Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

Apple's New, Improved Airport 259

Posted by timothy from the a-bump-in-specs-beats-a-bump-on-the-head dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple's New, Improved Airport More

Apple's New, Improved Airport

Comments Filter:

  • Link (Score:2, Interesting)

    by PHanT0 ( 148738 )

    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?
    • It's been featured on slashdot before - I'm sure that typing in something in the search box at the bottom of the page would have been easier than replying.
    • http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010628. html

    • Re:Link (Score:3, Informative)

      by rf600r ( 236081 )
      yes [wwc.edu]
      • Thanks rf600r and zaren, much obliged.

        A lot better response then "Alex Chiu can't help you"... I didn't know if I read the article posting here or elsewhere and just so you get some idea... "airport" returns 53 hits, with the short titles that come of /. articles, that doesn't help at all.
  • Now if only they would make one of these damn 802.11 devices with a stock or optional antenna rig that would actually span the entirety of the eight of a two story house, and the dimensions of your standard lot... That would be nice.
    • The linksys BEFW11S4, the antennae are detachable. You can put another antenna on it with no problem whatsoever. Just need the right end and crimp set for your antenna cable!

    • Re:Runway Length? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by option8 ( 16509 )
      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.

      • Re:Runway Length? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by spongman ( 182339 )
        I imagine he has interference in the form of walls. it depends what your house is made of, of course, but walls and floors can seriously diminish the range of the signal.
        • The range of my base station is exactly 4" too short for using the laptop in bed, I have to sit with the laptop on my lap, tilted so that the antennae is 'just that bit closer'.

          (It will actually 'work' without tilting it, its just that the signal strength fluctuates between 0% and 5% all the time, resulting in constant re-acquires, tilting the laptop that extra couple of inchs closer gives me a few more % of signal strength and a reliable(ish) connection)

          One day I suppose I should move the base station, or the bed, or both :)

          • try rotating the access-point (and the arial, if it's not fixed position) through various axes. i found that just flipping mine around gave me an extra couple of feet.
      • The last time I checked, football fields don't have walls, insulation, eletrical devices, and other junk scattered all over it. Consider yourself lucky if that is the case...
  • better non-Mac PC integration

    Uh, I thought all PCs were "non-Mac". That's why they're a "PC". Did I miss something?

    • Re:Huh? (Score:2, Informative)

      by InstantCool ( 19982 )
      Since PC stands for Personal Computer, a Mac still qualifies as a PC.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I think some of you are really tooooo far into geekdom.

      When one says "PC" is the Mac the first thing to pop into your mind? Not for me... I think in terms of two classifications for desktop machines (as does the general non-Slashdot public in my estimation):

      1) PC - Anything running Windows, Unix, Linux, etc... The "beige-box" desktop computer.
      2) Mac - Anything Apple.
  • You'd think Apple would change the name of airport... I mean, how do they sell the thing?

    Apple: "You REALLY want out great product, Airport!"
    Customer: "Uhh, airport? What's that? Wireless networking that examines all my files for contraband, won't work if there's even a plastic knife in the room, comes with free national guard troopers to keep me from using it for illegal purposes, and is the source of disaster and death? NO THANK YOU!"

    How about naming it... Spaceport!
  • is if the National Guard is going to provide security?
    • What do you think the 128 bit W.E.P. is... It is the security equivelent of the National Guard... If you want real security you send in the Marines or Rangers (I mean 802.3x, or IPsec with AES CTR Mode)

  • This is good news (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Raven42rac ( 448205 )
    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.

  • AOL support (Score:5, Interesting)

    by crow ( 16139 ) on Tuesday November 13, 2001 @04:14PM (#2560245) Homepage Journal
    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)?

    • Re:AOL support (Score:5, Funny)

      by ZoneGray ( 168419 ) on Tuesday November 13, 2001 @04:36PM (#2560373) Homepage
      Well, "AOL Support" could mean that the setup program installs AOL software, creates a desktop icon, makes aol.com your home page, and offers to sign you up for an account.

      Gotta learn to read through the marketing-speak.

    • Re:AOL support (Score:4, Informative)

      by mactari ( 220786 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `krowfur'> on Tuesday November 13, 2001 @04:57PM (#2560491) Homepage
      No probably. Read the FAQ, natch. :^)
      http://www.apple.com/airport/faq/

      Q: Why didn't AOL work with AirPort before?
      A: AOL has a unique login protocol, which kept AirPort from being able to establish an AOL connection. Working together, Apple and AOL have devised a method to allow AOL customers to use AirPort. In fact, AirPort is currently the only wireless solution that works with AOL.
    • How would this differ than just using AOL over a standard TCP/IP connection? My LinkSys cable/DSl 4 port gateway/router lets me connect to AOL just fine. I just have my AOL client set to use TCP/IP instead of a dialup connection.

      Luckily I don't have to use AOL all that often.

      • Re:AOL support (Score:3, Informative)

        by Sentry21 ( 8183 )
        How would this differ than just using AOL over a standard TCP/IP connection? My LinkSys cable/DSl 4 port gateway/router lets me connect to AOL just fine. I just have my AOL client set to use TCP/IP instead of a dialup connection.

        The difference is that the Airport can dial-in to AOL to login, while your use is over TCP/IP.

        --Dan
    • first time I've heard of a home router product supporting AOL

      Could someone be a bit more clear here? I set up for my GF an Airport AP (as she has a iBook). She also has an AOL account and does most of her internet stuff through AOL.

      I have *never* had an issue with getting her AOL connection to work with Airport when she is over.

      But then again, I connect the AP to the LAN and have a DSL connection.
      Could the issue be with the authentication on a dial-up? (I have never used the modem half of it.)
      Or is it because I have a different machine doing the firewall/routing?

  • Linksys good? Not necessarily.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by yack0 ( 2832 ) <keimel@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday November 13, 2001 @04:14PM (#2560250) Homepage
    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
    • quoth yack0:

      While linksys is cheap, they won't support anything but windows users.

      if they supported every platform out there, do you think their products would still be cheap? personally, i like it when companies offer good products with few frills and low prices.
    • With MacOS X you can, though I had to hunt around a few Linux sites before I found the answer. Basically you first have to remove the admin password and then use tftp as normal and then replace the admin password once the firmware upgrade has been done ( this worked for me ). The same approach can be used for pre-MacOS X machines if you find yourself a tftp client for the OS.
    • here [linksys.com]

      that link is very long, not sure if it will be good.
      I went into there knowledge base and found mac support.
      • I do so wish moderators would read links before modding. The linked page only has to do with making their router play nice with an Airport base station, which is not really "Mac".

        Linksys really is ass on a stick though. They don't guarantee anything beyond the ability to route HTTP, and all that I have seen from them has been finicky and kept rather short uptimes.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Their low-end model without a modem can only be configured over the USB port, requiring at least W98 or W2K. I got one last month and just used my desktop box at work to set it up. FWIW, their cheap AP is an OEM solution from Atmel, but they have a lot better support than Netgear's version. Linksys has the 1.4 version of the firmware on their web site (security fixes AND the ability to do wireless bridging), and removable antennas. Netgear's doesn't even say on the box that it requires a Windows machine with USB.

      FWIW, Addtron and SMC also make APs with this particular chipset. I don't know anything about SMC's, but Addtron's looks like a toy.

  • More security improvements (Score:5, Informative)

    by musicmaster ( 237156 ) on Tuesday November 13, 2001 @04:14PM (#2560254) Homepage
    They have done more than add 128 bits WEP. 128 bits WEP is still easy to crack.

    But Apple has added Radius and a firewall too. See their FAQ at http://www.apple.com/airport/faq/ [apple.com].
  • I'm still of the school that security should take place higher up on the OSI model.

    I don't like the idea of replacing hardware to ensure security.

    We need a secure DHCP variant and encrypted IP, not open DHCP and scrambled network frames. The reasons are numerous. Security should be handled in IP, not in hardware.
    • So use IPSec. That's what it's for. And IPV6 has IPSec built in, whenever it starts becoming mainstream.
      • 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.
    • Yeah, I feel your pain...

      Still, ARP spoofing is a real problem, and 128-bit WEP means you have to be determined to crack the MAC layer, i.e. not just wardriving

      It will have to do until 802.11x is widely available. And considering how much more it costs to do AES in CBC mode at 11 Mbps than it does to do an RC4 stream cipher, there might still be some use for 128-bit WEP even after that.

      If all you're trying to do is prevent random drive-by ARP spoofs on your home WLAN, 128-bit WEP should be more than adequate. If you're trying to protect the locations of your atomic weapon systems, please use a stronger cryptosystem.
    • Apple's Airport base station: $299
    • Linksys 802.11b base station: about $150
    The Airport base station, as mentioned, does have a built-in modem so that you can share a dialup connection, but for most people, you would pretty much want either a modem to share OR an Ethernet connection to share, so having both is kind of overkill.
    • Having both is very cool for portability. I have one of the original Apple Airports, and I use it at home and at work on an Ethernet-based Internet connection, and at my girlfriend's apartment and during presentations with a modem-based Internet connection.

      My only complaint is that it's awkward shape makes it hard to fit into my bag.

      • the stupid shape (Score:2, Insightful)

        by timothy ( 36799 )
        Sgifford wrote: "Having both is very cool for portability. I have one of the original Apple Airports, and I use it at home and at work on an Ethernet-based Internet connection, and at my girlfriend's apartment and during presentations with a modem-based Internet connection.

        My only complaint is that it's awkward shape makes it hard to fit into my bag."

        hear hear! I went with the linksys (the one with the 4-port switch, too) in part because it seemed more stable sitting on the top of a PC case than the Airport does, and in part because I had immediate need of the additional ethernet connections.

        If apple would make a nice g4-translucent case but at least vaguely rectangular, with sturdy and stable rubber feet, and all the features of the current (new) AP, I would have bought that instead, and an additional little tiny linksys 10/100 switch in addition.

        Oh well -- sometimes Apple makes aesthetically pleasing decisions, and sometimes they make aesthetically pleasing *and* practical decision. The shape of the adapter on my iBook unfortunately falls only under the first of these.

        timothy

  • Linksys (Score:2, Interesting)

    by LinuxOnHal ( 315199 )
    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.

    • Re:Linksys (Score:2, Informative)

      by darkov ( 261309 )
      Actually, they do support ethernet-ethernet wireless bridging. I have a Win box, a linux box and a Powerbook all hooked up to the base station with a cheap 8 port router and it works a treat. I use it to do my NAT. Also will serve DHCP too. What bothers me is that they don't have a DNS server in the box. That would make it much more useful. I have to use my ADSL modem to do that.

  • Airport is great technology, but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nbvb ( 32836 ) on Tuesday November 13, 2001 @04:17PM (#2560266) Journal
    The thing that makes Airport so WONDERFUL is the integration on both their desktops and laptops.

    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 [linksys.com] 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 /C revision of the card was secretly 128-bit. :-)
    • Amazon [amazon.com] here lists the Linksys router/access point for $180, the Netgear variant for $225, and a SMC variation for $190. There's also D-Link's, for $195. They offer more ports (3-4), a print server, some have modems, but unles I'm much mistaken, none support more than 10 wireless users. Apple's does :) Oh, and Apple's was first, even if it is higher priced, by now. What Apple needs to add to it's lineup is an Apple print server... then when you hook it up to the Airport, you get a wireless print server, for 'free' :)
  • WEP is Wired Equivalency Protocol, it is like running a wire to your neighborhood script kiddy.

    Ignore WEP and use real security on your link. There are many options.

    • How about RADIUS authentication [apple.com]?

      You should take a look at Apple's FAQ. It's all in there.

      • If you've got more than a handfull of users, then you want RADIUS or something like it to authenticate users/systems as they connect.

        RADIUS is just an authentication protocol, it doesn't provide privacy. Sript kiddies will have to pretend to be using systems that have active sessions. Ok, the script kiddie may not know what's going on, their scripts will have to pretend.

        RADIUS may work, but you've still got to replace WEP.

    • From the AirPort FAQ [apple.com]:

      Q: Which of the new features are available to existing AirPort customers through a software upgrade, and which are available only with the new AirPort Base Station?

      A: Upgrading your system to AirPort 2.0 software will provide additional functionality to both your card and your base station. Your AirPort Card will be upgraded to support 128-bit encryption and will be compatible with Cisco access points using LEAP.

      LEAP is apparently a good enough add-on to 128-bit WEP that Cisco uses it on their internal network. As I understand it, LEAP constantly changes the WEP key, which prevents it from staying constant long enough to be decoded through a sniffer attack.

      Unfortunately, this is only Cisco LEAP client support, so only the AirPort cards inside Macs and Powerbooks will be able to benefit from this, and not the base stations.

  • WEP Security (Score:5, Informative)

    by rlp ( 11898 ) on Tuesday November 13, 2001 @04:21PM (#2560289)
    A group of AT&T researchers broke WEP security (even the 128 bit version). See paper here [rice.edu]. They recommend treating 802.11 connections as open and using things like SSL and SSH to protect sensitive data.

    • Re:WEP Security (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jandrese ( 485 )
      Thats what we do. Use 128 bit passwords, but then treat the link as insecure. Remember that good security comes in layers. The 128 bit WEP may not provide foolproof security, but it is certainly a deterrent to attack, and if you only run VPN traffic over the network you add yet another layer the cracker must compromise, and if you require that everything connected to the network have a good firewall (with a specified standard ruleset that allows only VPN traffic, and only to the IPs and MACs that we're expecting) then you add yet another layer of security.

      What I really want is for the cards to rotate the WEP codes on a regular basis (once ever second for instance) automatically. I actually implemented this on our WaveLans with FreeBSD, but unfortunatly it prevented Windows users from connecting because the Windows drivers weren't nearly as automatable. It also opens a big can of worms with keeping the machines synchronized (ntp helps, but what happens when someone goes away for awhile and their clock drifts?) and coming up with a way of producing the same pseudo-random number on all machines without it being predictable since you obviously can't send the encryption key over the air. This would obviously work a lot better if the cards themselves implemented it and just ran it transparently with only a little bit of extra configuration data (a 128 bit or bigger seed).

      • Re:WEP Security (Score:4, Informative)

        by BJH ( 11355 ) on Tuesday November 13, 2001 @09:04PM (#2561341)
        Since it requires somewhere in the region of a gigabyte of data to go over the wireless network before it's possible to crack 128-bit WEP, I suggest you change the key update interval to something a little more realistic.

        Since 801.11b runs at a maximum of 11Mbps (theoretically, anyway - it's more like 3-5Mbps), it's easy to work out that an attacker would require a minimum of:

        (1000 * 8) / 11 / 60 = 12.1 minutes

        in order to compromise a fully-saturated WEP connection. (In actual fact, it'd take a lot longer than that for most networks.)

        So, set the key to update every ten minutes, and you're pretty much guaranteed to be safe.

  • Other companies... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wal ( 56225 ) on Tuesday November 13, 2001 @04:23PM (#2560294) Homepage Journal
    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).
    • Actually, the Orinoco branded "Residential Gateway" was really just an airport without the cool apple software. If you ran the apple software, though, it worked with it just fine. The problem with the first generation stuff was that WEP was enabled out of box and that required some setting up. Consumer products should just work out of the box without any configuration besides plugging it in. The next generation products are broadcasting their SSIDs and have encryption disabled. And they all have two RJ45 ports. It's worthless without them as far as I'm concerned.

      • Re:Other companies... (Score:2, Informative)

        by Arkham ( 10779 )
        This is true, but the Orinoco Residential Gateway did not come out until one year (to the day) after Apple released the AirPort Base Station.

        Apple was first to the wireless market with affordable bases by a year, and first with laptops that had built-in antennae for even longer.

  • Still needs something... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FrankieBoy ( 452356 ) on Tuesday November 13, 2001 @04:23PM (#2560299)
    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...

    • Here it is... (Score:2, Informative)

      by FrankieBoy ( 452356 )
      Here [macintouch.com] is a great site with all the info on modifying your base station for extended range.

    • Re:Still needs something... (Score:4, Informative)

      by jaoswald ( 63789 ) on Tuesday November 13, 2001 @05:12PM (#2560582) Homepage
      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...

      802.11a isn't something you just "apply." It is a different range of spectrum entirely (5 GHz, not 2.5 GHz), requiring a totally new RF design.
    • I just added an external antenna [cc-inc.com] to my airport last week - it was pretty easy; it took about 15-20 minutes.
      A few things to keep in mind if you do it:

      Carve a big chunk out of that black ring that supports everything - that plug takes more space than you might first guess.

      Have the cable exit the outer shell on the other side of the airport from where the cable connector is - it is much easier to run the cable around between the black framework and the outer shell instead of trying to get a tight enough bend in it to exit near the jack

      Be careful not to scratch the inside of the plastic shell - scratches really show up

      Signal strength seems much higher - I haven't gone for a long walk with my laptop yet, but I am at full strength in my yard rather than 50% strength.

    • 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.

      As someone else noted, this requires new RF design in the product. However, further, there is no backward compatibility for 802.11b in 802.11a. Want your wireless network to go from 11Mbps to 54 Mbps? You gotta upgrade all your cards, not just the base station.

  • What a scary combination of words at this time...
  • i was under the impression that 802.11b had no theoretical limit on the number of clients that can be connected simultaneously. the only limits being shared bandwidth and IP addresses.

    can anyone clarify?

  • Incredible bargain... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by supabeast! ( 84658 ) on Tuesday November 13, 2001 @04:59PM (#2560503)
    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.

    • Well, I was wondering that too, but in the tech specs it states that you still need at least one Mac around to set up the base station. So without software to set it up from a PC, I'd say they're not really marketing to the PC-only crowd just yet.

      (from http://www.apple.com/airport/specs.html [apple.com])
      System Requirements
      For PC users
      • At least one AirPort-enabled Apple computer (to set up the base station)
      • A PC with a Wi-Fi-certified IEEE 802.11b wireless card
    • Intel and Dell are both offering a router that is easily configurable via http and doesn't require proprietary software to be installed. It also has a "firewall", two RJ45 ports, etc.

      And it's only $289 from Dell.
    • 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
    • should Apple marketing be pushing these to non-Apple users?

      Yes. They should. They are pretty. PC users don't often get to have a bit of pretty hardware on their desks. This is VERY pretty. Then all their other stuff will look cruddy and they'll feel the itch to buy an apple machine just to have it look pretty.

      Its also pretty good technically... but hey - pretty wins every time huh?

  • Apple's Supplier (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Just so everyone knows, Apple gets their wireless LAN stuff from Agere Systems (ORiNOCO). Oh, and here is a little press release [yahoo.com] too.

  • Firmware Updates? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by uslinux.net ( 152591 )
    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?

    • Re:Firmware Updates? (Score:3, Informative)

      by BWJones ( 18351 )
      From Apples website: AirPort 2.0 software
      Compatible with all versions of AirPort Cards and Base Stations, AirPort 2.0 software brings enhanced features to AirPort wireless networks. AirPort 2.0 software can upgrade original AirPort Cards to support 128-bit encryption (encryption for original AirPort Base Stations will remain 40-bit). Software Update will auto install AirPort 2.0.

      Basically, as I remember from a briefing, I think you get all the new features except the 128 bit encryption. Which makes sense, but should also be relatively easy to get around with an Orinocco gold card transplant.

      http://www.apple.com/airport/

    • Re:Firmware Updates? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Arkham ( 10779 )
      The new AirPort software showed up on my OSX 10.1 Software Update panel today. I installed it, and when I ran the admin utility it offered to upgrade my base station. I did, and now I am running the newest software on it.

      Apple really did it right with OSX's networking. Plug in Ethernet, and the Mac uses it. Unplug it, and it automatically switches to wireless, within a second or two. It's very smooth.

  • I didn't see it mentioned, but according to Apple's web site [apple.com] 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!
  • Cool, fifteen seconds as opposed to five. :)
  • One of the problems with the original Airport was its lack of out-of-the-box range. For those of us who don't want to play with mounting antennae, the Airport had below average range of around 100 feet (although, to be fair, my experiences with 3Com's expensive AirConnect hub were even worse). My best experiences, so far, have been with the relatively inexpensive Orinoco access point which, while it didn't include a built-in hub or firewall, had range close to 450 feet.

    I've heard that the relatively quiet company SMC produces some good 802.11 range products. Any thoughts or experiences -- on any product -- with good range out-of-the-box

    • I bought the SMC 4-port wireless router for my home network (an iMac, an iBook, and an ancient PowerBook 1400 with an Orinoco Silver card) recently. It's excellent.

      Configuration is done via a built-in web server. NAT, firewall that you can punch holes in as needed, DMZ, MAC filtering, 128-bit WEP, 3 10/100 downlink, one 10/100 uplink, printer server, and a port to plug in a modem (I don't know what protocols it supports over the modem, though). It can route AppleTalk, and you can install firmware upgrades from any computer (you just upload a file via your web browser).

      It cost $199, about $100 less than the Airport Base Station. The new base station has some excellent features (AOL, better network config stuff), but I'm not regreting my choice at all.

      -jon

    • I believe this is due to the orientation of the wavelan card. It sits horizontally, so the antenna is pointing straight up.


      The base station comes with a bracket for wall-mounting. For the best range, I think you're supposed to put it on the wall, pointing in the general direction of the clients.


      I, too, have found the range of my Airport to be about 100'. That's with the base station indoors and my powerbook outdoors, and the base station sitting horizontally, on it's feet.


      One thing that's nice about the Airport is that unlike the cheaper base stations, it uses a an Orinoco Wavelan card which can support an external antenna. So if you want to add a higher gain patch antenna or a parabolic dish for long distance links, all you have to do is drill a hole in the cover to get to the connector.

  • AirPort & AOL (Score:4, Informative)

    by green pizza ( 159161 ) on Tuesday November 13, 2001 @06:18PM (#2560818) Homepage
    It seems a lot of folks are misunderstanding the new AOL support. You see, the AirPort also has an internal modem for those without broadband. Previously, the modem could only be used to dial into a PPP account. With version 2.0 of the AirPort software, it can dial into an AOL account for Internet access (i.e., it now has a version of AOL's proprietary software in its firmware). This is not a feature that most geeks will notice, as we'll be using the AirPort's ethernet interface with our broadband connections and *maybe* the modem for PPP backup. But for those that get their Internet access via an AOL dialup, and would like to share it with their 802.11 equiped machines via NAT/DHCP, this is godsend.

  • Why not VPN? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by obtuse ( 79208 )
    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

  • MacOS X 10.1.1 Update Also Out! (Score:3, Informative)

    by BoarderPhreak ( 234086 ) on Tuesday November 13, 2001 @08:56PM (#2561321)
    Hey, don't forget that Apple also released a MacOS X 10.1.1 update today, too! The explanation from Apple reads:

    "Delivers improvements for many USB and FireWire devices, including support for additional digital cameras, and overall improvements to CD and DVD burning. Enhancements have been made to AFP, SMB, and WebDAV networking, as well as improved support for printing. This update also delivers better application compatibility, including updates to the Finder and Mail application. In addition, hardware accelerated video mirroring has been enabled for the new PowerBook G4."

    You can automatically get and install it through the "Software Update" control panel.

  • count on slashdot (Score:2, Insightful)

    by feldsteins ( 313201 )
    You can always count on slashdot to find just the right angle on an Apple-related post - negative. It might have easily been pointed out that Apple was the first to integrate 802.11 into laptops and desktops. But no, the salient issue it seems is that Linksys makes a cheaper access point. Not that it isn't true! I freakin' OWN a Linksys. It's just that slashdot can be positively COUNTED on to knock Apple, no matter what the story is.

    • knocking apple? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by timothy ( 36799 ) on Wednesday November 14, 2001 @01:25AM (#2561929) Journal
      perhaps I'm responding to a troll, but --

      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? :) 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.

      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 :) 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.

      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.

Slashdot Top Deals

The computer is to the information industry roughly what the central power station is to the electrical industry. -- Peter Drucker

Close