by Brian Klug on 8/5/2011 10:22:00 PM
Posted in Mac , Airport Extreme , Time Capsule , WiFi
Buy the H Squared AIRMOUNT-S H-Squared Air
Amazon
$35.06

Apple has been playing it cool on the WiFi side of things lately. It started with the previous Airport Extreme (Gen 4) which quietly introduced three spatial stream support, followed up by the Early 2011 MacBook Pro update which brought a three spatial stream compliant WLAN stack, and now has continued with an even more understated update for the Time Capsule (4th generation) and Airport Extreme (5th generation).

Both updates launched just prior to this latest round of Apple launches, which included the Mac Mini, Macbook Air, and Thunderbolt Display, but unlike those three, the Time Capsule and Airport Extreme updates saw almost no mention. Starting with the exterior packaging, you’d be hard pressed to tell that a particular Time Capsule or Airport Extreme is the newer refresh. I no longer have the old Airport Extreme packaging, but the new device box is virtually indistinguishable. Outside of bumping the supported storage capacity for the Time Capsule up to 3TB, there’s no real obvious giveaway for the Time Capsule either.

The only way to tell which version is which by looking at the box is by the model numbers—MD031LL/A for the 5th generation Airport Extreme, and MD032LL/A for the 2TB 4th generation Time Capsule.

The contents of the Airport Extreme box remain the same as well, starting with the device itself on top, and underneath it, a power cable, 12 volt power supply (model A1202) and some literature about setup in a white plastic bag.

The Time Capsule box is much the same affair, with the device inside, a power cable, no power supply (since it’s internal), and some literature.

I stacked all three devices up so you can compare physically. Really the only big giveaway between the two Airport Extremes is an extra line of text on the previous generation, and of course the model number or FCC ID. Both the Time Capsule and Airport Extreme still retain the same port configuration—four GigE ports, one USB 2.0 port, power, reset, and a Kensington security slot. Those four gigabit ethernet ports can either be used as a switch, or you can use the device as a router and then the leftmost port becomes WAN and the right three become LAN.

At this point it isn’t really looking like there’s much different, but exterior appearances can be deceptive.

FCC Docs - Increased Power
Gen4-Gen5? by kylewat on Friday, August 05, 2011
The airport extreme gen numbers change from the top chart to the bottom on the FCC Docs page.
kylewat
RE: Gen4-Gen5? by Brian Klug on Saturday, August 06, 2011
Thanks, fixed!

-Brian
Brian Klug
huge by bigrobsf on Friday, August 05, 2011
Minor typo in AFS discussion paragraph in the "WiFi Throughput and Range - Improved page:

"Airport Extreme makes a hue difference"

I'm guessing you wanted to write "huge" :-)
bigrobsf
RE: huge by Brian Klug on Saturday, August 06, 2011
Good catch, thanks, should be fixed!

-Brian
Brian Klug
Time Capsule - Or Xserve Mini by iwod on Saturday, August 06, 2011
I just wish they put out a Raid 1 2.5" HDD Time Capsule so i know my data is going to fairly safe. HDD failure are happening more often these days and with their huge capacity i just cant afford to lose some of my content.
iwod
RAID 1 Time Capsule by repoman27 on Saturday, August 06, 2011
Just use one of these: http://www.icydock.com/goods.php?id=121

Combine with a brace of Western Digital WD10JPVT or Samsung Spinpoint M8 HN-M101MBB and you'll have 1 TB of RAID 1 goodness.
repoman27
RE: Time Capsule - Or Xserve Mini by Penti on Sunday, August 07, 2011
Raid 1 doesn't really protect from bit rot, just pure 1 drive failure. However they should take reliability and data corruption seriously, but it's not enterprise hardware so you can't really expect it.
Penti
RE: Time Capsule - Or Xserve Mini by jackwong on Sunday, August 14, 2011
I will never go with TC unless they have a better backup solution of the TC itself.

I have a Synology 1 bay NAS with a external USB to backup all the contents on it.
jackwong
dBm Values by cheinonen on Saturday, August 06, 2011
Though I imagine most people won't be confused, labeling it as "Smaller values are better" when all the values are negative could cause people to read the data incorrectly. Perhaps "Closer to 0 is better" or something else?
cheinonen
RE: dBm Values by Brian Klug on Saturday, August 06, 2011
Totally agreed, edited those tables to make it more easy to follow.

-Brian
Brian Klug
Latest from AnandTech