Re: Airport Express (n) on a g network
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <z-SdnVv0VL2sQXXV...@giganews.com>):
> My sweet old AirportExpress bit the dust. Not bad; eBay for $50 3 years ago,
> very heavy work since. I guess I'm going to buy an n AE and so am wondering.
> It will connect to the main wireless base station, a Netgear WGR614, via a
> Cat5 cable. We have a couple of n machines. Will we get n speed from the AE?
Unlikely. most 'n' systems drop back to the max speed of whatever else is on
the net.
>
> I'm beginning to really despise Google (all the ad/commercial hits that get
> prominence over true informational hits).
>
>
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <sZ-dnY5XT4tlfHXV...@giganews.com>):
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 10:33:36 -0500, J.J. O'Shea wrote
> (in article <gcamo...@news5.newsguy.com>):
>
>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 11:24:33 -0400, Tim Lance wrote
>> (in article <z-SdnVv0VL2sQXXV...@giganews.com>):
>>
>>> My sweet old AirportExpress bit the dust. Not bad; eBay for $50 3 years
>>> ago,
>>> very heavy work since. I guess I'm going to buy an n AE and so am
>>> wondering.
>>> It will connect to the main wireless base station, a Netgear WGR614, via a
>>> Cat5 cable. We have a couple of n machines. Will we get n speed from the
>>> AE?
>>
>> Unlikely. most 'n' systems drop back to the max speed of whatever else is
>> on
>> the net.
>>
>
> Even if the g point is merely passing the signal through? I'm thinking all
> the wireless stuff is bypassed as if the cable to the AE was coming from the
> modem, that the hardware connection is just that, a simple connection of
> hardware (i.e. cable from ISP>cable modem>network cable>gbox>network
> cable>nbox>wireless to end user).
>
so far as I know, once the 'g' signal is on the net, you get 'g' speeds. If
the wireless section on the Netgear was turned off, and all you were using it
for was as a wired router, no problems (from the Netgear, anyway). Once the
wireless section is running, everybody slows to its speed.
Richard Maine
> so far as I know, once the 'g' signal is on the net, you get 'g' speeds. If
> the wireless section on the Netgear was turned off, and all you were using it
> for was as a wired router, no problems (from the Netgear, anyway). Once the
> wireless section is running, everybody slows to its speed.
I don't believe that. In particular, I don't believe that the wireless
devices affect the wired part of the net. The wires and wireless parts
of the net use (obviously) different transport mechanisms and I don't
believe they interact at that level. One needs to more precisely define
what "on the net" and "everybody" mean. After all, the whole internet is
"on the net" and you sure don't slow everyone else down because you've
activated a wireless section in your part of it.
Empirical data suggests the same thing that I think. I have a wireless
router on my net. (I used to even use a netgear one, but that POS has
subsequently been replaced). I see wired speeds a lot greater than the
wireless ones, and yes, that's with the wireless section turned on. I
haven't bothered to quantitatively measure the difference, but it seemed
evident.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1iobz9y.1fa84941xcdi5wN%nos...@see.signature>):
> J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>
>> so far as I know, once the 'g' signal is on the net, you get 'g' speeds. If
>> the wireless section on the Netgear was turned off, and all you were using
>> it
>> for was as a wired router, no problems (from the Netgear, anyway). Once the
>> wireless section is running, everybody slows to its speed.
>
> I don't believe that. In particular, I don't believe that the wireless
> devices affect the wired part of the net.
Ah... I believe that I said "if the wireless section on the Netgear was
turned off, and all you were using it for was as a wired router, no
problems". I quite agree that the wireless section will _not_ affect the
wired section. The wired section will run at the speed set by the cables and
other physical wired components. If all _wired_ components of the network are
gigabit systems, you'll get gigabit-level speeds.
> The wires and wireless parts
> of the net use (obviously) different transport mechanisms and I don't
> believe they interact at that level. One needs to more precisely define
> what "on the net" and "everybody" mean. After all, the whole internet is
> "on the net" and you sure don't slow everyone else down because you've
> activated a wireless section in your part of it.
I meant that the wireless net will slow down to match the max speed of
whatever wireless components are on it. If even one 'g' unit is on the net,
all wireless speeds will drop to 'g' speeds at max.
>
> Empirical data suggests the same thing that I think. I have a wireless
> router on my net. (I used to even use a netgear one, but that POS has
> subsequently been replaced). I see wired speeds a lot greater than the
> wireless ones, and yes, that's with the wireless section turned on. I
> haven't bothered to quantitatively measure the difference, but it seemed
> evident.
>
>
--
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <Ob-dnVKGOfjCcXXV...@giganews.com>):
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 10:59:52 -0500, J.J. O'Shea wrote
> (in article <gcao9...@news5.newsguy.com>):
> But the AE doesn't get it's signal from the net. Otherwise I wouldn't need
> the Cat5 cable. I should have been more clear. It is set up as a separate
> network, getting it's path from the ISP through the previously mentioned
> route.
>
>
If the Netgear isn't broadcasting wirelessly, then you're golden. You'll have
'n' speeds. If it _is_ broadcasting, you'll have 'g' speeds.
Jolly Roger
Tim Lance <see...@bottom.com> wrote:
> My sweet old AirportExpress bit the dust. Not bad; eBay for $50 3 years ago,
> very heavy work since. I guess I'm going to buy an n AE and so am wondering.
> It will connect to the main wireless base station, a Netgear WGR614, via a
> Cat5 cable. We have a couple of n machines. Will we get n speed from the AE?
>
> I'm beginning to really despise Google (all the ad/commercial hits that get
> prominence over true informational hits).
I'm not sure I understand why it matters, if you're keeping your Netgear
WGR614 on the network along with the new Airport Extreme.
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
John Byrns
J.J. O'Shea <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
Can you elaborate on this? If the "Netgear" and the "AE" are separate wireless
networks, why should one affect the speed the other runs at, excepting of course
interference effects if they are both operating on the same RF channels?
Although my issues were different than the OP's, I ran both my AirPort Extreme
wireless router, in bridge mode, along with the "2WIRE" wireless gateway/router
the phone company installed a month ago, for three weeks or so. After becoming
comfortable with the management functions of the "2WIRE" wireless
gateway/router, I shut its wireless function down because it didn't pass
AppleTalk traffic, at least without learning more about configuring it than I
cared to know.
--
Regards,
John Byrns
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
Richard Maine
> I quite agree that the wireless section will _not_ affect the
> wired section.
...
> I meant that the wireless net will slow down to match the max speed of
> whatever wireless components are on it. If even one 'g' unit is on the net,
> all wireless speeds will drop to 'g' speeds at max.
Ah. Ok. I just misunderstood what you meant. I can believe the above. (I
don't afirmatively know it to be so, but I can believe it.)
Jolly Roger
Tim Lance <see...@bottom.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 12:22:20 -0500, Jolly Roger wrote
> (in article <jollyroger-BA152...@news.individual.net>):
>
> > In article <z-SdnVv0VL2sQXXV...@giganews.com>,
> > Tim Lance <see...@bottom.com> wrote:
> >
> >> My sweet old AirportExpress bit the dust. Not bad; eBay for $50 3 years
> >> ago,
> >> very heavy work since. I guess I'm going to buy an n AE and so am
> >> wondering.
> >> It will connect to the main wireless base station, a Netgear WGR614, via a
> >> Cat5 cable. We have a couple of n machines. Will we get n speed from the
> >> AE?
> >>
> >> I'm beginning to really despise Google (all the ad/commercial hits that
> >> get
> >> prominence over true informational hits).
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand why it matters, if you're keeping your Netgear
> > WGR614 on the network along with the new Airport Extreme.
>
> It matters not. I'm just wondering.
Oh ok.
I think if I were going to run two networks like that, and I needed g
speeds, I'd run one at g speed for all g clients, and one at n speed for
all n clients.
I have to say, though, the headaches involved with running two networks
would probably drive me to set up a single n network instead.
Jolly Roger
Tim Lance <see...@bottom.com> wrote:
> The Netgear is broadcasting. The AE is broadcasting. Two networks. Users
> connect to one *OR* the other. Both are getting their "path" from the same
> place (cable modem).
I'd have to have a *really* compelling reason to set up something like
that. To me, the simpler single network setting is much more desirable.
John Byrns
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
But what if some of your computers don't support "n speed"?
Jolly Roger
John Byrns <byr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Then I'd have to make a decision between upgrading those
computer/devices to support n speeds, allowing the network to drop to g
speeds, or running dual networks - in that order of preference.
John Byrns
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
It sounds like the first option isn't really very realistic in many cases, for
example is the an "n speed" wireless modem available that will fit inside my
iBook?
Jolly Roger
John Byrns <byr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Is your computer listed here?:
<http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3024>
Mike Rosenberg
> My daughter's boyfriend and I can do n. She, her
> sister, and my wife can only do g.
Hey, whatever consenting adults want to do behind closed doors...
--
I kill Google Groups posts. See http://improve-usenet.org for details.
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/greet.cgi> Holiday cards with attitude
Warren Oates
nos...@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
> Empirical data suggests the same thing that I think. I have a wireless
> router on my net. (I used to even use a netgear one, but that POS has
> subsequently been replaced). I see wired speeds a lot greater than the
> wireless ones, and yes, that's with the wireless section turned on. I
> haven't bothered to quantitatively measure the difference, but it seemed
> evident.
Well, wired is a thousand megabits a second (on my lan, through my
router and Mac Pros, and, of course subject to hard-drive flakiness and
bus speed cavils and so on). 802.11g is 54 megabits. Which is, well,
somewhat slower. Even 802.11n is only about the same as 100 base-t, and
that's providing there's no drywall in the way.
Wireless is fast enough to pass my internet connections around, which
come in about 2.5 megabits, but not fast enough for 1080p into the back
room and onto that big teevee. At least not while the oul' Woman is
checking her email.
Gigabit gigabit gigabit -- you can't pull enough cable.
--
W. Oates
John Byrns
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
Yes, my computer is listed on that page, not only that but I purchased the
AirPort Extreme Card and installed it in my iBook last year, at the same time
that I purchased my AirPort Extreme (Draft N) Base Station.
The "Owners Guide" for the AirPort Extreme Card is very skimpy as far as
specifications go, but I see no indication that it is capable of operating as an
802.11n client.
You seem to be assuming that "AirPort Extreme" = 802.11n capable, but it isn't
clear to me that is the case. 802.11n seems to be a recent specification, while
my iBook, which I purchased in January 2003, came equipped with a built in
"AirPort Extreme" Antenna, and offered the "AirPort Extreme Card" as an option.
I suspect that the "AirPort Extreme" name on an Apple device does not mean that
device is capable of 802.11n operation.
There is also an iPod Touch on my network, I wonder what flavors of 802.11 the
iPod Touch supports.
Jolly Roger
John Byrns <byr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I'm pretty sure it's capable - though you may need to purchase this to
make use of it:
Bob Harris
> My sweet old AirportExpress bit the dust. Not bad; eBay for $50 3 years ago,
> very heavy work since. I guess I'm going to buy an n AE and so am wondering.
> It will connect to the main wireless base station, a Netgear WGR614, via a
> Cat5 cable. We have a couple of n machines. Will we get n speed from the AE?
Yes.
This is what I do in my home.
An 802.11b/g WiFi base station using 2.4GHz frequences and
servicing b/g devices. In my case this is a White flying saucer
Airport Extreme. In your case, it would be your WGR614.
And 802.11n WiFi base station using the 5.8GHz frequences and
servicing 'n' devices (I actually have my 802.11n set to 5.8GHz
ONLY). In my case one of the new 802.11n Airport Extremes. In
your case, it would be a new 802.11n Airport Express.
My 2 systems are connected via CAT5. Just one system is acting as
a router. The other system is put in "Bridge" mode. In your
case, the new 802.11n Airport Express should be put in "Bridge"
mode.
This works. There is no interference between the 2 WiFi base
stations. The b/g devices DO NOT affect the speed of the 'n'
transfers.
Of course, transfers over your Broadband connections are limited
to the speed of your Broadband speeds. Connections between an
802.11b/g device and an 'n' device are of course limited by the
speed of the slowest device. But connections between 'n' devices
perform at 'n' speeds.
Bob Harris
Warren Oates
Bob Harris <nospam....@remove.Smith-Harris.us> wrote:
> This works. There is no interference between the 2 WiFi base
> stations. The b/g devices DO NOT affect the speed of the 'n'
> transfers.
Do you get seamless (wireless, obviously) "roaming" from network to
network within your house? The next wireless project I have in mind
resembles what you've got (with non-Apple hardware, but).
--
W. Oates
Bob Harris
Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
I did not attempt to create a roaming network. Sorry.
In the past, I've created roaming networks using 802.11b/g base
stations, but I did not try this when switching to 'n'.
Bob Harris
Fred McKenzie
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Is your computer listed here?:
>
> <http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3024>
Jolly-
To the best of my knowledge, this "Extreme" card is the first version.
It does NOT have n capability, just b and g.
Fred