The Mac Observer

Skip navigational links

You're viewing an article in TMO's historic archive vault. Here, we've preserved the comments and how the site looked along with the article. Use this link to view the article on our current site:
David Pogue: The Best 802.11n Wi-Fi Router is Apple's

David Pogue: The Best 802.11n Wi-Fi Router is Apple's

by , 1:15 PM EDT, April 12th, 2007

David Pogue at the New York Times tested new 802.11n routers from Apple, Belkin and Netgear. The Apple router was the smallest, best-looking, fastest, had the strongest signal, and was the most expensive, according to the review.

This new generation of 802.11n routers are faster than the old 802.11g systems, but some vendors claims seem exaggerated. "So how much speed will you get? The "up to 300 Mbps" you see in the ads is among the most preposterous exaggerations in all of techdom. In the real world, you can expect 50 to 100 Mbps — still a lot better than "g."," Mr. Pogue reported.

Comparing the Apple setup to the other systems, Mr. Pogue said, "The setup program, identical for Mac and Windows, is light-years more polished and accessible than its rivals. You can attach a printer or hard drive to the router’s U.S.B. jack, and presto: it’s accessible by all the computers on the network. Very cool."

Notable was the observation that Apple's router is the only one with a 100 Mbps Ethernet jack. All the others, and even Apple's own computers, all come with ports for gigabit Ethernet.

The other routers managed to offer somewhat less for somewhat less money. But there was praise for the Belkin N1. "And, man, you have never seen a company try so hard to make networking easy. The jacks on the router are color-coded; the parts and cables bear huge numbered stickers that correspond to the instructions," the author wrote with fanfare. "Finally, Belkin’s tech-support phone number appears prominently on every single sheet of paper in the box. Incredible."

The verdict was that the 802.11n protocol is reaching maturity. Buy the polished, upgradeable gear from Belkin or Apple in preparation for the final ratification of the 802.11n protocol. Apple's router is the very best, but it costs the most.

Observer Comments

Show: Subjects Only | Full Comments
Close Name:Wings Posts: 89 Joined: 30 Mar 2004
Subject: Ethernet is the Bottleneck

Mr. Pogue, you don't suppose that those real world speeds of 50-100mbps that you speak of are due to the fact that whatever goes into or out of the Airport has to step down to 100mbps (less, counting overhead) Ethernet speeds to get anywhere, do you?

Close Name:KitsuneStudios Posts: 2490 Joined: 25 Oct 2001
Subject:

I doubt it, Wings.

According to Netgear's site, the model Pogue tested uses a Gigabit Ethernet switch, as opposed to the Apple models. And yet the Airport was faster. It's unlikely that the Ethernet connection would have anything to d with the bottleneck in a purely wireless connection (i.e. a 802.11n card talking to a 802.11n router)

Close Name:Wings Posts: 89 Joined: 30 Mar 2004
Subject:

I agree. An Ethernet connection would have nothing to do with a wi-fi device talking to just the router. But the vast majority of your data's final destination isn't the router, it's to whatever the router is connected to (and beyond). If THAT connection is, say, 1/2 the speed of your wireless connection then the overall throughput will be limited by that link (or whatever may be beyond that). If I want to use my "n" MacBook to transfer a file to my desktop (Ethernet) how am I going to do that any faster than the 100mbps link from the Airport to the desktop? And while the NetGear that was tested did have GB Ethernet behind it, it SHOULD have been faster... but we don't know the finer details of Pogue's connections & setup.

Close Name:Guest
Subject: The reason for gigabit

The gigabit network connections are not desirable for wireless performance. It is for using this device as a network switch in a small office where it would be handy to have gigabit connections for the wired devices.

Close Name:coaten Posts: 3071 Joined: 10 Oct 2001
Subject:

Quote
Wings wrote:
If THAT connection is, say, 1/2 the speed of your wireless connection then the overall throughput will be limited by that link (or whatever may be beyond that). If I want to use my "n" MacBook to transfer a file to my desktop (Ethernet) how am I going to do that any faster than the 100mbps link from the Airport to the desktop?


Do you mean a cable connection between the desktop computer and the Airport? Why would you do that? The only cable link into my Airport is the one from the wall socket that connects me to the rest of the world.

Close Name:gslusher Posts: 2088 Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Subject:

Quote
coaten wrote:

Do you mean a cable connection between the desktop computer and the Airport? Why would you do that? The only cable link into my Airport is the one from the wall socket that connects me to the rest of the world.


In the past, it's been better to connect a computer to the router via cable than via a wireless network. I've done both with my PowerBook G4. The 100/BASE-T Ethernet connection is faster than the Airport Extreme card (802.11g) talking to an Apple Airport Extreme base station only a few feet away. If I move the PowerBook to the other side of my small house, the data rate drops a bit. It even depends upon the orientation of the PowerBook, as the antenna is slightly directional.

In regard to Pogue's article, do note that he got data rates much less than 100 Mbps with the Belkin and Netgear routers. (Of course, for Internet access--probably the most common use for wireless networks in the home, the bottleneck is not the router but the Internet connection.)

Comment on this Article


You cannot edit your comments.   You cannot delete your comments.

Comments are currently closed. Please email the author instead.


The Mac Observer Reader Specials

  • __________
  • Buy Stuff, Support TMO!
  • Podcast: Mac Geek Gab
  • Podcast: Apple Weekly Report
  • TMO on Twitter!