Cisco reshuffles its wireless deck

[DaveMcLain]

On my WRT320N I'm running firmware version v1.0.03 and I just check to make sure that this is the latest version. I don't have a guest network provision on my router. It will be interesting to see if Linksys adds this feature through an upgrade. Or if it's possible to flash the firmware used in the newly designated E series routers onto the WRT hardware to increase functionality.

In the end it might be well enough to leave things alone because adding functions is really what caused a lot of problems on the D-Link DIR-655...

My WRT320N works great and I don't want to change a thing.

 

[Osamede]

Everything costs money. Manfs don't put in any more than they need to because most people buy based on price.

Customer churn and marketing cost money too. At least some of these manufacturers would be better off making better products and educating customers on the stand they have taken - instead of chasing each other to the bottom of the barrel.

I see this in laptop manufacturers too and its sad and pointless. Apple alone makes more profit than all of them combined.

 

[DaveMcLain]

When you look at a product such as one of these Linksys routers, the market it's designed to serve, it's price, it's features, it's overall appearance etc it would probably be close to impossible to make anything much better. Sure you could add features but that might make it more confusing and complicated for the novice to set up and get working. You could add antennas that can be swapped but this adds cost and when you look at the big picture what's the percentage of the product that ever even has it's antennas re aimed, removed or changed? I would say that it's about 1% or less.

In the end it's not really a chase to the bottom but more of getting more valve for a given amount of dollars. Better product at a lower price is what happens in the end.

 

[jalyst]

It's somewhat of a let down that this is not much more than a re-branding exercise...
But when you dominate market-share I guess there's little pressure to actually innovate, just cost cuts.

 

[DaveMcLain]

I think that this re-branding was probably necessary. A while ago I posted about how on a trip to a Wal Mart I saw at least 6 different Linksys wireless routers sitting on the shelf! It seemed to me that they needed to trim their product offerings back to fewer models and this is what happened. I just wonder if they had a lot of those models out there just to test the waters and to see which ones became the popular choices. Then they simply stopped making the ones that were less appealing to the masses and rebranded the successful models.

 

[saturation]

When you rebrand, the only person being fooled is the consumer; its not wrong but its clearly meant to sell somewhat deceptively; its not a really a true new model, just redressed. Now if its been improved internally somewhat to make it easier to use, you have something.

If SNB says the firmware is mostly the same, how can that improve the user experience since a good number get interesting bugs. If this is meant to be idiot proof, they need to copy what Apple's Airport did to make it mostly plug and play, something you don't get with many consumer grade Linksys-Cisco AP-routers.

It's somewhat of a let down that this is not much more than a re-branding exercise...
But when you dominate market-share I guess there's little pressure to actually innovate, just cost cuts.

Firmware should be essentially the same. But might be jiggered to prevent using WRT stuff and vice-versa.

Only difference I know of is addition of guest access. But that might already be in latest WRT-series routers. Anyone confirm/dispute that?

 

[DaveMcLain]

I'm not so sure the Apple approach is so hot. After reading the review of the Apple APE here on Small Net Builder it seems as though their configuration requires a utility to be installed on the computer. That doesn't seem like a very cool way to go for setup. Why not make it web based where you use a browser, doesn't that make more sense?

 

[saturation]

I'm not so sure the Apple approach is so hot. After reading the review of the Apple APE here on Small Net Builder it seems as though their configuration requires a utility to be installed on the computer. That doesn't seem like a very cool way to go for setup. Why not make it web based where you use a browser, doesn't that make more sense?

It certainly is, but if Apple can get away with it being mostly plug and play ease in its installation, that software is well done.

Others makers include software that doesn't make it easier to install. Most AP-routers targetted to PC and Linux users can be configured through a browser, and if done right, it is easier. Here's a sample:

http://www.trendnet.com/emulators/TEW-671BR_V1.0R/index_wizard.htm

 

[Chipicao]

I don't really care if the firmware is interchangeable, but what I would like to know is if they will continue to update WRT firmware the same way they will update the new E-series.

 

[Osamede]

When you look at a product such as one of these Linksys routers, the market it's designed to serve, it's price, it's features, it's overall appearance etc it would probably be close to impossible to make anything much better. Sure you could add features but that might make it more confusing and complicated for the novice to set up and get working. You could add antennas that can be swapped but this adds cost and when you look at the big picture what's the percentage of the product that ever even has it's antennas re aimed, removed or changed? I would say that it's about 1% or less.

In the end it's not really a chase to the bottom but more of getting more valve for a given amount of dollars. Better product at a lower price is what happens in the end.

Not in my experience. What they do is they engineer products that they dont expect to last more than a few months to a year and they throw it out there with a 3 month consumer warranty. By the time you find the product wanting or broken and out of warranty, they have come up with some new marketing fuzz and are all competing to re-sell you new junk.

Engineered obsolescence is what is is. Not particularly consumer friendly and downright folly in an age when we know how much resource usage, waste and pollution comes from consumer electronics. Why are we shioping around weight and fabricating casing and antennae and throwing them away when often there is very little changing inside?

I cant see how any of this is "better" and the "lower price" is not really lower in the long run, and comes at great cost to our environment. I'd be much more interested in seeing them make better, products that can stand they test of time and are modular so they can be upgraded more easily.

 

[DaveMcLain]

I'm not so sure about the 3 month life span being "built into" the device. Take for instance the Linksys WRT54G. I have some of those that I bought used off of E-Bay for about $15 and I know that they have at least 5 years of continuous use yet they still function perfectly. How long will they last? I don't know but I'd bet that most of them will out last their power supplies.

The WRT54G's that I'm thinking of are all the dreaded V5 and V6 versions which were cost down designs with reduced ram and flash. They are built inexpensively in nearly every way yet they are still reliable and so far they have lasted about 20X the 3 month life expectancy.

Greater integration, component reduction and advanced manufacturing techniques generally result in products that are both less expensive and more reliable. This produces less waste.

 

[tipstir]

My in-law got one of these from Cox last week the darn 802.11n is quicker than my Belkin N+. There are some charts online and the gizmo site showing how quick the E3000 is in 802.11n mode only compared to mixed. I left his in mixed so that my nephew could use his itouch 802.11g his was quick too. Left me to wonder how come all these wireless 802.11n wireless router are running faster than prior models. Like they have lifted non-blocking or restricted access giving the NPU and the rest of the integration between the memory, packet buffers and RF full speed a head instead of half speed.

 

[Osamede]

I'm not so sure about the 3 month life span being "built into" the device. Take for instance the Linksys WRT54G..

That's one device. But the vast majority of consumer routers are built with corners cut particularly poor cooling, which is why you hear so many users complaining about their router cutting out every day. And then one day they go poof. That is what you get with much of the junk from the likes of Belkin, netgear and yes in some cases Linksys and D-link too.

It doesnt have to be that way, but hey if the consumers get blinded by junky products with a 90 day warranty and they come back in less than a year to buy more junk, what's the incentive to do any better? We get the junk we deserve.

 

[bbear]

The best I can tell is that the E-Series is no longer the 11n Draft. At least that's what it looks like for the E2100L here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_routers compared to the WRT160NL. Short of that, I do not see a bit of difference.

So when thinking about the E2100L I was reading reviews on the WRT160NL, since they are identical, and am a bit disappointed that the E2100L was not improved; as the Amazon ratings are not very outstanding. It would be nice to actually read a technical review of the E2100L however.

 

[thiggins]

There are no more "draft" N routers. The spec was released toward the end of last year and all "draft" routers were grandfathered into released N status.

 

[fdashiell]

WAN port for E3000 not Gigabit?

There seems to be some confusion about the WAN port for the E3000. Even Cisco call center give me conflicting answers. Is the WAN port Gigabit or just 10/100 Base-T? The package ships with a single Cat-5 patch cable, not Cat-6. I think it's just a 10/100 Bast-T WAN port, but if so how does SNB test show ober 300 throughput?

Confused!!

 

[thiggins]

There should be no confusion. All ports are Gigabit.
CAT 5e works fine for Gigabit. Even CAT5 will work fine for a short cable.

 

[fdashiell]

WAN port for E3000 not Gigabit?

There should be no confusion. All ports are Gigabit.
CAT 5e works fine for Gigabit. Even CAT5 will work fine for a short cable.

OK. But this is not documented anywhere on their material or website. Their Tech Support researched it and told me WAN port is 10/100 Base-T. He told me he was looking at internal schematics. The box ships with a Cat-5e 5' patch cable.

How do you tell if a port is Gigabit?

Good to know Cat-5e is OK for short Gigabit runs.

 

[bbear]

...
Good to know Cat-5e is OK for short Gigabit runs.

Source: http://donutey.com/ethernet.php
excerpt:
Cat. 5 10/100/1000MbE* Category 5 cable is a currently outdated standard that provides support for up to 100Mhz operation. It can be used for 10/100 Ethernet without worry, however for longer runs of 1000MbE it is recomended to use Cat. 5e or higher.

Cat. 5e 10/100/1000MbE Category 5e cable provides support for frequencies up to 100Mhz. Cat. 5e generally provides the best price for performance, however for future proofing Cat. 6 or higher might be a better choice as it usually does not cost much more.

Cat. 6 10/100/1000MbE
10GbE* Category 6 is defined up to a frequency of 250Mhz. Allowing 10/100/1000 use with up to 100 meter cable length, along with 10GbE over shorter distances.