Airport vs Base Station?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Timothy Miller - 15 Oct 2005 21:42 GMT I've been very happy with an Airport "snow" base station for several years. (This is at the office.) It works great -- no, perfectly -- with both my laptops -- Apple and Windows.
I'm considering a new OS X Macintosh at home, and I'll want a wireless connection. So a new Airport base station seems like a logical purchase... Until I look at the price tag. $199 vs $50 or less for a generic device that appears to do the same job. Maybe the generic devices don't do quite the same things as an Airport. I'm not sure...
I've never tried to configure a generic wireless router for a Macintosh -- or anything else. Maybe it's difficult. I dunno. I'm not real good with networks, in general, I should add. At least the OS X Airport configuration software is familiar to me. That's a plus.
Could a savvy subscriber, or two, run down the plusses and minuses of Airport base station versus generic wireless router? I'd really appreciate it.
Thanks in advance,
Tim
Ruddell - 15 Oct 2005 23:48 GMT > I've been very happy with an Airport "snow" base station for several > years. (This is at the office.) It works great -- no, perfectly -- with [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Thanks in advance, Crossing my fingers here, but I've used an Airport for almost 3 years now trouble free and just for that I can't see why I'd consider anything else. But as usual, ymmv...
 Signature Cheers!
Dennis
Remove 'Elle-Kabong' to reply
Stephen Grady - 16 Oct 2005 04:31 GMT > > I've been very happy with an Airport "snow" base station for several > > years. (This is at the office.) It works great -- no, perfectly -- with [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > trouble free and just for that I can't see why I'd consider anything else. > But as usual, ymmv... Just a thought - with some generic brands, any firmware upgrades might only be able to applied from a Windows machine. With the Airport, you've got your Mac for all the upgrades.
Richard Maine - 16 Oct 2005 05:29 GMT > Just a thought - with some generic brands, any firmware upgrades might > only be able to applied from a Windows machine. I wouldn't know why. When I've done router firmware upgrades, it was all just via the browser, with no obvious system dependencies that I recall. Do you actually know of problems like this or are you just speculating?
On the whole, I'd expect fewer system-dependencies from a generic router/wireless than from Apple's. I can configure them from my Mac, my Linux boxes, or even from the Windows box.
 Signature Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
Scott Ellsworth - 17 Oct 2005 23:56 GMT > > Just a thought - with some generic brands, any firmware upgrades might > > only be able to applied from a Windows machine. > > I wouldn't know why. When I've done router firmware upgrades, it was all > just via the browser, with no obvious system dependencies that I recall. > Do you actually know of problems like this or are you just speculating? I had many such problems with both linksys and dlink equipment at various times. Other products from the same manufacturers used plain old sftp for updates, and web pages for configuration, and worked fine.
When buying a generic router, it is usually worth a quick trip to the web site to see if they did a cross platform configuration/firmware update system.
Scott
 Signature Scott Ellsworth scott@alodar.nospam.com Java and database consulting for the life sciences
Clark Martin - 19 Oct 2005 06:33 GMT > > > I've been very happy with an Airport "snow" base station for several > > > years. (This is at the office.) It works great -- no, perfectly -- with [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Crossing my fingers here, but I've used an Airport for almost 3 years now > > trouble free and just for that I can't see why I'd consider anything else. Cost. $50 for non-Apple vs $200 or so for Airport Express Base Station.
With the web based routers I've worked with, if you are doing a simple setup it pretty much is configured out of the box. I recommend changing the name at least and enabling encryption if you want it. Airport is pretty easy too.
> > > > But as usual, ymmv... > > Just a thought - with some generic brands, any firmware upgrades might > only be able to applied from a Windows machine. With the Airport, you've > got your Mac for all the upgrades. That was far more common a few years ago. I've investigated several routers recently and all of them uploaded updates via web browsers.
 Signature Clark Martin Redwood City, CA, USA Macintosh / Internet Consulting
"I'm a designated driver on the Information Super Highway"
Bob Harris - 16 Oct 2005 00:57 GMT > I've been very happy with an Airport "snow" base station for several > years. (This is at the office.) It works great -- no, perfectly -- with [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Tim If you do some searching you can find a 3rd party 802.11g WiFi base station for $10 to $20 <http://dealmac.com>. At that price you could pick on up and if you don't like it, you will not have invested much.
Price aside, I own the original Graphite Airport Base station (decommissioned), an Airport Extreme Base station, and an Airport Express base station. I have also own a D-Link Cable/DSL router (friend of mine is currently using it) and an SMC Barricade WiFi Cable/DSL router (lightening got it).
The Advantage of the Apple base stations is integration with your Mac. If there is any status change on the base station, your Mac will be alerted with a scroll message in the menu bar. This was very useful to me when I was using dial-up service via my Graphite Airport base station. Now that I have DSL and it is always on, this has not been as much of an issue.
The USB printer port on the current Airport base station can be useful assuming you have a printer that is supported, or you are willing to do some configuration work with "GIMP Print". I use an HP LaserJet 1300 Postscript printer on my Airport Extreme base station.
But you can get printer ports on some 3rd party WiFi base stations. This also may require some setup work on your part and "GIMP Print".
And if you are using a laptop, then have a network attached printer is a great plus.
NOTE: You can buy ethernet enabled printers that do not need a special base station, so there are other options for having printers.
Now about 3rd party 802.11g WiFi Cable/DSL router. You configure them via a browser. Generally speaking most 3rd party 802.11g WiFi Cable/DSL routers will work. In some minor cases there have been issues with specific versions of firmware on these routers. Some Google searching might help with any problems you might encounter.
Many people have been very happy with 3rd party 802.11g WiFi Cable/DSL routers.
I would suggest using WPA security/encryption as the standards for password encoding is consistent on all platforms. The older WEP allowed different encoding between Apple and Microsoft, so you had to resort to using HEX key when using mixed environments. Also WPA is much more secure than WEP.
The only other thing you might have to configure is the login to your ISP via PPPoE, and that is easy enough to do.
The ISP login and security setup are generally the most you will have to worry about. In rare situations you may have a need to forward a port from the router to one of your systems, but that is rare, and not all that difficult to do.
And of course you can always ask questions in here, and I'm sure someone will have the version of base station you buy and give you advice.
So I would suggest seeing if you can pick up an inexpensive 3rd party Cable/DSL router and then if you do not like it, you will not have invested much, and you will also know for sure why you are spending the extra money for an Airport base station.
Bob Harris
Tim Lance - 16 Oct 2005 02:43 GMT > I've been very happy with an Airport "snow" base station for several > years. (This is at the office.) It works great -- no, perfectly -- with [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Tim I use a Netgear g that was $0 with all rebates. Got iMac OS X, PowerBook OS X, WinXP laptop, and Win2K laptop all just fine.
 Signature Tim lance_1012@hotmail.com
Walt Basil - 16 Oct 2005 04:16 GMT > I've been very happy with an Airport "snow" base station for several > years. (This is at the office.) It works great -- no, perfectly -- with [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Tim With the usual troubles people report now and then aside, most are the same performance-wise, given the same price group. I used a snow Airport for years until I couldn't configure it anymore. Kept coming back with an error. I had purchased an extended warranty through CompUSA based on the fact that they told me that if it failed within that time period, they would exchange it for the same model, or whatever new one replaced it. They tried to pawn off a refurb same model on me that would have been shipped from another store. I didn't accept it, and took the money for in-store credit instead. I ended up replacing it with a Motorola Surfboard wireless cable modem. I can't notice any difference between the two when it comes to performance or range. I've still got my wireless, and I replaced my stock cable modem, all in one package.
The main difference that I see is that the Airport is configurable through the system preferences instead of through a web page built into the Surfboard.
Have fun, and good luck!
 Signature Walt Basil http://www.basilweb.net http://blog.basilweb.net
Eric Lindsay - 16 Oct 2005 11:43 GMT > I'm considering a new OS X Macintosh at home, and I'll want a wireless > connection. So a new Airport base station seems like a logical > purchase... Until I look at the price tag. $199 vs $50 or less for a > generic device that appears to do the same job. Maybe the generic > devices don't do quite the same things as an Airport. I'm not sure... I used an Airport Extreme Base Station at home, using the modem in it with my dial up connection. When DSL became available it seemed easier to replace the AEBS with an all in one solution rather than even add a DSL modem to it.
I used a Netgear DG834G. This gives you the ADSL modem (you would need a different model if you have cable rather than DSL), router and firewall, four ethernet ports on a switching hub for hardwiring equipment with Ethernet cables, plus the 802.11b/g wireless connection. Works with several Mac models (including my neighbour who shares my connection), plus a couple of Dell laptops.
Configure is via a web connection (I did that with Ethernet cable initially) using Safari. Setup took about 60 seconds and was trouble free. I'm using WPA for security, and the only thing that has given trouble is Ubuntu Linux (it has WEP but not WPA - probably won't be long before it co-operates also). The Netgear was a lot easier to setup than the Airport was (although I guess not many used the Airport base station for dial up). The Netgear went out of action once (in about 10 months). I just powered it down and up again, and all was well. The only thing I do a little different is I run all my gear from UPS (lots of very short power outages here). It is possible things would be more vulnerable to problems without a UPS.
I suspect most similar all in one DSL modem router wireless boxes would work pretty well. Prices are so good in the USA that you are not risking much. Good luck.
 Signature http://www.ericlindsay.com
Neill Massello - 16 Oct 2005 18:54 GMT > Could a savvy subscriber, or two, run down the plusses and minuses of > Airport base station versus generic wireless router? I'd really > appreciate it. The Extreme Base Station has some features lacking in most other consumer wireless routers: SNMP management, RADIUS and 802.1x support, a built-in USB print server, and (depending on model) a PPP client/server modem or power over Ethernet. It also supports WPA and WPA2 clients simultaneously and can do WDS (with other AirPort base stations) while using WPA. Many of these are fairly esoteric or "enterprise" features. On the other hand, Apple's base stations don't provide as much control over DHCP and routing functions as the other brands but do have a more consumer-friendly setup process.
If the features above are Greek to you, or you just don't need them, save some money and go with a non-Apple product.
Simon Slavin - 17 Oct 2005 22:50 GMT On 15/10/2005, Timothy Miller wrote in message <435169A6.6040402@nospam.com>:
> I've never tried to configure a generic wireless router for a Macintosh > -- or anything else. Maybe it's difficult. I dunno. I'm not real good [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Airport base station versus generic wireless router? I'd really > appreciate it. How do you get the Internet to your home ? Broadband ? If so, then instead of two boxes (ADSL and wireless) you can combine the two functions in box, losing lots of wires and half the flashy lights.
I have an Alcatel Speedtouch 570 which was trivial to set up. I'm not wedded to Alcatel and competitors make similar products which may be just as good.
Simon.
 Signature http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk
Timothy Miller - 19 Oct 2005 17:31 GMT Excellent thread, guys. (I'm the OP.) What would I do without comp.sys.mac newsgroups!?
Tim Miller
> On 15/10/2005, Timothy Miller wrote in message >>I've never tried to configure a generic wireless router for a Macintosh >>-- or anything else. Maybe it's difficult. I dunno. I'm not real good >>with networks, in general, I should add. At least the OS X Airport >>configuration software is familiar to me. That's a plus. --snip--
> I have an Alcatel Speedtouch 570 which was trivial to set up. I'm > not wedded to Alcatel and competitors make similar products which may > be just as good. > > Simon. bob prohaska's usenet account - 20 Oct 2005 03:37 GMT The OP mentioned desire for both a new Mac and a wirless base station. Is there some reason nobody suggested a Mac Mini? The current models have a base station built in, and at least the one I bought seems to work without a hitch.
bob prohaska
Richard Maine - 20 Oct 2005 05:04 GMT > The OP mentioned desire for both a new Mac and a wirless base station. > Is there some reason nobody suggested a Mac Mini? The current models > have a base station built in, and at least the one I bought seems to > work without a hitch. Well.... what it has built in is more of a wireless host adapter than a base station. I guess I seem to recall that one can hack up a host adaptor to act like a base station, though I haven't tried it myself. Ah... was thinking about trying it out quickly on this mini, but don't want to mess around there right now less I accidentally disconnect myself while typing this. (Or even worse, I might screw up my daughter's connection from her powerbook; then I'd be in real trouble. :-)) I'm certain that any such thing isn't unique to the Mini; for example, an iMac would be the same, or for that matter a powerbook, though it would seem silly to invest in a powerbook and then hook it to a network cable on one end so that you couldn't much move it without messing things up.
I don't think I'd recommend such an approach in general unless one were really seriously cutting costs to the bare minimum, though. It isn't as though a dedicated wireless base station costs anything significant. (Well, Apple's does, but generic ones don't and that difference was what prompted the original question here). Personally, I'd find the increased flexibility of a dedicated base station (or a base-station/router) to be worth it.
But other people might have different priorities, so I suppose you are right that it should be mentioned. I do think I recall that such a thing can be made to work (even before your verification that this is what you do).
 Signature Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
bob prohaska's usenet account - 21 Oct 2005 05:17 GMT In comp.sys.mac.system Richard Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:
> Well.... what it has built in is more of a wireless host adapter than a > base station. I guess I seem to recall that one can hack up a host > adaptor to act like a base station, though I haven't tried it myself. Perhaps I don't understand the difference between "host adapter" and "base station". The Mini has an Ethernet jack and an 802.11g interface. Turning on network sharing for the wireless link while connected to the 'Net via copper wire allowed a PowerBook to surf the Web easily. It was just a few mouseclicks and a bit of typing for hostnames and passwords....no hacking required.
What more does a base station do?
Thanks for reading,
bob prohaska
Bob Harris - 21 Oct 2005 05:02 GMT > In comp.sys.mac.system Richard Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > bob prohaska a base station can log into your broadband service provider via PPPoE (assuming your service provider requires PPPoE login).
a base station can ack as the first line if defense against Internet Nasties.
a base station can stay powered up 24/7 using very little power, so you can continue to use your powerbook even while doing a system upgrade to your Mac mini.
a base station will share your internet connection without adding extra load and traffic to your Mac mini.
Now many of these features may not be of interest to you, and if that is the case, there is no problem with using the Mac mini as a base station. Just make sure you have your firewall nice and tight.
Bob Harris
bob prohaska's usenet account - 22 Oct 2005 03:09 GMT In comp.sys.mac.system Bob Harris <nospam.News.Bob@remove.smith-harris.us> wrote: [list of base station features snipped]>
> Now many of these features may not be of interest to you, and if > that is the case, there is no problem with using the Mac mini as a > base station. Just make sure you have your firewall nice and > tight. It sounds like a base station is essentially a dedicated host.
Thanks very much!
bob prohaska
|
|
|