Thread Info
  • State Suggested Answer
  • Replies 12 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 15 subscribers
  • Views 4670 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested

Inferior physical design of new AP6 420 vs our older APX 320

Rafael Telles

We recently moved to a new office and decided to upgrade our two APX 320s to two AP6 420s. The specs on the new APs look great in paper but once we tested them in real life the increase in performance wasn't as much as we expected. Anyways at least in performance we improved a little, however in terms of physical design it went downhill!

I really dislike the new AP6s, the unit is larger and uglier, but the biggest complaint I have is with the positioning of the ETH, USB, Reset and power input on the side instead of in the back of the unit. Our APX 320s looked very nice installed in the dropped ceiling, the AP6 420 show the Cat6 cable connecting to it from the side (not a clean look), plus all the other ports/holes.

This post is meant as feedback for the design team, maybe for the next APs they will go back to a more compact unit and putting the Eth jack in the back again,



Added TAGs
[edited by: Erick Jan at 12:35 AM (GMT -7) on 11 Oct 2024]
Parents
  • 0

    I have to admit that I had a similar thought when I upgraded to the AP6 420E. The APX 320's no-ventilation is probably not the best design -- especially for Wifi 6E -- but the ability to run the ethernet straight into the wall/celiing OR to run out out of the side was quite nice. In the future, a hybrid design would probably be best.

    On the other hand, Wifi 6E is VERY nice. The whole 5GHz band is so screwed up and fragmented in multiple ways and 6GHz -- with Wifi 6 enhancements -- is the way to go. (The APX 320 also had its quirky two-radio solution, but that's another matter.)

    I notice that your device has a barrel power connector, which mine doesn't -- so mine has a slightly cleaner look. Not sure if it's the region or the 420E, but mine seems to be PoE-only.

  • 0 in reply to Wayne Folta

    Mine are AP6 420 (without the E) for the Americas. You mentioned a good point about ventilation so that might be ok. I still don't understand the logic of why the unit needs to be larger and why the ports (ETH, Console, Reset and Power) cannot be on the back of the unit? I haven't even enable 6GHz at this point since I wanted to make sure the WiFi works fine plus the majority of smartphones and laptops in the office are not even 6 GHz compatible. I might enable that frequency in the future.

Reply
  • 0 in reply to Wayne Folta

    Mine are AP6 420 (without the E) for the Americas. You mentioned a good point about ventilation so that might be ok. I still don't understand the logic of why the unit needs to be larger and why the ports (ETH, Console, Reset and Power) cannot be on the back of the unit? I haven't even enable 6GHz at this point since I wanted to make sure the WiFi works fine plus the majority of smartphones and laptops in the office are not even 6 GHz compatible. I might enable that frequency in the future.

Children
  • 0 in reply to Rafael Telles

    The E is for WiFi 6E, so if you don't have that, you won't have 6GHz -- as I understand it.

    It's larger at least in part because it has 3 radios rather than 2, so it can simultaneously do the full 2.4 GHz, 5GHz, and 6GHz ranges. In addition, WiFi 6 (and 6E) support more sophisticated beam-forming, so a larger footprint might support that better. It'll have at least 6 antennas -- two per radio/frequency band.

    The 5 GHz band is a mess, broken up into multiple pieces, having DFS frequencies (we're near an airport, so that matters), and then a new set of channels (UNII-4) that may never be supported by many devices. So I'm excited about 6 GHz. And with the loads of bandwidth plus improvements in WiFi 6/6E the effective range should be roughly the same.

  • 0 in reply to Wayne Folta

    Thanks for your replies. Ok so the holes for ventilation and the bigger size make sense after your explanations. Now I need an explanation of why the ports/holes were moved to the side instead of being located at the back (for a cleaner install).

  • 0 in reply to Rafael Telles

    I'm with you on that, which is what I meant by the next time being a "hybrid" design: keep the larger size and ventilation -- as necessary -- but put the connectors on the top so they can be hidden.

    The only thing I can think of is that a side location makes the device slightly thinner and might make for a more efficient circuit board layout (not having the ethernet connection in the center of the board). Also, the reset and admin port are accessible without unmounting the AP from the wall/ceiling, which might be convenient if you have to use them.

  • 0 in reply to Wayne Folta

    I think you're spot on with your assumptions about why the ports were placed on the side. It seems like the Sophos design team prioritized practicality and functionality over aesthetics in this case. While it may not look as clean, having the ports more accessible without unmounting the device could be a deliberate choice to simplify maintenance and troubleshooting.

    PS: You must be an engineer like me; always trying to make sense of thing

  • 0 in reply to Rafael Telles

    I'm more of a programmer and statistics kind of guy than an engineer, it turns out. I also have my AP horizontally mounted, on a door, and running the cables from behind it doesn't buy me much, since they have to go under the bottom of the door (no room on top once the door closes). Weird situation, and I hope to ceiling mount it soon, but that will take more planning and experimenting due to ducting and metal-frame construction and not wanting to poke a lot of exploratory holes in the wall/ceiling. (Not a drop ceiling so exploration isn't easy.)

    I'll be most excited in a month or so when my laptop gets upgraded and has WiFi 6E and I can begin to truly survey the 6GHz band. I'm noticing that my phone jumps to 5GHz fairly quickly so I fear that 6Ghz won't go as far as I would like it to. :-(

Unfiltered HTML