4 ms·

Yeah, absolutely, the optical drive is a waste of space almost all the time. With regard to slow networking, I wonder if a gigabit ethernet/USB adapter like th

Yeah, absolutely, the optical drive is a waste of space almost all the time. With regard to slow networking, I wonder if a gigabit ethernet/USB adapter like the Belkin F5D5055 would help. Obviously USB 2.0 maxes out at around 30-35MB/s, but if the adapter can actually attain those speeds it should be fast enough when you need a bit more than Wifi. Generally, I'm very tempted to go for the maxed-out version of the 13" MBA. I'll probably take a look at the screen at a retail store though, I'm not keen on the glossy finish, and my old 2006 MacBook has terrible angle dependent colour representation. Going to make this the motivator for launching my first product. :)

modeless 16y ago
If you have a quality 802.11n AP then WiFi is actually faster than 100 Mbps Ethernet, making a USB 10/100 Ethernet adapter pointless. That speed isn't theoretical; I'm in a high-rise apartment building and I can see 25 other SSIDs from my couch, but I still have no problems getting >100 Mbps from an AirPort to a MacBook.
- pmjordan 16y ago
  Yep, if you manage to connect at a nominal 300Mbit/s on Wifi, you can just about scrape 100Mbit/s in practice. You basically need a 40MHz band of 5GHz Wifi, which is probably what you're using, and which is why it's not interfering much with the other APs, most of which probably only broadcast in the 2.4GHz band. Also, the number of available frequency slots in the 5GHz band is much bigger. Too bad the older iPhones don't support it, and most APs can't use both bands simultaneously (current Airport Extremes do!). Still, that's 3-4 times slower than USB (in theory).
  - weaksauce 16y ago
    There is also the protocol overhead associated with each type of communication. USB and ethernet were created with different tradeoffs in mind. On a mildly contested network I believe that ethernet is about 60% efficient due to packet overhead and packet collisions.

modeless 16y ago

If you have a quality 802.11n AP then WiFi is actually faster than 100 Mbps Ethernet, making a USB 10/100 Ethernet adapter pointless. That speed isn't theoretical; I'm in a high-rise apartment building and I can see 25 other SSIDs from my couch, but I still have no problems getting >100 Mbps from an AirPort to a MacBook.

pmjordan 16y ago
Yep, if you manage to connect at a nominal 300Mbit/s on Wifi, you can just about scrape 100Mbit/s in practice. You basically need a 40MHz band of 5GHz Wifi, which is probably what you're using, and which is why it's not interfering much with the other APs, most of which probably only broadcast in the 2.4GHz band. Also, the number of available frequency slots in the 5GHz band is much bigger. Too bad the older iPhones don't support it, and most APs can't use both bands simultaneously (current Airport Extremes do!). Still, that's 3-4 times slower than USB (in theory).
- weaksauce 16y ago
  There is also the protocol overhead associated with each type of communication. USB and ethernet were created with different tradeoffs in mind. On a mildly contested network I believe that ethernet is about 60% efficient due to packet overhead and packet collisions.