How To: Turn Your Mac Into an Airport - OS2

This is a discussion on How To: Turn Your Mac Into an Airport - OS2 ; Is your Airport not working? Hell, do you even have an Airport? Do you even know what it is? It is a local area wireless network you can easily connect all of your computers to for fast internet connectivity. If ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: How To: Turn Your Mac Into an Airport

  1. How To: Turn Your Mac Into an Airport

    Is your Airport not working? Hell, do you even have an Airport? Do you
    even know what it is? It is a local area wireless network you can
    easily connect all of your computers to for fast internet
    connectivity. If you are in one of those categories, then worry not,
    because you can still share your internet connection with other
    computers in your household wirelessly, just turn one of your Mac's
    into an Airport! Let's do this together shall we?

    You will need: a Mac with an Ethernet port and an Airport card,
    running Mac OS X. Note here: When you order your Mac Pro machine
    make sure you have Airport Extreme installed. Ok, here we go.

    Step 1: Plug in the Ethernet cable of your broadband/modem/whatever to
    the Mac you wish to use as an Airport. Once that is done, you are
    connected to the internet automatically, no configuration needed.
    Yeah I know, much too easy. Thank God it is OSX and not OS/2, huh?

    Step 2: Now we need to set your Mac up so that it shares the internet
    connection with the rest of the computers in your house or business.
    To do so, open System Preferences, and click on the Sharing pane under
    the Internet & Network category.

    Step 3: On the Sharing pane, click on the Internet tab. Go to Share
    your internet connection from: and select the built-in gigabyte
    Ethernet 1 (or two if you have two gigabyte Ethernet ports/connections
    as I have). Now click, AirPort in the box that says "To computers
    using ..." Next, select Airport Options on that same screen. Select
    WEP (or WPA or WPA2 for heavier security), create a name for your
    "Network" (mine is WarpCity - go figger!) and add a 13 letter/digital
    combination password. Click on the Start button for internet sharing!

    Step 4: Now you're good to go! Your Airport status menu item (up there
    in your top menu bar) should have an arrow pointing up on it,
    symbolizing the signal your Mac is sending out to your other
    computer(s). Now go to your other computer and connect them
    wirelessly to the internet via your Aiport Wifi menu button (or
    appropriate wireless menu). The drop down menu will list your
    network. Click on it and insert your password. You are now
    wirelessly connected! (Note here, do you have printers with
    wireless connectivity? If so, turn them on, select the network/
    password and presto! Same with shared external hard drives!) All of
    your Mac machines will use the 802.11n protocol and your wireless
    connection will be five times faster and will have a range of about
    200 feet. Your Windows, Linux and OS/2 machines will default to the
    slower 802.11g protocol and will have a much shorter range of about 70
    feet! So you can see the wireless advantage when using OSX and the
    Mac! WaaaHOOO!

    That's it! Happy wireless computing. Don't you wish it was that easy
    when using OS/2?

    Dr. Tim Martin, The OS/2 Guy
    Warp City Web Site - http://www.warpcity.com


  2. How To: Turn Your Mac Into an Airport

    TOG> Is your Airport not working?

    Well, the last strike threat was in 2005, so it has been working for
    some while; but the parking facilities have been vastly altered
    recently, turning into it into a queueing nightmare. It is working,
    but nowhere near as efficiently, from an individual traveller's
    perspective, as it used to.

    TOG> Hell, do you even have an Airport?

    Oh yes. I was there just last month.

    TOG> Do you even know what it is? It is a local area wireless network
    [...]

    No. It's a tract of land or water with facilities for the landing,
    takeoff, shelter, supply, and repair of aircraft.

    One could turn a Macintosh into an airport. But the only way that I
    can think of off the top of my head for doing so is to collect a whole
    load of Macintoshes and use them as landfill in order to level the
    ground for the runways. As a advocate of turning Macintoshes into
    airports, perhaps you have some ideas as to how you could persuade
    people to throw away enough Macintoshes for a decent-sized airport to
    be constructed.


  3. How To: Turn Your Mac Into an Airport

    TOG> You would foolish to buy a Core Duo or PPC Mac machine
    TOG> today and everything Apple is selling is equipped [...] Those
    TOG> who won't move along are simply lazy and refuse to accept
    TOG> the fact that computing drives on Murphy's Law.

    Actually, it's Moore's Law. Talking of which:

    TOG> why I look forward to the inclusion of Sun's ZFS filing
    TOG> system into OSX:
    TOG>
    TOG> 2. Honkin' big filesystems - How big do filesystems
    TOG> need to be? In a world where 640KB is certainly not
    TOG> enough for computer memory, current filesystems have
    TOG> reached or are reaching the end of their usefulness. A
    TOG> 64-bit filesystem would meet today's need, but estimate
    TOG> of the lifetime of a 64-bit filesystem is about 10 years.
    TOG> Extending to 128-bits gives ZFS an expected lifetime
    TOG> of 30 years.

    In other words: NTFS, a 64-bit filesystem format first released in
    1993, is 4 years beyond the end of its lifetime of usefulness already;
    and volume sizes will be going from 2 to the power 64 to 2 to the
    power 128 within 20 years. You're alone on that road. Gordon E.
    Moore will not follow you down it. Moore's Law predicts a rise from 2
    to the power 64 to 2 to the power 74 in 20 years. Even Mark Kryder
    won't follow you. Kryder's Law predicts a rise to 2 to the power 84
    in 20 years. Rough calculations, incorporating the somewhat
    optimistic assumption that one disc sector can be stored on one atom
    of iron, indicate that you are expecting hard discs to be roughly the
    size of small asteroids (That many iron atoms masses roughly the same
    as 951 Gaspra, on the back of my envelope.) by the year 2037.
    Slightly less rough calculations have you expecting the oceans to boil
    by the year 2037.


  4. Re: How To: Turn Your Mac Into an Airport

    On Oct 8, 9:28 am, J de Boyne Pollard
    wrote:

    > TOG> [...] Those
    > TOG> who won't move along are simply lazy and refuse to accept
    > TOG> the fact that computing drives on Murphy's Law.
    >
    > Actually, it's Moore's Law.


    Thank you. I stand corrected.

    > In other words:


    In other words, OSX is moving ahead while OS/2 is dead and buried.
    ZFS is a 128-bit file system that can store 18 billion billion (18.4
    1018) times more data than current 64-bit systems. The limitations of
    ZFS are designed to be so large that they will not be encountered in
    practice for some time.

    Linux users can use ZFS but Linux is not Unix and Linux users will
    have to use an emulator such as FUSE - and you will, eventually.

    Dr. Tim Martin, The OS/2 Guy
    Warp City Web Site - http://www.warpcity.com




  5. Re: How To: Turn Your Mac Into an Airport

    Rich Walsh wrote:
    > On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 05:15:55 UTC, The OS/2 Guy wrote:


    >> All of your Mac machines will use the 802.11n protocol and your wireless
    >> connection will be five times faster and will have a range of about
    >> 200 feet. Your Windows, Linux and OS/2 machines will default to the
    >> slower 802.11g protocol and will have a much shorter range of about 70
    >> feet!

    >
    > Not quite, sweetheart. _Any_ 802.11n-equipped machine will share the
    > benefits (assuming it's firmware is compatible with Apple's implementation
    > of the draft spec). OTOH, connect a first-generation Intel Mac (those
    > with Core Duo vs Core2 Duo) or a PPC Mac to this network, and you can
    > kiss those benefits goodbye. As soon as one of these 802.11a/b/g machines
    > connects, the *entire* network is forced to slow down & reduce its range
    > because the protocols aren't compatible.


    Is the latter always true?
    On a home LAN with just one AP or wifi router you're absolutely right,
    the beloved Mac wifi performance will surely degrade if somebody nearby
    gets his ancient wifi NIC -say, a Cisco340- associated with the wifi
    router, too.

    However, now think of big wifi LANs (like in airports or shopping malls).

    On my AP (a Linksys WAP54G) I can discriminate between "wireless-B
    only", "wireless-G only" or "mixed". IOW, I suppose that in "wireless-G
    only" it associates exclusively with G-capable LAN clients; analogously
    for B-clients.
    Based on that I can imagine (but I'm not sure here) that some APs in a
    coherent big wifi-network exclusively associate with G-clients, other
    APs with B-clients, so that indeed mixed wifi networks can exist with B-
    and G-clients each operating at max speed (save for bandwidth sharing of
    course).

    If this can really work that way, adding in an wireless-N subnet keeping
    up its own speed isn't that inconceivable.

    But again, I'm not sure. A short Google turned up this link which
    suggests that "...in mixed networks..." "...each client may work at its
    own maximum data rate."
    http://www.ccnmag.com/news.php?id=3099

    Anyone who does know the details?

    P.

  6. Re: How To: Turn Your Mac Into an Airport

    On Oct 8, 1:36 pm, Philip Nienhuis wrote:
    > Rich Walsh wrote:
    > > On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 05:15:55 UTC, The OS/2 Guy wrote:

    >
    > >> All of your Mac machines will use the 802.11n protocol and your wireless
    > >> connection will be five times faster and will have a range of about
    > >> 200 feet. Your Windows, Linux and OS/2 machines will default to the
    > >> slower 802.11g protocol and will have a much shorter range of about 70
    > >> feet!

    >
    > > Not quite, sweetheart. _Any_ 802.11n-equipped machine will share the
    > > benefits (assuming it's firmware is compatible with Apple's implementation
    > > of the draft spec). OTOH, connect a first-generation Intel Mac (those
    > > with Core Duo vs Core2 Duo) or a PPC Mac to this network, and you can
    > > kiss those benefits goodbye. As soon as one of these 802.11a/b/g machines
    > > connects, the *entire* network is forced to slow down & reduce its range
    > > because the protocols aren't compatible.

    >
    > Is the latter always true?
    > On a home LAN with just one AP or wifi router you're absolutely right,
    > the beloved Mac wifi performance will surely degrade if somebody nearby
    > gets his ancient wifi NIC -say, a Cisco340- associated with the wifi
    > router, too.
    >
    > However, now think of big wifi LANs (like in airports or shopping malls).
    >
    > On my AP (a Linksys WAP54G) I can discriminate between "wireless-B
    > only", "wireless-G only" or "mixed". IOW, I suppose that in "wireless-G
    > only" it associates exclusively with G-capable LAN clients; analogously
    > for B-clients.
    > Based on that I can imagine (but I'm not sure here) that some APs in a
    > coherent big wifi-network exclusively associate with G-clients, other
    > APs with B-clients, so that indeed mixed wifi networks can exist with B-
    > and G-clients each operating at max speed (save for bandwidth sharing of
    > course).
    >
    > If this can really work that way, adding in an wireless-N subnet keeping
    > up its own speed isn't that inconceivable.
    >
    > But again, I'm not sure. A short Google turned up this link which
    > suggests that "...in mixed networks..." "...each client may work at its
    > own maximum data rate."http://www.ccnmag.com/news.php?id=3099
    >
    > Anyone who does know the details?
    >
    > P.


    I can't confirm or deny Phillip as I have only Mac machines (all Core
    2 Duo with 802.11n wireless capability). I can walk 260 feet out in
    the backyard using my BlackBook and still have a high/fast
    connection. My neighbor, using Vista and WinXP, can't move from his
    living room to his kitchen, probably 30 feet, and stay connected.

    Dr. Tim Martin, The OS/2 Guy
    Warp City Web Site - http://www.warpcity.com


  7. Re: How To: Turn Your Mac Into an Airport

    On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 20:36:23 UTC, Philip Nienhuis wrote:
    > Rich Walsh wrote:


    > > _Any_ 802.11n-equipped machine will share the benefits (assuming it's
    > > firmware is compatible with Apple's implementation of the draft spec).
    > > [...] As soon as one of these 802.11a/b/g machines connects, the
    > > *entire* network is forced to slow down & reduce its range because the
    > > protocols aren't compatible.

    >
    > Is the latter always true?


    I just did a search to get the specifics on why an 802.11a/b/g client
    slows down an 'n' network but found nothing explicit. However,
    reading thru descriptions of how 802.11n works gives some clues.

    802.11n transmits multiple data streams simultaneously and uses an
    improved coding scheme for transmitted data. An older client would
    be unable to handle either of these techniques, so they have to be
    turned off to maintain compatibility. Some articles also mention
    transmitting on two separate channels which would certainly confuse
    the hell out of an older client (I couldn't tell if the most recent
    draft spec still includes this).

    Still, at least one review of a pre-802.11n router claimed that an
    802.11g client's performance was significantly improved using an 'n'
    router (vs a 'g' router).


    --
    == == almost usable email address: rws AT e-vertise.com == ==
    __________________________________________________ _________________
    |
    | Remote Workplace Server v0.80
    Rich Walsh | interact with the WPS from any program
    Ft Myers, FL | http://e-vertise.com/rws/rws080.zip
    __________________________________________________ _________________

  8. [FUD] Re: How To: Turn Your Mac Into an Airport

    The OS/2 Guy wrote:

  9. How To: Turn Your Mac Into an Airport

    TOG> Is your Airport not working?

    Well, the last strike threat was in 2005, so it has been working for
    some while; but the parking facilities have been vastly altered
    recently, turning into it into a queueing nightmare. It is working,
    but nowhere near as efficiently, from an individual traveller's
    perspective, as it used to.

    TOG> Hell, do you even have an Airport?

    Oh yes. I was there just last month.

    TOG> Do you even know what it is? It is a local area wireless network
    [...]

    No. It's a tract of land or water with facilities for the landing,
    takeoff, shelter, supply, and repair of aircraft.

    One could turn a Macintosh into an airport. But the only way that I
    can think of off the top of my head for doing so is to collect a whole
    load of Macintoshes and use them as landfill in order to level the
    ground for the runways. As a advocate of turning Macintoshes into
    airports, perhaps you have some ideas as to how you could persuade
    people to throw away enough Macintoshes for a decent-sized airport to
    be constructed.


  10. How To: Turn Your Mac Into an Airport

    TOG> You would foolish to buy a Core Duo or PPC Mac machine
    TOG> today and everything Apple is selling is equipped [...] Those
    TOG> who won't move along are simply lazy and refuse to accept
    TOG> the fact that computing drives on Murphy's Law.

    Actually, it's Moore's Law. Talking of which:

    TOG> why I look forward to the inclusion of Sun's ZFS filing
    TOG> system into OSX:
    TOG>
    TOG> 2. Honkin' big filesystems - How big do filesystems
    TOG> need to be? In a world where 640KB is certainly not
    TOG> enough for computer memory, current filesystems have
    TOG> reached or are reaching the end of their usefulness. A
    TOG> 64-bit filesystem would meet today's need, but estimate
    TOG> of the lifetime of a 64-bit filesystem is about 10 years.
    TOG> Extending to 128-bits gives ZFS an expected lifetime
    TOG> of 30 years.

    In other words: NTFS, a 64-bit filesystem format first released in
    1993, is 4 years beyond the end of its lifetime of usefulness already;
    and volume sizes will be going from 2 to the power 64 to 2 to the
    power 128 within 20 years. You're alone on that road. Gordon E.
    Moore will not follow you down it. Moore's Law predicts a rise from 2
    to the power 64 to 2 to the power 74 in 20 years. Even Mark Kryder
    won't follow you. Kryder's Law predicts a rise to 2 to the power 84
    in 20 years. Rough calculations, incorporating the somewhat
    optimistic assumption that one disc sector can be stored on one atom
    of iron, indicate that you are expecting hard discs to be roughly the
    size of small asteroids (That many iron atoms masses roughly the same
    as 951 Gaspra, on the back of my envelope.) by the year 2037.
    Slightly less rough calculations have you expecting the oceans to boil
    by the year 2037.


  11. Re: How To: Turn Your Mac Into an Airport

    On Oct 8, 9:28 am, J de Boyne Pollard
    wrote:

    > TOG> [...] Those
    > TOG> who won't move along are simply lazy and refuse to accept
    > TOG> the fact that computing drives on Murphy's Law.
    >
    > Actually, it's Moore's Law.


    Thank you. I stand corrected.

    > In other words:


    In other words, OSX is moving ahead while OS/2 is dead and buried.
    ZFS is a 128-bit file system that can store 18 billion billion (18.4
    1018) times more data than current 64-bit systems. The limitations of
    ZFS are designed to be so large that they will not be encountered in
    practice for some time.

    Linux users can use ZFS but Linux is not Unix and Linux users will
    have to use an emulator such as FUSE - and you will, eventually.

    Dr. Tim Martin, The OS/2 Guy
    Warp City Web Site - http://www.warpcity.com




  12. Re: How To: Turn Your Mac Into an Airport

    Rich Walsh wrote:
    > On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 05:15:55 UTC, The OS/2 Guy wrote:


    >> All of your Mac machines will use the 802.11n protocol and your wireless
    >> connection will be five times faster and will have a range of about
    >> 200 feet. Your Windows, Linux and OS/2 machines will default to the
    >> slower 802.11g protocol and will have a much shorter range of about 70
    >> feet!

    >
    > Not quite, sweetheart. _Any_ 802.11n-equipped machine will share the
    > benefits (assuming it's firmware is compatible with Apple's implementation
    > of the draft spec). OTOH, connect a first-generation Intel Mac (those
    > with Core Duo vs Core2 Duo) or a PPC Mac to this network, and you can
    > kiss those benefits goodbye. As soon as one of these 802.11a/b/g machines
    > connects, the *entire* network is forced to slow down & reduce its range
    > because the protocols aren't compatible.


    Is the latter always true?
    On a home LAN with just one AP or wifi router you're absolutely right,
    the beloved Mac wifi performance will surely degrade if somebody nearby
    gets his ancient wifi NIC -say, a Cisco340- associated with the wifi
    router, too.

    However, now think of big wifi LANs (like in airports or shopping malls).

    On my AP (a Linksys WAP54G) I can discriminate between "wireless-B
    only", "wireless-G only" or "mixed". IOW, I suppose that in "wireless-G
    only" it associates exclusively with G-capable LAN clients; analogously
    for B-clients.
    Based on that I can imagine (but I'm not sure here) that some APs in a
    coherent big wifi-network exclusively associate with G-clients, other
    APs with B-clients, so that indeed mixed wifi networks can exist with B-
    and G-clients each operating at max speed (save for bandwidth sharing of
    course).

    If this can really work that way, adding in an wireless-N subnet keeping
    up its own speed isn't that inconceivable.

    But again, I'm not sure. A short Google turned up this link which
    suggests that "...in mixed networks..." "...each client may work at its
    own maximum data rate."
    http://www.ccnmag.com/news.php?id=3099

    Anyone who does know the details?

    P.

  13. Re: How To: Turn Your Mac Into an Airport

    On Oct 8, 1:36 pm, Philip Nienhuis wrote:
    > Rich Walsh wrote:
    > > On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 05:15:55 UTC, The OS/2 Guy wrote:

    >
    > >> All of your Mac machines will use the 802.11n protocol and your wireless
    > >> connection will be five times faster and will have a range of about
    > >> 200 feet. Your Windows, Linux and OS/2 machines will default to the
    > >> slower 802.11g protocol and will have a much shorter range of about 70
    > >> feet!

    >
    > > Not quite, sweetheart. _Any_ 802.11n-equipped machine will share the
    > > benefits (assuming it's firmware is compatible with Apple's implementation
    > > of the draft spec). OTOH, connect a first-generation Intel Mac (those
    > > with Core Duo vs Core2 Duo) or a PPC Mac to this network, and you can
    > > kiss those benefits goodbye. As soon as one of these 802.11a/b/g machines
    > > connects, the *entire* network is forced to slow down & reduce its range
    > > because the protocols aren't compatible.

    >
    > Is the latter always true?
    > On a home LAN with just one AP or wifi router you're absolutely right,
    > the beloved Mac wifi performance will surely degrade if somebody nearby
    > gets his ancient wifi NIC -say, a Cisco340- associated with the wifi
    > router, too.
    >
    > However, now think of big wifi LANs (like in airports or shopping malls).
    >
    > On my AP (a Linksys WAP54G) I can discriminate between "wireless-B
    > only", "wireless-G only" or "mixed". IOW, I suppose that in "wireless-G
    > only" it associates exclusively with G-capable LAN clients; analogously
    > for B-clients.
    > Based on that I can imagine (but I'm not sure here) that some APs in a
    > coherent big wifi-network exclusively associate with G-clients, other
    > APs with B-clients, so that indeed mixed wifi networks can exist with B-
    > and G-clients each operating at max speed (save for bandwidth sharing of
    > course).
    >
    > If this can really work that way, adding in an wireless-N subnet keeping
    > up its own speed isn't that inconceivable.
    >
    > But again, I'm not sure. A short Google turned up this link which
    > suggests that "...in mixed networks..." "...each client may work at its
    > own maximum data rate."http://www.ccnmag.com/news.php?id=3099
    >
    > Anyone who does know the details?
    >
    > P.


    I can't confirm or deny Phillip as I have only Mac machines (all Core
    2 Duo with 802.11n wireless capability). I can walk 260 feet out in
    the backyard using my BlackBook and still have a high/fast
    connection. My neighbor, using Vista and WinXP, can't move from his
    living room to his kitchen, probably 30 feet, and stay connected.

    Dr. Tim Martin, The OS/2 Guy
    Warp City Web Site - http://www.warpcity.com


  14. Re: How To: Turn Your Mac Into an Airport

    On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 20:36:23 UTC, Philip Nienhuis wrote:
    > Rich Walsh wrote:


    > > _Any_ 802.11n-equipped machine will share the benefits (assuming it's
    > > firmware is compatible with Apple's implementation of the draft spec).
    > > [...] As soon as one of these 802.11a/b/g machines connects, the
    > > *entire* network is forced to slow down & reduce its range because the
    > > protocols aren't compatible.

    >
    > Is the latter always true?


    I just did a search to get the specifics on why an 802.11a/b/g client
    slows down an 'n' network but found nothing explicit. However,
    reading thru descriptions of how 802.11n works gives some clues.

    802.11n transmits multiple data streams simultaneously and uses an
    improved coding scheme for transmitted data. An older client would
    be unable to handle either of these techniques, so they have to be
    turned off to maintain compatibility. Some articles also mention
    transmitting on two separate channels which would certainly confuse
    the hell out of an older client (I couldn't tell if the most recent
    draft spec still includes this).

    Still, at least one review of a pre-802.11n router claimed that an
    802.11g client's performance was significantly improved using an 'n'
    router (vs a 'g' router).


    --
    == == almost usable email address: rws AT e-vertise.com == ==
    __________________________________________________ _________________
    |
    | Remote Workplace Server v0.80
    Rich Walsh | interact with the WPS from any program
    Ft Myers, FL | http://e-vertise.com/rws/rws080.zip
    __________________________________________________ _________________

+ Reply to Thread