[GreggLucksinger]

With 802.11ac wireless routers now available for purchase, this seems to me to be a hard sell. My guess is that Apple will be upgrading their routers and computers to this standard soon (fall?). Until they do, I'd strongly consider leaving the Apple ecosystem for another vendor offering that speed boost now. While n is faster than most of our broadband connections under optimal conditions this is not necessarily true under less than perfect signal conditions. In those situations the extra headroom of ac might come in handy-provided of course that your portable devices are also ac compatible. This is likely to not be the case now but in another 18 mos probably will be for many of us. If I bought a router today-I'd want one that I'd still be happy with 2 years from now.

[Stormchild]

Dual band is useful in theory, but the reality is that it isn't very convenient to switch between them on the fly. The 5 GHz version of 802.11n has a much shorter range, and unfortunately neither of Apple's lines of devices that support it (Mac & iPad) is particularly smart about recognizing when the signal is weak. It always falls upon the user to notice the network connection is slow or not responding at all, then you have to manually switch over to the separate 2.4 GHz network yourself (quite often your device will never switch, since it's still seeing one or two "bars" of signal, even though it's effectively unusable if you're just on the fringe of the signal's range). Likewise, if someone turns on the microwave and the 2.4 GHz network becomes effectively dead, it takes a long time to timeout before it'll even try to hop over to the 5 GHz network. Again, you end up switching manually. I find it to be more of a hassle and an annoyance than anything. Wouldn't recommend anyone upgrade to this device if the dual band "feature" is what you're after.

[Glenn_Fleishman]

looper, on 25 June 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:

You note that the previous model (which I have) lets you "extend an existing Apple wireless network ... and use the single ethernet port to provide access to wired machines." It's been awhile since I set mine up, but as I recall I tried to do this and I couldn't make it work. I have an AirPort Extreme (previous generation, the first dual-band model) downstairs next to my cable modem, and used my 802.11n AirPort Express (the model that was just superseded) to extend its wireless network at the opposite corner of the house. Are you telling me that I _should_ have been able to plug an older, non-AirPort-equipped Mac into the single Ethernet port of the Express and have it see the whole network (and the Internets)?

Yes, this should have worked just fine. It's designed to work this way.

Quote

I seem to remember something about WDS vs. non-WDS extension of the network... Is this something simple I missed, or should I save my pennies and buy the new Express to gain this capability? (Or maybe I should just buy your Take Control book and read it before posting vague questions...)

Since the 802.11n update, WDS is used but in a sort of "silent" way; you don't configure it. You choose Extend (not Join) and existing network. (I won't try to prevent you from buying my book, of course!)

[Glenn_Fleishman]

ScooterComputer6skh, on 25 June 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

Glenn,

I'm curious, in my previous testing with Airport Express and Extremes and WDS to do wireless network extension, I found that Apple was turning on WDS on BOTH radios (2.4GHz and 5GHz). Because WDS instantly halves the bandwidth, the overall performance suffered. With my dd-wrt powered Linksys setup, I have WDS enabled ONLY on the 5GHz band, using it as a backhaul, with clients connecting to the 2.4GHz radios. My cross-network copy performance was noticeably better than with the Apple configuration.

Did you do any testing with the new unit/Airport firmware to determine if Apple is still doing WDS that way?

Apple told me explicitly that WDS is used only on a single radio, and that this is the case since simultaneous dual-band support was added.

[Glenn_Fleishman]

whshep, on 25 June 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

What neither this review nor any other I've read notes is that the guest network does not work with many routers. Behind my Vonage-supplied Linksys router, the option to set up a guest network on the Express simply disappears. I would have to plug in directly behind the modern to use the guest network feature.

Guest networking in all of Apple's gear requires that the base station be set up to provide local network addresses (DHCP + NAT); I didn't mention it in the review because it's not a specific drawback with the Express. But important, yes!

[Glenn_Fleishman]

GreggLucksinger, on 25 June 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

With 802.11ac wireless routers now available for purchase, this seems to me to be a hard sell. My guess is that Apple will be upgrading their routers and computers to this standard soon (fall?). Until they do, I'd strongly consider leaving the Apple ecosystem for another vendor offering that speed boost now. While n is faster than most of our broadband connections under optimal conditions this is not necessarily true under less than perfect signal conditions. In those situations the extra headroom of ac might come in handy-provided of course that your portable devices are also ac compatible. This is likely to not be the case now but in another 18 mos probably will be for many of us. If I bought a router today-I'd want one that I'd still be happy with 2 years from now.

I'm curious: what do you think 802.11ac gives you that the current 802.11n implementation does not?

802.11ac's top "1 Gbps+" rate only works in 5 GHz, and only when it can get a clear (no other local networks) across the 36-48 or 149-167 160 MHz ranges.

[jeremyab]

redgeminipa, on 25 June 2012 - 04:14 AM, said:

I bought the former Express (.11n) to extend my network via wireless from my Time Capsule, but it didn't quite work that way. I was told it has to be plugged into the Time Capsule using ethernet in order for it to extend the network, which isn't what I took from this article.

How about an article with some tips for optimizing an Airport-based (1TB Time Capsule here when the options were 500MB or 1TB, right before they offered 2TB) network for Macs and iOS devices.

This would be very helpful, since I recently moved from a single-story home into a two-story home. I have my Time Capsule placed in what is basically the dead center of the main floor. My bedroom is directly above, and it's common for my iPhone 4S to not have full signal... Think of the old farm houses - a big square - is the main body of the house

Granted, this house is about 150 years old, with at least 8' ceilings, and the floors are pretty thick.

I want to upgrade my Time Capsule, but I'm waiting for 802.11ac - same for my iMac.

I had some initial troubles doing this and placed a call to Apple. The tech support lady had me do the setup from scratch (resetting both routers), have both routers fairly close to each other in the same room, and then run through the setup guide (not manually). Then once it was all setup and good, I could move the Express into the other room. For some reason, something was interfering if I had the 2 routers apart during setup.

[toslinker]

Huh. I've been using the older Express for years, and I've never had it fall out of an outlet.

On the other hand, I've had all kinds of trouble with Apple's Toslink-in-minijack ports. Toslink isn't the most robust connection to begin with, and "mini Toslink" plugs are super fragile, even if you don't move them. It might be an improvement that it's almost at the bottom of the case now, so the cable can rest on the table, but I'm not sure.

It seems a bit weird that they still have analog audio here at all, since its big brother the Apple TV already removed all analog audio and video connections.

[Glenn_Fleishman]

toslinker, on 25 June 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

Huh. I've been using the older Express for years, and I've never had it fall out of an outlet.

On the other hand, I've had all kinds of trouble with Apple's Toslink-in-minijack ports. Toslink isn't the most robust connection to begin with, and "mini Toslink" plugs are super fragile, even if you don't move them. It might be an improvement that it's almost at the bottom of the case now, so the cable can rest on the table, but I'm not sure.

It seems a bit weird that they still have analog audio here at all, since its big brother the Apple TV already removed all analog audio and video connections.

Would anyone be surprised if the 2013 revision is called the AirPort A/V Express, and has an analog audio out, an HDMI port, and all Apple TV functionality plus all AirPort Express features?

[Martian]

NaOH, on 25 June 2012 - 07:02 AM, said:

hayesk, on 25 June 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

Nobody makes the router I want. Airport Express is almost there, but it's missing a crucial feature. I want a router that:
- is portable.
- 802.11n
- dual-band
- can connect to one wireless network (call is A), and make a new network (call it with NAT to connect clients on network B to network A.

Why do I want this? So when I go to hotels that only have WiFi, I can connect my MacBook, iPad, and iPhone to a fast, secure (relatively) WiFi network, separate from the hotels WiFi and Internet, but still have Internet connectivity.

What you describe is certainly possible. However, it would require a router with two separate WiFi radios. I'm not sure if I've encountered one that comes equipped like this.
There are WiFi Access Points that are capable of connecting to a WiFi network, such as the DrayTek Vigor AP 800. The limitation this has, is that it can't provide NAT. Maybe the DrayTek Vigor AP 800 connected to an AirPort Express? The Vigor connects to the hotel WiFi, and passes on the connection to the AirPort, which does NAT and shares the connection.

It's also possible to set up Internet sharing on a laptop equipped with a USB WiFi dongle plugged in to provide a second independent WiFi interface.

I tried Internet Sharing from a MB Air running Lion → Ethernet adapter (tried both Thunderbolt and USB adapters) → Airport Express (Using DHCP) → Wifi

It works amazingly well, no fiddling required. Of course the Airport Express shows “Double NAT” as expected (though I suppose it is really triple NAT). NaOH"s suggestion is 100% wireless and less cumbersome, but I used what I had on hand.

What I found interesting was that Airport Utility indicated the Airport Express’s Ethernet IP and the “Router Address” respectively:
— 192.168.2.3 and 192.168.2.1 using the new Thunderbolt/Ethernet adapter,
— 192.168.3.2 and 192.168.3.1 using the USB/Ethernet adapter:

I guess these IP’s are buried within Lion itself and assigned by the computer hosting internet sharing. Can someone confirm this?

[icerabbit]

mhick, on 25 June 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:

For what it's worth, I use an older Airport Express for a 2-story, 4-bdrm house, and the range has always been more than adequate. The unit is in a corner bedroom on the 2nd floor, but the range reaches even the far corner of our basement.

Of course that depends on the construction and size of your house

I've literally seen a wifi signal drop 95% between a bedroom and living room. One side of the wall 100%. Other side 5-10%.

[murphtron]

I have the first gen Airport Express 802.11g (two of them actually) that I use explicitly for AirTunes (audio upstairs & audio downstairs). Is there any reason to upgrade to this latest revision if my only use is AirTunes/AirPlay? Note that I generally Airplay from my phone to the Express (not from my Mac to the Express)

I intentionally do not have WDS enabled now (I have the latest gen Airport Extreme) as I figured there was no benefit and the Extreme covers most of my house (although I wish it extended to the backyard).

If I replaced the existing two Express with the latest rev, and then enabled WDS to extend the network range, will I incur a bandwidth penalty?

[Glenn_Fleishman]

murphtron, on 25 June 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

I have the first gen Airport Express 802.11g (two of them actually) that I use explicitly for AirTunes (audio upstairs & audio downstairs). Is there any reason to upgrade to this latest revision if my only use is AirTunes/AirPlay? Note that I generally Airplay from my phone to the Express (not from my Mac to the Express)

I intentionally do not have WDS enabled now (I have the latest gen Airport Extreme) as I figured there was no benefit and the Extreme covers most of my house (although I wish it extended to the backyard).

If I replaced the existing two Express with the latest rev, and then enabled WDS to extend the network range, will I incur a bandwidth penalty?

The newer unit will likely have far better range than the 802.11g model, and using WDS to extend ("Extend an Existing Network") incurs some penalty, but I don't know that you'll notice it unless your network is so maxxed out already that you notice slowdowns.

[John]

I hope it's worth having. I went through three of the earlier models. Each one worked for a while and then pooped out and was impossible to reset through any means that Apple could come up with.

By the way, the new model is not exactly tiny. The original design was about 75% the side of the new model.