forget it (and, although I've seen an apple-only multiple-base-station WDS network in action, I haven't seen any mixed-vendor-equipment ones, so i have no idea how well interoperability will be even with stated WDS support on all equipment).
No, it isn't missing that much functionality, and it has additional functionality that the Airport does not have, plus it is from a good company, Asus, and will be supported well for years. Expect many, many firmware updates, and of course it costs 1/2 the price
I think not needing a separate AC adapter is very important in terms of "functionality", quite possibly more important than things that will appear as checkboxes in the web-based management GUI.
Considering firmware upgrades as a "feature" betrays a very geek-oriented mindset that most mainstream people don't have (I personally usually fail to resist the urge to update firmware/BIOS/etc when new releases come out, but I *know* it's not normal. And don't they always say, with respect to firmware upgrades, "if it ain't broke don't fix it"?).
I love my Asus P4P800Deluxe motherboard, but it's not like they're a perfect company either. IIRC, one of their founders (fairly recently) jumped ship, releasing a statement saying that management was no longer concerned about quality etc. (does anyone have a link to the story on either The Register or The Inquirer?).
brought the 330 to a couple of the Austin wireless meetings and it was a hit
I hate to say it but if you bring your unit to a meeting and someone brings an Airport Extreme, the latter will be more popular.
Of course, from price point alone, the number of people you meet there who go on to buy a unit for themselves, there'll probably be more Asus buyers.
to the specs posted -- "AirPort Extreme and AirPort Express can extend the range only of an AirPort Extreme or AirPort Express wireless network. " -- translation - if you want to use this for wireless iTunes streaming, then you will need to also have purchased an Apple airport in order
could it be a CYA so as not to have to worry about supporting who-knows-what stations out there?
THe Airport Extreme is based on the broadcom chipset IIRC (it's not like Apple has their own chip fabs), and so it shares the lineage of the linksys boxes etc.; how apple extreme base stations extend wireless range is through WDS, which last I checked is not an apple proprietary system.
of course until the machines show up and someone tries it with a non-apple box (and blogs about it), we can't really be sure...
Go to any center the collect used PC, and you can proably find 10 to 12 year old PC's that will boot. Stilldoing what it was designed to do.
not always. I don't think of this as a PC-vs-Mac divide, but a "build it to last" mentality that is being replaced by "shave off every last cent, and then some" modern design seems to worship. Look around and I think you'll agree that the products being manufactured today seem almost calculated to choke right after the warranty period. I remember the PCs of old - solid construction, tough materials. The plasticky crap in comparison nowadays? No contest.
10-12 year old PCs that still boot today? I'm not surprised. I'd be surprised 10-12 years down the road that anything made TODAY would boot, though.
As much as you'd like onboard Intel, don't count on it in most boards when a manufacturer can save $3.
Personally i'm not so enthused about onboard Intel either. I'm sitting on (not literally) a dead intel port on my motherboard, which is a pain because it still identifies itself to the OS and there's no way to disable it in the BIOS. argh.
I second that. If you go to the linksys site there is a page with pictures that exists to tell you what version of the LNE100TX you have, which basically just cries out for a newer model number. ("LNE100TX-A, -B, or whatnot. 3Com, when they change their chipsets, do that - 3C905TX, 3C905BTX, 3C905CTX... which i guess is one thing 3Com does right that the other networking companies might not (not that it does them all that much good)).
I personally ran into this problem when I was trying to get Solaris x86 installed on a machine and couldn't get networking even though the LNE100TX was on their list of supported network cards. I discovered it was for a previous version of the LNE100TX. the sorry thing was that the later revisions of the 3c905 were *also* not supported... I had to use an Intel eepro.
But with Job's fantasy that two buttons are too difficult to grasp (though I've provided support for people who fit that categorization) it certainly didn't originate at Apple.
Personally, I always look at it the way I look at the Windows key on keyboards. How hard is it, really, to use Ctrl-Esc to get the Start menu to pop up? Why is the windows key necessary at all? I mean, IBM ThinkPads *don't* have the Windows key, and they do fine(*) - I personally think they are the finest x86 laptops out in the market, and it'd be a very very strange person who goes "What?! No Windows key on the keyboard?! I'm not buying it".
(*) Does anyone know if any of the ThinkPad design team people, say, used to be, I dunno, on the OS/2 team or otherwise have a major grudge against Microsoft?:-)
I think that's the first time I've ever heard (apart from Final Cut Pro) an arguement that Apple has more applications than another system. If there's one thing that has been a thorn in Apple's side for so long it is the lack of software
Actually, it's true. Really. Think about it. Two things:
(1) With the underlying UNIX/Posix-ness of OS X, well, it's been a long time since I've seen a Makefile that doesn't have an OS X/darwin target. So, in essence, "all" linux apps are also OS X apps. But it is not so in the reverse direction. Which leads on to:
(2) you mention Final Cut Pro - and I guess you are targeting the "i-Apps" that apple makes, don't exist on linux, yes, and what you are trying to imply, I believe, is that these apps don't count. Alright. But I don't see Adobe Photoshop, Macromedia Dreamweaver etc. available for Linux.
It's true there's a thorn in apple's side in terms fo lack of software, but it's not a matter of lack-of-GNU/FSF software, it's lack of software to compete with *Windows*.
I'm thinking that it's hard enough catching terrorists. it's plausible that when they are planning this they don't actually *think* their bombs won't go off, but if news that fingerprints can be lifted off it with machines like this etc. etc. they'll get less careless, and one less piece of evidence will be afvailable in the future.
Once an item is sold it is no longer their property and must be removed from the white list - with todays pos tech this would be absurdly easy to implement
the problem is, how do you enforce this? is there going to be a POS-terminal-checking task force that will conduct surprise random spot checks (think WMD inspection teams?) at Wal-Marts across the country?
And I want them to use Linux, because I, as a consumer, would rather have that than the lower quality, higher cost alternatives that exist.
But then you're not obliged to buy one of *every* device out there. You have the choice to just buy the ones that DO use Linux. The market pressure of people like you - assuming there is any superior value at all in having Linux, then the market pressure *will* develop - will alone be a reason for the manufacturers to use Linux instead of other "lower quality, higher cost alternatives".
The point is that OSS... we're not "beggars" who have to whore ourselves out just so that such-and-such a manufacturer will deign to grace us with the priviledge of having our stuff run on their machines. They can come to us on our terms - since, after all, they are using OUR stuff that we put out with very explicit, clear, and precise intentions and principles - or we don't have to care. We can buy other products.
If you *are* being serious - then why are you posting as an AC?
I'm hoping I'm not being trolled, but as a person who has had 75GXP failures AND still have a handful of (very lightly used) 75GXP drives, and really hope that it's not a 100% failure rate, and could do with I-am-willing-to-back-up-what-I-am-saying accounts, which is needless to say not the case with AC posts.
It could kill the WINE project. MS can slow/stop development by demanding (SCO-style?) WINE developers/contributors prove they have had no access to the leaked code...
Heck they can borrow the (incredibly insulting, I couldn't believe it when I first read it) SCO court filing, "the WINE project was the equivalent of a bicycle before the source code leak, but after the leak, the WINE project became a luxury cadillac + porsche + ferrari fused together, this is impossible without source code theft, we demand pinky to mouth one hundred billion dollars".
But then in a cost-benefit analysis it doesn't make sense.
I mean, so they can trace who leaked it. But unless they are doing it for the pleasure of catching someone leaking ("AHA!I KNEW IT! YOU GUYS LEAK OUR CODE!"), there's no net benefit in it because the source code would STILL HAVE BEEN LEAKED.
You're trading the "crown jewels" for the dubious value of catching a leak, and it's not like whoever leaked it can pay MS sufficient damages to make up for it.
Unless it's not a net-negative for MS to have the code leaked (which the black-helicopter crowd seems to have pointed out), it makes no sense.
i think one question is "how is the patch requirement being tested?". Does it check for the vulnerability itself (unlikely IMHO) or does it look up a list/test version of the OS revision/DLL in question (more likely?). It could well be just another example of more sloppy coding ("existing DLL version number not in table, even if lower than patch revision DLL, therefore must not require patch").
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it's too bad that fellow posted as an AC or I woulda modded him down. (well ok, I can't now that I've posted, but you get what I mean :-).
Losing half the bandwidth seems acceptable to me, though, I've seen a WDS network (with multiple Airport Extreme units) and it works pretty good. I guess half of 54 (or whatever the "real-world" vs theoretical bandwidth is) is still good enough.
What I haven't seen is multiple-vendor WDS implementations, though - anyone here got an apple WDS system working with a non-Apple one and can vouch about it?
It's a broadcom.
:-).
Apple worked out their own deal with Cisco to get LEAP support for their chipsets, even since the original Airport (Lucent-based) days. My personal guess is that this was separately licensed/paid for because the edu market is very important to Apple and plenty of institutions depend on LEAP for security (since it was, for a while at least, the only "safe" encryption once airsnort appeared. If anyone would be trying to crack WEP encryption, it'd be college students, innit?
does your netgear unit do WDS?
the d-link guy faces the same issue
i don't think "repeater" means "choose an SSID and extend range", i think it depends on WDS, which the current airport extreme stations already use.
.
i kinda said the same thing to this d-link guy earlier...
the existing airport extreme units do WDS (Wireless Distribution System) - I think this is what they mean by "repeater" mode.
In which case your D-link needs to be able to handle WDS, or else you can forget it (and, although I've seen an apple-only multiple-base-station WDS network in action, I haven't seen any mixed-vendor-equipment ones, so i have no idea how well interoperability will be even with stated WDS support on all equipment).
many firmware updates
actually, there've been at least two firmware upgrades for airport base stations that i can remember.
No, it isn't missing that much functionality, and it has additional functionality that the Airport does not have, plus it is from a good company, Asus, and will be supported well for years. Expect many, many firmware updates, and of course it costs 1/2 the price
I think not needing a separate AC adapter is very important in terms of "functionality", quite possibly more important than things that will appear as checkboxes in the web-based management GUI.
Considering firmware upgrades as a "feature" betrays a very geek-oriented mindset that most mainstream people don't have (I personally usually fail to resist the urge to update firmware/BIOS/etc when new releases come out, but I *know* it's not normal. And don't they always say, with respect to firmware upgrades, "if it ain't broke don't fix it"?).
I love my Asus P4P800Deluxe motherboard, but it's not like they're a perfect company either. IIRC, one of their founders (fairly recently) jumped ship, releasing a statement saying that management was no longer concerned about quality etc. (does anyone have a link to the story on either The Register or The Inquirer?).
brought the 330 to a couple of the Austin wireless meetings and it was a hit
I hate to say it but if you bring your unit to a meeting and someone brings an Airport Extreme, the latter will be more popular.
Of course, from price point alone, the number of people you meet there who go on to buy a unit for themselves, there'll probably be more Asus buyers.
to the specs posted -- "AirPort Extreme and AirPort Express can extend the range only of an AirPort Extreme or AirPort Express wireless network. " -- translation - if you want to use this for wireless iTunes streaming, then you will need to also have purchased an Apple airport in order
.
could it be a CYA so as not to have to worry about supporting who-knows-what stations out there?
THe Airport Extreme is based on the broadcom chipset IIRC (it's not like Apple has their own chip fabs), and so it shares the lineage of the linksys boxes etc.; how apple extreme base stations extend wireless range is through WDS, which last I checked is not an apple proprietary system.
of course until the machines show up and someone tries it with a non-apple box (and blogs about it), we can't really be sure..
Go to any center the collect used PC, and you can proably find 10 to 12 year old PC's that will boot. Stilldoing what it was designed to do.
not always. I don't think of this as a PC-vs-Mac divide, but a "build it to last" mentality that is being replaced by "shave off every last cent, and then some" modern design seems to worship. Look around and I think you'll agree that the products being manufactured today seem almost calculated to choke right after the warranty period. I remember the PCs of old - solid construction, tough materials. The plasticky crap in comparison nowadays? No contest.
10-12 year old PCs that still boot today? I'm not surprised. I'd be surprised 10-12 years down the road that anything made TODAY would boot, though.
3Com was born in tech, and will die if it strays too far away.
there needs to be a "+1, Poetic" mod option.
As much as you'd like onboard Intel, don't count on it in most boards when a manufacturer can save $3.
Personally i'm not so enthused about onboard Intel either. I'm sitting on (not literally) a dead intel port on my motherboard, which is a pain because it still identifies itself to the OS and there's no way to disable it in the BIOS. argh.
I second that. If you go to the linksys site there is a page with pictures that exists to tell you what version of the LNE100TX you have, which basically just cries out for a newer model number. ("LNE100TX-A, -B, or whatnot. 3Com, when they change their chipsets, do that - 3C905TX, 3C905BTX, 3C905CTX ... which i guess is one thing 3Com does right that the other networking companies might not (not that it does them all that much good)).
... I had to use an Intel eepro.
I personally ran into this problem when I was trying to get Solaris x86 installed on a machine and couldn't get networking even though the LNE100TX was on their list of supported network cards. I discovered it was for a previous version of the LNE100TX. the sorry thing was that the later revisions of the 3c905 were *also* not supported
But with Job's fantasy that two buttons are too difficult to grasp (though I've provided support for people who fit that categorization) it certainly didn't originate at Apple.
:-)
Personally, I always look at it the way I look at the Windows key on keyboards. How hard is it, really, to use Ctrl-Esc to get the Start menu to pop up? Why is the windows key necessary at all? I mean, IBM ThinkPads *don't* have the Windows key, and they do fine(*) - I personally think they are the finest x86 laptops out in the market, and it'd be a very very strange person who goes "What?! No Windows key on the keyboard?! I'm not buying it".
(*) Does anyone know if any of the ThinkPad design team people, say, used to be, I dunno, on the OS/2 team or otherwise have a major grudge against Microsoft?
I think that's the first time I've ever heard (apart from Final Cut Pro) an arguement that Apple has more applications than another system. If there's one thing that has been a thorn in Apple's side for so long it is the lack of software
Actually, it's true. Really. Think about it. Two things:
(1) With the underlying UNIX/Posix-ness of OS X, well, it's been a long time since I've seen a Makefile that doesn't have an OS X/darwin target. So, in essence, "all" linux apps are also OS X apps. But it is not so in the reverse direction. Which leads on to:
(2) you mention Final Cut Pro - and I guess you are targeting the "i-Apps" that apple makes, don't exist on linux, yes, and what you are trying to imply, I believe, is that these apps don't count. Alright. But I don't see Adobe Photoshop, Macromedia Dreamweaver etc. available for Linux.
It's true there's a thorn in apple's side in terms fo lack of software, but it's not a matter of lack-of-GNU/FSF software, it's lack of software to compete with *Windows*.
I'm thinking that it's hard enough catching terrorists. it's plausible that when they are planning this they don't actually *think* their bombs won't go off, but if news that fingerprints can be lifted off it with machines like this etc. etc. they'll get less careless, and one less piece of evidence will be afvailable in the future.
Once an item is sold it is no longer their property and must be removed from the white list - with todays pos tech this would be absurdly easy to implement
the problem is, how do you enforce this? is there going to be a POS-terminal-checking task force that will conduct surprise random spot checks (think WMD inspection teams?) at Wal-Marts across the country?
For those who want to know, I've just tested on IE/Mac v.5.2.2, and it's not vulnerable
You should upgrade, current release is 5.2.3. some kind of bug/hole in 5.2.2.
And I want them to use Linux, because I, as a consumer, would rather have that than the lower quality, higher cost alternatives that exist.
But then you're not obliged to buy one of *every* device out there. You have the choice to just buy the ones that DO use Linux. The market pressure of people like you - assuming there is any superior value at all in having Linux, then the market pressure *will* develop - will alone be a reason for the manufacturers to use Linux instead of other "lower quality, higher cost alternatives".
The point is that OSS... we're not "beggars" who have to whore ourselves out just so that such-and-such a manufacturer will deign to grace us with the priviledge of having our stuff run on their machines. They can come to us on our terms - since, after all, they are using OUR stuff that we put out with very explicit, clear, and precise intentions and principles - or we don't have to care. We can buy other products.
it's a reference to a movie with dustin hoffman, where dustin hoffman (due to mistaken identity) ends up getting tortured by a dentist
he kept getting asked "is it safe?"
If you *are* being serious - then why are you posting as an AC?
I'm hoping I'm not being trolled, but as a person who has had 75GXP failures AND still have a handful of (very lightly used) 75GXP drives, and really hope that it's not a 100% failure rate, and could do with I-am-willing-to-back-up-what-I-am-saying accounts, which is needless to say not the case with AC posts.
Could this potentially help the WINE Project
It could kill the WINE project. MS can slow/stop development by demanding (SCO-style?) WINE developers/contributors prove they have had no access to the leaked code...
Heck they can borrow the (incredibly insulting, I couldn't believe it when I first read it) SCO court filing, "the WINE project was the equivalent of a bicycle before the source code leak, but after the leak, the WINE project became a luxury cadillac + porsche + ferrari fused together, this is impossible without source code theft, we demand pinky to mouth one hundred billion dollars".
But then in a cost-benefit analysis it doesn't make sense.
I mean, so they can trace who leaked it. But unless they are doing it for the pleasure of catching someone leaking ("AHA!I KNEW IT! YOU GUYS LEAK OUR CODE!"), there's no net benefit in it because the source code would STILL HAVE BEEN LEAKED.
You're trading the "crown jewels" for the dubious value of catching a leak, and it's not like whoever leaked it can pay MS sufficient damages to make up for it.
Unless it's not a net-negative for MS to have the code leaked (which the black-helicopter crowd seems to have pointed out), it makes no sense.
Either the sword cuts both ways
You're assuming the law will be applied fairly and evenly.
i think one question is "how is the patch requirement being tested?". Does it check for the vulnerability itself (unlikely IMHO) or does it look up a list/test version of the OS revision/DLL in question (more likely?). It could well be just another example of more sloppy coding ("existing DLL version number not in table, even if lower than patch revision DLL, therefore must not require patch").
Hey man - this is a story that needs to be told. In detail.
You can't just tell us these things and NOT everything!!!