[Glenn_Fleishman]

John, on 25 June 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

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.

The tiny isn't relative to the old model; it's relative to the functionality of an Extreme, to which the Express now favorably compares. (The old unit, by the way, was roughly 12.2 cubic inches; the new one, not excluding tapering, about 13.7 cubic inches, so only 12% bigger. Also, the new unit weighs about two ounces more!)

[darrynpeterlowe]

hayesk, on 25 June 2012 - 05:52 AM, said:

dustinrueso6a, on 25 June 2012 - 05:38 AM, said:

I'm curious what you mean by "Apple's AFP file-sharing typically peaks at much lower rates than these maximum data rates." Using wired networking I've gotten better than 70MB/s, wireless can't compete with that.

He means AFP can be relatively inefficient. When using AFP on any network, you don't get close to the specified data rate of the network depending on what you are copying. AFP isn't too bad, but it does get bogged down when transferring a lot of small files instead of fewer large files. Notice you said you've gotten better than 70MB/s - but why not closer to 100-125MB/s that the wired connection supports.

Just to be pedantic wireless cannot handle 70 or even 125MB/s. It can support 70-125Mbps however. MB/s is megaBYTEs per second whereas Mbps is megaBITS per second which is what networks are generally measured in. MB/s = HDD, Mb/s = network.

[BruceLeeXIV]

Great article, some good details I hadn't known before.

Here's my question: I love the built-in power prongs of the old model, I take it to different countries and just slide in the different wall socket adapter. For example, I'm in China now, and I bought a cheap adapter (in Korea) that is the standard two round metal prongs that you stick into wall outlets here (and Korea). It's a bit bigger than the flat two prong American version, and doesn't fold into the AirportExpress, but it's slick and can slide off and be replaced by the long power cord if needed.

So, does the new AE take both 240 and 110 power? The old Express has a built in converter, so I only need an adapter for the wall socket. Most things with a power brick have one built in (computers for example, but not blow dryers). It's much cheaper buying wall adapters in different countries than a whole converter (a box that sits outside the device). It would probably say 100~220 in the fine print somewhere on the device.

I will sorely miss the wall mountability; it's very convenient and portable.

[Glenn_Fleishman]

BruceLeeXIV, on 25 June 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

Does the new AE take both 240 and 110 power? The old Express has a built in converter, so I only need an adapter for the wall socket. Most things with a power brick have one built in (computers for example, but not blow dryers). It's much cheaper buying wall adapters in different countries than a whole converter (a box that sits outside the device). It would probably say 100~220 in the fine print somewhere on the device.

Apple notes electrical requirements on the tech specs page for each of its products: "100-240V AC, 50-60Hz; input current: 0.2 amp" for the new Express.

Quote

I will sorely miss the wall mountability; it's very convenient and portable.

Funny, I always had to carry the bulky external cable, as I could never manage to find an outlet in the right place that was in good enough shape to hold the prongs of the plug.

[twystinme]

Will the new Airport Express work with non Apple routers?

[BruceLeeXIV]

Glenn_Fleishman, on 25 June 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

Apple notes electrical requirements on the tech specs page for each of its products: "100-240V AC, 50-60Hz; input current: 0.2 amp" for the new Express.

<slaps forehead> Of course. Thanks for the response (but I hate being that guy that asks an easily searched for and answered question).

[MeesterPlow]

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.

You can always connect to the hotel wifi with the express (or other mini-router link the TP-Link Micro router), connect that to your laptop and create a new wireless network from your MacBook that you other devices connect to.

[tbutler67]

Glenn_Fleishman, on 25 June 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

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

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?

Yep, I'd be surprised - though not as surprised after this revision as I would have been with the prior model.

Which gets into the big problem I have with this release - after dropping the built-in two-prong connector design, this version is definitely less convenient as a travel router. The old design was easy to carry around and plug in, with ethernet being the only cable you had to mess with (and many hotels had that run through a cable feeder, much easier to manage); with the new design, you have one more cable to mess with, and on the small 'desks' a lot of hotel rooms have, that can be a significant irritant.

It really feels like Apple designed this version of the Express as 'cheaper alternative to the Extreme', mostly dropping the 'travel router' part of the product spec.

Glenn_Fleishman, on 25 June 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

BruceLeeXIV, on 25 June 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

I will sorely miss the wall mountability; it's very convenient and portable.

Funny, I always had to carry the bulky external cable, as I could never manage to find an outlet in the right place that was in good enough shape to hold the prongs of the plug.

I'm definitely with Bruce. I very rarely had trouble with it staying in the wall, on the occasions I did have trouble I could usually fix it by having it hang down from the bottom outlet instead of pointing up from the top, and when even that didn't work, bending the prongs together just a touch was usually enough.

This post has been edited by tbutler67: 26 June 2012 - 07:13 AM

[looper]

Glenn_Fleishman, on 25 June 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

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

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?

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.

But can I do these at the same time? That is, both select "Extend a Wireless Network" _and_ plug a non-AirPort-equipped Mac into the Ethernet port? In the "Network" tab of AirPort Utility (6.1, running under OS X 10.7.4) the options are grayed out, with the "Router Mode" pop-up showing "Off (Bridge Mode)". I guess I could just walk upstairs and plug something in to test, but I might as well ask as long as I'm sitting downstairs at the computer.

[Glenn_Fleishman]

tbutler67, on 26 June 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

It really feels like Apple designed this version of the Express as 'cheaper alternative to the Extreme', mostly dropping the 'travel router' part of the product spec.

Definitely the case. What Apple has heard from customers (and my experience in getting thousands of emails from readers parallels this) is that the AirPort Express is used a small percentage of the time as a mobile router, and nearly all the time as a range extender or main base station. It's now firmly a junior version of the Extreme with few tradeoffs, rather than a travel router now.

Which makes sense. In most cases, you have access to Wi-Fi through one or more methods, or plug in via Ethernet. I also am sure that in a future Mac laptop, we'll see the ability to both connect to Wi-Fi and broadcast it at the same time. You can do that already with Bluetooth, although that limits top speeds, of course.

[console]

Great device, but the lack of gigabit ethernet ruins it for me.

[Glenn_Fleishman]

console, on 26 June 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

Great device, but the lack of gigabit ethernet ruins it for me.

I note a few reasons why gigE is useful in the article, but what particularly makes 100 Mbps too slow for you?

[bastion]

console, on 26 June 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

Great device, but the lack of gigabit ethernet ruins it for me.

Why? Have you got (or do you expect soon to have) broadband in excess of 100Mb?

[tbutler67]

Glenn_Fleishman, on 26 June 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

tbutler67, on 26 June 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

It really feels like Apple designed this version of the Express as 'cheaper alternative to the Extreme', mostly dropping the 'travel router' part of the product spec.

Definitely the case. What Apple has heard from customers (and my experience in getting thousands of emails from readers parallels this) is that the AirPort Express is used a small percentage of the time as a mobile router, and nearly all the time as a range extender or main base station. It's now firmly a junior version of the Extreme with few tradeoffs, rather than a travel router now.

<sigh> If that's the case, it's hard to argue with it; I would have hoped more people were using it as a travel router, but if they weren't, they weren't.

Quote

Which makes sense. In most cases, you have access to Wi-Fi through one or more methods, or plug in via Ethernet. I also am sure that in a future Mac laptop, we'll see the ability to both connect to Wi-Fi and broadcast it at the same time. You can do that already with Bluetooth, although that limits top speeds, of course.

My issue with this is that I've stayed at far too many hotels where the wireless was unreliable; major signal strength issues, too little capacity for the number of users, or both. Whereas ethernet was reliable... but chained you to an often cramped 'desk' with poor ergonomics. (And not usable for WiFi-only devices like the iPhone and iPad, or a MB Air without the dongle.) Traveling with an Express lets me create a reliable network that doesn't chain me to the desk, can be shared with all my devices (and with a visitor's device), and as a bit of icing on the cake provides a little insulation from the hotel's network via NAT.