You can't muck about installing custom firmware on it, but the Airport Extreme has the same hardware that you mentioned. Not sure about the current gen one, but the original Extreme with wireless n capability had the same 480MHz broadcom chip, so the newer ones either have the same or better - the design hasn't changed much.
For a pretty simple and relatively powerful home router that will easily route at home speeds (200Mb/s on the WAN side without breaking sweat, easily at gigE speeds on the LAN side) the Airport Extreme is a pretty good deal. It's not even ludicrously expensive compared to similar specced models.
Pros: easy setup, small, silent, great performance, disk/printer sharing, great features Cons: only three LAN ports, need to use Airport Config utility (no web interface), no ability for custom firmware.
I also have the 4th gen Airport Extreme Dual Band and it has been rock solid on my high speed internet connection with all manner of clients. I'm not using a separate 2.4GHz AP, the AE is providing both 2.4 and 5GHz without issue, as well as hardwired ethernet connections to one or two devices in the house.
I share a house with 4 other people and it's been smooth sailing without lock up or wireless issues except for one laptop (running Vista, pre patch) that just would not connect to either the 2.4 or 5 radios on a/b/g or n. Never did sort that out no matter how much fiddling or upgrading we did to the settings on the AE or upgrades and so on on the Vista laptop. Other Vista machines have used it with no issue, so I put it down to hardware conflict with the specific laptop.
As far as ipv6 goes, I have the option for host/tunnel/router/off in the current firmware, but at the moment I am not using it - it's set to link-local only.
We're also sharing a hard drive from the USB port which has also been flawless. Last year we were using a drive on it for an Time Machine backup for one of my housemate's MBP, but she took that drive with her when she moved to AZ, so since then it's just been a big drive with a ton of stuff on it for XBMC. Neither setup has been a problem (despite the Time Machine config being unsupported officially).
My only gripes about the whole setup are that I feel they were slightly stingy on the LAN ports - only three instead of the usual 4 or more you get on most home kit, and the need to use the specific Airport Config utility, which means I cannot modify the settings from a Linux machine - this personally doesn't really affect me since there are a ton of Mac and Windows machines in the house, but it strikes me as a bit of an oversight that could be an issue for someone else (like the article writer perhaps).
If you have a mixed network with at least one Windows or Mac machine for configuration, it is an excellent home router. My other choice was going to be to build something running pfsense, but since the box has to live in someone else's room due to the location of the cable modem, I decided to go with something small and silent that would cause minimal disruption, and the AE has certainly been that.
Acer Iconia: nowhere near half the price. Cheapest I can find it online is £300 (to the iPad's £399 for similar spec), and that's from a retailer who is "discounting" it so it looks like it's £50 cheaper than the other online stores but charging £50 shipping. From the big name online stores (Amazon etc) it is slightly more.
Notion Ink Adam: unavailable online it seems. Can you even buy this? On the Notion Ink main page I have to log in as a customer if I want to see the store page! Great way to attract customers - don't even let them browse unless they register. I can see why it's selling so well.
Nook Colour: Nowhere near iPad specs, and still not nearly half the price.
Still waiting for a tablet that has the same features as the iPad for half the price.
Wow, you really are looking for ways to make the OP's statement valid when it simply does not hold.
Yes, if it costs less (and you're willing to spend the same money as an iPad) then you *could* spend the extra money on new functionality, but none of those cheaper tablets do - they're cheap because they all have less functionality.
Again, the key point is that "more expensive" is not synonymous with "less functional". The OP was simply taking an ignorant bash at Apple and was hoping to not get called on it because he couldn't back it up with facts.
You ought to be careful trying to insinuate that other people don;t understand the argument. It makes you look a little foolish, especially if you go for a generalisation. I'm a Mac and Linux user, so does my inability to think for myself and the fact that I'm a clueless, hipster newbie get cancelled out by the crumbs caught up in my neckbeard?
Generalisations help no one, especially not your argument.
Yes, but that's been offset by the collective 2.5 billion dollars Apple has paid out to developers on iOS. The $99 developer fee is a steal for the money iOS developers are making.
Right, so returning to my point - "what tablet can you buy that is equivalent to the iPad for half the price?" and your answer is one with a smaller screen, weaker CPU, no multitouch, a quarter the amount of storage space, and a battery with 2.5 times smaller capacity.
So, in other words, not that one. Whether it should be adequate for a kindergarden student is not the issue - the OP said very specifically:
And why an iPad? Is someone getting kickbacks from Apple? You can get a tablet that does the same stuff for less than half the price. Why pick the most expensive product?
Which is clearly not true. Many have tried, all have failed. Everyone crowed that the iPad was "so expensive" (despite the actual price of it when first announced being a lot less than the figures being touted as "most likely"), and the common slashdot suggestion was that any day there would be a cheaper, better, faster Android tablet - and it took until the release of the iPad 2 to get it, and all they managed to do was match the specs of the iPad 2. Couldn't even get it in cheaper.
It's taken until the Eee Pad Transformer to come in under the price of the iPad, and I'd say if the goal of the school was to equip their students with tablets they would have looked at all the options, including a fleet of those (they are $100 less at retail, per unit), but it's not just the raw hardware cost to be considered here.
Right, so by "less functional" you mean "more expensive", not "less functional". The definition of words is important, and you got caught saying something you can't back up with facts. More expensive does not mean less functional.
For the sake of this (and above) discussion, 'apple laptops' mean laptops which are running iOS. I'm not talking about the physical laptop here.
Apple laptops do not run iOS. Perhaps you meant OS X?
Your entire argument boils down to price - that if you don;t need a specific piece of Windows-only software, then Linux is cheaper. Potentially, sure, but the support costs are still non-zero, and you have to factor in hardware support as well as human support.
Apple make shiny and attractive products. However (especially their laptops) aren't as functional.
In your opinion, perhaps, but I challenge you to justify that statement. In what way aren't Macs as functional as other computers?
You can install any OS on them you like - Windows and Linux alike (you can even be all fancy and keep them in a VM if you choose, although it's not mandatory).
There's a whole host of software available for them, and pretty much the whole gamut of the open source arena is open to them, so that chalks off your Linux argument - which seems to be that Apple machines aren;t as functional as Linux PCs because they.... cost more? I'm not sure what you're driving at there.
They have the same ports, use the same protocols, read the same files...
Ignoring any arguments about whether the physical machines are worth the money (all-metal construction, no external doors to break off, magnetic power connectors [with improved design over older plug geometry]), it's not just the physical cost of the machines that factors into a large scale purchase like this - you have support costs to consider, of which Apple has a highly streamlined process (they've been selling to education for many years). Certainly they're not the only game in town for this but it's going to play a major role. Even an all-Linux deployment is going to cost money to support - sending the school IT department to a forum with a smile and some questions is no way to handle it. While the software procurement cost is lower, with slightly reduced hardware costs, it's nowhere near free.
I'm still struggling to think how a Mac is "less functional" than an equivalent PC running Windows or Linux. Other than the fact that the physical hardware costs a little more initially (and whether or not that is worth it is not a functional issue), what exactly makes them "less functional"?
I'm struggling to think, sitting as I am with multiple Macs, one of which is running Linux.
I guess the fact that the iMac's power button and USB ports are on the back and you have to reach round behind to plug them in, meaning you need to use a USB hub if you don;t want to have to fumble around back there to plug in a memory stick counts as less functional, but I'm really not seeing much else.
I don't see any oil companies taking massive amounts of my money and disappearing with it a la Solyndra.
Bwaahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Oh wait, you were serious, let me laugh even harder!
What's that expression about the material you get from sheep and the organs you use to perceive the world visually? That one.
Also, "Big Green" - you're seriously running with that?!
Take it from someone who paid rent with money from Big Oil funding work I was doing over the summer (so hardly your typical "green warrior"), your assertion that this mysterious and Machiavellian "Big Green" conspiracy is more of a threat than the petrochemical industry and gets even a *fraction* of the money that the oil companies receive is just laughable.
If you think any IT-related overall cost is solely for the minimum hardware for the number of users (in this case 250) then you're simply not cut out for this discussion.
The summary mentions hard cases, so that will add to the cost, as well as the support cost and spares, and tablets for staff and so on.
It's not just $200,000/250. How laughably simplistic.
What would your comment have been if they had handed out Android tablets instead?
How is this different from furnishing a computer room with new computers? Except now, the computer room is the main classroom.
Maybe the district had a good experience with Apple, hence deciding to go with iPads this time? Why does it have to be some conspiracy or "cult related"? Is it possible to select Apple from a list of choices *without* being accused of "falling for the marketing" or accused of taking kickbacks? Oh this is slashdot, of course not.
What tablet can you buy that is equivalent to the iPad for half the price?
The best I've seen is the Eee Pad Transformer, and it's nowhere near half the price.
In classic slashdot form, this thread is "this is a huge waste of money" because it's the iPad. If it was about Android tablets, or the One Laptop Per Child scheme with Linux/ChromeOS running on them it's "another positive step towards open source acceptance!" when the issues are essentially the same.
I don't necessarily agree with kindergarteners getting them - possibly a little too young, but as a replacement for high school text books I think one tablet (of some description) per student is almost inevitable.
Yes, you could claim that - but this thread clearly does *not* want to criticise Person B - just look at all the "this is why I have an Android phone" and "this is what you get when choosing Apple".
I'm not calling Apple all sweetness and light here, but to try and claim the moral high ground by saying "this is why you use Android" is simply hypocritical. That was my argument, which has been very well demonstrated by many, many posts in the story comments as a whole.
The term you are looking for is "being facetious", and yes; it is an effective debating technique as a counter to hyperbole, even if it is a little bit lazy.
You'll notice a subtle difference. It would be proving his point if my argument was "everyone else does it too, therefore why pick on Apple?", but that is not my argument. Mine is "everyone else does it too, so why *only* condemn Apple; everyone here is to blame and to somehow hold Android/Google/Samsung as somehow holding the moral highground is disingenuous".
Subtle, but not proving his point. I'm not trying to justify Apple at all - I am no fan of outsourcing and globalisation and the seeming race to extreme capitalism, but to selectively pick on specific companies is just hypocrisy.
Let's say Microsoft runs some retail stores. I can now stand in them and talk to all their customers about anything I want, including criticising Microsoft.
Since they're now blocked by First Amendment issues they also cannot refuse to sell my piece of software in my store if I want them to (exactly like this app in Apple's app store that you are claiming Apple should not be able to remove due to First Amendment issues).
I could also get a job in Microsoft's stores, and then spend all day telling the customers how terrible MS is, and they cannot stop me because the First Amendment protects me in this situation. If they fire me for this I can sue them for their unconstitutional sacking.
Starting to see the issues now?
What happens if their marketshare drops? Are they suddenly free of the first amendment and then become free to decide what to carry in their store?
Slashdot Mirror
You can't muck about installing custom firmware on it, but the Airport Extreme has the same hardware that you mentioned. Not sure about the current gen one, but the original Extreme with wireless n capability had the same 480MHz broadcom chip, so the newer ones either have the same or better - the design hasn't changed much.
For a pretty simple and relatively powerful home router that will easily route at home speeds (200Mb/s on the WAN side without breaking sweat, easily at gigE speeds on the LAN side) the Airport Extreme is a pretty good deal. It's not even ludicrously expensive compared to similar specced models.
Pros: easy setup, small, silent, great performance, disk/printer sharing, great features
Cons: only three LAN ports, need to use Airport Config utility (no web interface), no ability for custom firmware.
I agree with this post.
I also have the 4th gen Airport Extreme Dual Band and it has been rock solid on my high speed internet connection with all manner of clients. I'm not using a separate 2.4GHz AP, the AE is providing both 2.4 and 5GHz without issue, as well as hardwired ethernet connections to one or two devices in the house.
I share a house with 4 other people and it's been smooth sailing without lock up or wireless issues except for one laptop (running Vista, pre patch) that just would not connect to either the 2.4 or 5 radios on a/b/g or n. Never did sort that out no matter how much fiddling or upgrading we did to the settings on the AE or upgrades and so on on the Vista laptop. Other Vista machines have used it with no issue, so I put it down to hardware conflict with the specific laptop.
As far as ipv6 goes, I have the option for host/tunnel/router/off in the current firmware, but at the moment I am not using it - it's set to link-local only.
We're also sharing a hard drive from the USB port which has also been flawless. Last year we were using a drive on it for an Time Machine backup for one of my housemate's MBP, but she took that drive with her when she moved to AZ, so since then it's just been a big drive with a ton of stuff on it for XBMC. Neither setup has been a problem (despite the Time Machine config being unsupported officially).
My only gripes about the whole setup are that I feel they were slightly stingy on the LAN ports - only three instead of the usual 4 or more you get on most home kit, and the need to use the specific Airport Config utility, which means I cannot modify the settings from a Linux machine - this personally doesn't really affect me since there are a ton of Mac and Windows machines in the house, but it strikes me as a bit of an oversight that could be an issue for someone else (like the article writer perhaps).
If you have a mixed network with at least one Windows or Mac machine for configuration, it is an excellent home router. My other choice was going to be to build something running pfsense, but since the box has to live in someone else's room due to the location of the cable modem, I decided to go with something small and silent that would cause minimal disruption, and the AE has certainly been that.
Acer Iconia: nowhere near half the price. Cheapest I can find it online is £300 (to the iPad's £399 for similar spec), and that's from a retailer who is "discounting" it so it looks like it's £50 cheaper than the other online stores but charging £50 shipping. From the big name online stores (Amazon etc) it is slightly more.
Notion Ink Adam: unavailable online it seems. Can you even buy this? On the Notion Ink main page I have to log in as a customer if I want to see the store page! Great way to attract customers - don't even let them browse unless they register. I can see why it's selling so well.
Nook Colour: Nowhere near iPad specs, and still not nearly half the price.
Still waiting for a tablet that has the same features as the iPad for half the price.
Wow, you really are looking for ways to make the OP's statement valid when it simply does not hold.
Yes, if it costs less (and you're willing to spend the same money as an iPad) then you *could* spend the extra money on new functionality, but none of those cheaper tablets do - they're cheap because they all have less functionality.
Again, the key point is that "more expensive" is not synonymous with "less functional". The OP was simply taking an ignorant bash at Apple and was hoping to not get called on it because he couldn't back it up with facts.
You ought to be careful trying to insinuate that other people don;t understand the argument. It makes you look a little foolish, especially if you go for a generalisation. I'm a Mac and Linux user, so does my inability to think for myself and the fact that I'm a clueless, hipster newbie get cancelled out by the crumbs caught up in my neckbeard?
Generalisations help no one, especially not your argument.
There's plenty of free software on the App Store. That includes GPLv2 licensed stuff.
It was only $4.99 briefly to get around the sarbanes-oxley thing. Xcode is free again in Lion.
Yes, but that's been offset by the collective 2.5 billion dollars Apple has paid out to developers on iOS. The $99 developer fee is a steal for the money iOS developers are making.
Right, so returning to my point - "what tablet can you buy that is equivalent to the iPad for half the price?" and your answer is one with a smaller screen, weaker CPU, no multitouch, a quarter the amount of storage space, and a battery with 2.5 times smaller capacity.
So, in other words, not that one. Whether it should be adequate for a kindergarden student is not the issue - the OP said very specifically:
And why an iPad? Is someone getting kickbacks from Apple? You can get a tablet that does the same stuff for less than half the price. Why pick the most expensive product?
Which is clearly not true. Many have tried, all have failed. Everyone crowed that the iPad was "so expensive" (despite the actual price of it when first announced being a lot less than the figures being touted as "most likely"), and the common slashdot suggestion was that any day there would be a cheaper, better, faster Android tablet - and it took until the release of the iPad 2 to get it, and all they managed to do was match the specs of the iPad 2. Couldn't even get it in cheaper.
It's taken until the Eee Pad Transformer to come in under the price of the iPad, and I'd say if the goal of the school was to equip their students with tablets they would have looked at all the options, including a fleet of those (they are $100 less at retail, per unit), but it's not just the raw hardware cost to be considered here.
Right, so by "less functional" you mean "more expensive", not "less functional". The definition of words is important, and you got caught saying something you can't back up with facts. More expensive does not mean less functional.
For the sake of this (and above) discussion, 'apple laptops' mean laptops which are running iOS. I'm not talking about the physical laptop here.
Apple laptops do not run iOS. Perhaps you meant OS X?
Your entire argument boils down to price - that if you don;t need a specific piece of Windows-only software, then Linux is cheaper. Potentially, sure, but the support costs are still non-zero, and you have to factor in hardware support as well as human support.
Apple make shiny and attractive products. However (especially their laptops) aren't as functional.
In your opinion, perhaps, but I challenge you to justify that statement. In what way aren't Macs as functional as other computers?
You can install any OS on them you like - Windows and Linux alike (you can even be all fancy and keep them in a VM if you choose, although it's not mandatory).
There's a whole host of software available for them, and pretty much the whole gamut of the open source arena is open to them, so that chalks off your Linux argument - which seems to be that Apple machines aren;t as functional as Linux PCs because they.... cost more? I'm not sure what you're driving at there.
They have the same ports, use the same protocols, read the same files...
Ignoring any arguments about whether the physical machines are worth the money (all-metal construction, no external doors to break off, magnetic power connectors [with improved design over older plug geometry]), it's not just the physical cost of the machines that factors into a large scale purchase like this - you have support costs to consider, of which Apple has a highly streamlined process (they've been selling to education for many years). Certainly they're not the only game in town for this but it's going to play a major role. Even an all-Linux deployment is going to cost money to support - sending the school IT department to a forum with a smile and some questions is no way to handle it. While the software procurement cost is lower, with slightly reduced hardware costs, it's nowhere near free.
I'm still struggling to think how a Mac is "less functional" than an equivalent PC running Windows or Linux. Other than the fact that the physical hardware costs a little more initially (and whether or not that is worth it is not a functional issue), what exactly makes them "less functional"?
I'm struggling to think, sitting as I am with multiple Macs, one of which is running Linux.
I guess the fact that the iMac's power button and USB ports are on the back and you have to reach round behind to plug them in, meaning you need to use a USB hub if you don;t want to have to fumble around back there to plug in a memory stick counts as less functional, but I'm really not seeing much else.
I don't see any oil companies taking massive amounts of my money and disappearing with it a la Solyndra.
Bwaahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Oh wait, you were serious, let me laugh even harder!
What's that expression about the material you get from sheep and the organs you use to perceive the world visually? That one.
Also, "Big Green" - you're seriously running with that?!
Take it from someone who paid rent with money from Big Oil funding work I was doing over the summer (so hardly your typical "green warrior"), your assertion that this mysterious and Machiavellian "Big Green" conspiracy is more of a threat than the petrochemical industry and gets even a *fraction* of the money that the oil companies receive is just laughable.
Cool story bro.
Perhaps you needed an iPad as a kid?
If you think any IT-related overall cost is solely for the minimum hardware for the number of users (in this case 250) then you're simply not cut out for this discussion.
The summary mentions hard cases, so that will add to the cost, as well as the support cost and spares, and tablets for staff and so on.
It's not just $200,000/250. How laughably simplistic.
What would your comment have been if they had handed out Android tablets instead?
How is this different from furnishing a computer room with new computers? Except now, the computer room is the main classroom.
Maybe the district had a good experience with Apple, hence deciding to go with iPads this time? Why does it have to be some conspiracy or "cult related"? Is it possible to select Apple from a list of choices *without* being accused of "falling for the marketing" or accused of taking kickbacks? Oh this is slashdot, of course not.
You can?
What tablet can you buy that is equivalent to the iPad for half the price?
The best I've seen is the Eee Pad Transformer, and it's nowhere near half the price.
In classic slashdot form, this thread is "this is a huge waste of money" because it's the iPad. If it was about Android tablets, or the One Laptop Per Child scheme with Linux/ChromeOS running on them it's "another positive step towards open source acceptance!" when the issues are essentially the same.
I don't necessarily agree with kindergarteners getting them - possibly a little too young, but as a replacement for high school text books I think one tablet (of some description) per student is almost inevitable.
The UK is not America. Showing a bit of flesh in a newspaper or magazine does not create a puritan reaction of horror from conservative busybodies.
You can buy The Sun, The Star etc with no restriction at any store or newspaper kiosk.
Yes, you could claim that - but this thread clearly does *not* want to criticise Person B - just look at all the "this is why I have an Android phone" and "this is what you get when choosing Apple".
I'm not calling Apple all sweetness and light here, but to try and claim the moral high ground by saying "this is why you use Android" is simply hypocritical. That was my argument, which has been very well demonstrated by many, many posts in the story comments as a whole.
The term you are looking for is "being facetious", and yes; it is an effective debating technique as a counter to hyperbole, even if it is a little bit lazy.
You'll notice a subtle difference. It would be proving his point if my argument was "everyone else does it too, therefore why pick on Apple?", but that is not my argument. Mine is "everyone else does it too, so why *only* condemn Apple; everyone here is to blame and to somehow hold Android/Google/Samsung as somehow holding the moral highground is disingenuous".
Subtle, but not proving his point. I'm not trying to justify Apple at all - I am no fan of outsourcing and globalisation and the seeming race to extreme capitalism, but to selectively pick on specific companies is just hypocrisy.
Also, you forgot to log in.
I'm sorry, what?
Ok, let's take your hypothetical onwards.
Let's say Microsoft runs some retail stores. I can now stand in them and talk to all their customers about anything I want, including criticising Microsoft.
Since they're now blocked by First Amendment issues they also cannot refuse to sell my piece of software in my store if I want them to (exactly like this app in Apple's app store that you are claiming Apple should not be able to remove due to First Amendment issues).
I could also get a job in Microsoft's stores, and then spend all day telling the customers how terrible MS is, and they cannot stop me because the First Amendment protects me in this situation. If they fire me for this I can sue them for their unconstitutional sacking.
Starting to see the issues now?
What happens if their marketshare drops? Are they suddenly free of the first amendment and then become free to decide what to carry in their store?
That is a very slippery slope to start perching on, and not one really worth taking just because you don't happen to like the corporation in question.
It specifically refers to the government for a good reason.
You can, of course, publish it as an HTML5 app on the iPhone - the method that predates the App Store and is still fully supported.
To be accurate, the phrase is "it may harm your defence if, when questioned, you do not mention something you later rely on in court".
It's not just a simple "he didn't say anything, so he's clearly guilty".
Whooooooooooosh!
I think you missed the sarcasm. I'm not sure I could have bludgeoned you over the head any more firmly with it. I might have injured someone.