Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

rag on a muffin · Apr 26, 2004, 03:44 PM

has anyone been experiencing horrible airport range in the last update? it is aweful in my powerbook. does anyone know how to fix this?

Tomster · Apr 26, 2004, 04:43 PM

Downgrade to 3.3.1. www.xlr8yourmac.com has the instructions.

Tomster · Apr 26, 2004, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Tomster:
Downgrade to 3.3.1. www.xlr8yourmac.com has the instructions.

Apple just came out with 3.4.1 Installing now to see if there is any improvement.

laieboy · Apr 26, 2004, 05:08 PM

Just installed airport 3.4.1 and the range is so much better!!! The range has increased at least 50% for me!

iREZ · Apr 26, 2004, 05:27 PM

I also got an increase in my airport range. I was getting 3 bars from less then ten feet away with nothing in the way. Now with this update full bars for me even when walls are in the way.

NYCFarmboy · Apr 26, 2004, 05:31 PM

I keep forgetting to wait at least 2 weeks after any upgrade on Airport Extreme to let the bugs get worked out.

Well.. I don't forget..but I think..surely by now Apple will put out a update that won't be "bad"..and as usual..I'm mistaken.

wtmcgee · Apr 26, 2004, 05:33 PM

after having a lot of problems with 3.4, i reverted to 3.3.1

i'll be waiting at least a week to install this update.

bkb · Apr 26, 2004, 05:57 PM

Updated to 3.4.1 and getting 3 bars instead of 1 or 2 and AP Grapher is showing 10-15% more signal quality than it was on 3.4.

Looks like they fixed it now.

PeterKG · Apr 26, 2004, 06:47 PM

This has been a great update. My signal strength has also improved quite a bit. Way to go Apple! You have redeemed yourself.

rag on a muffin · Apr 26, 2004, 06:57 PM

YAY!! my range is good again! that reminds me of a bad halo version, when the key bindings were messed up, so that the w key wouldnt work. the next day they released 1.4.1.

phantomo · Apr 27, 2004, 02:42 AM

Hi, when you guys/gals said signal has improved, are you referring to improvement from 3.4 to 3.4.1 or from 3.3 to 3.4.1? Just want some clarification first.

Thanks.

anaphora68 · Apr 27, 2004, 11:17 AM

installed 3.4.1 and everything that went bad with 3.4 was fixed.

bkb · Apr 27, 2004, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by phantomo:
Hi, when you guys/gals said signal has improved, are you referring to improvement from 3.4 to 3.4.1 or from 3.3 to 3.4.1? Just want some clarification first.

Thanks.

3.4 to 3.4.1. I didn't downgrade. I weathered the storm

.

Cliff_O · Apr 27, 2004, 08:15 PM

FWIW, I just upgraded from 3.4 to 3.4.1 and I am getting 6 bars in a spot (my garage) that was previously a dead zone.

rag on a muffin · Apr 27, 2004, 08:35 PM

well now im experiencing another major issue. the ping is god aweful. i did a peer to peer network, and it burps every now and then.

the time equals is the ping. notice 120 millieseconds is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!!!

64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=1.692 ms
64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=4 ttl=255 time=1.968 ms
64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=5 ttl=255 time=1.717 ms
64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=6 ttl=255 time=69.458 ms
64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=7 ttl=255 time=1.993 ms
64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=8 ttl=255 time=1.802 ms
64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=9 ttl=255 time=1.802 ms
64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=10 ttl=255 time=1.782 ms
64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=11 ttl=255 time=1.864 ms
64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=12 ttl=255 time=1.827 ms
64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=13 ttl=255 time=1.935 ms
64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=14 ttl=255 time=1.717 ms
64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=15 ttl=255 time=1.779 ms
64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=16 ttl=255 time=120.446 ms
64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=17 ttl=255 time=1.722 ms
64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=18 ttl=255 time=1.713 ms
64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=19 ttl=255 time=1.746 ms
64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=20 ttl=255 time=2.406 ms
64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=21 ttl=255 time=4.634 ms
64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=22 ttl=255 time=1.75 ms
64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=23 ttl=255 time=15.743 ms
64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=24 ttl=255 time=5.942 ms
64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=25 ttl=255 time=2.521 ms
64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=26 ttl=255 time=12.775 ms
64 bytes from 169.254.182.254: icmp_seq=27 ttl=255 time=1.758 ms

ibook_steve · Apr 27, 2004, 11:15 PM

What do you mean by a peer to peer network? I'm guessing you mean just a little network between two machines. What's the IP address of your machine? I ask because 169 addresses are usually bogus addresses you get when you can't get a valid DHCP lease. If you want to set up a little local network, use addresses like 192.168.0.x or 10.0.0.x. I wouldn't trust any network that has machines with 169 addresses, whether they are wired or wireless. If you are assigning 169 addresses, what are you using for the router address? This all seems like a very strange setup. More details might help solve your problem, but I don't think it has to do with the Airport updates.

Steve

rag on a muffin · Apr 28, 2004, 02:45 PM

this test i posted was me pinging my moms ibook through an ad-hoc network. i also pinged my router through 192.168.1.1 with the same results. im now going to do an airport interference test to see if its an interference problem.