D-Link launches Quadband DIR-855 Wireless N Router

Perpetual HD media streaming and online deathmatches got your current router in a bind? D-Link's looking to solve said quandary by introducing the Quadband DIR-855 Wireless N Router, which quite simply "supports true concurrent 802.11n transmission over both 2.4GHz and 5GHz channels at the same time." Granted, you'll need a wireless chipset capable of detecting both 2.4GHz and 5GHz channels or either the company's own DWA-160 USB adapter to take advantage, but we suppose that's the price you pay for being able to "segregate your network by application." You'll also find 5 gigabit Ethernet ports for those times when only wires will suffice, and the OLED display up top keeps things flashy, too. Expect this one to land in May for a stiff £169.99 ($337).

[Via TrustedReviews]

[xbit @ Mar 3rd 2008 1:55PM]

In a world of fugly routers, this one win a gold medal.

[Ellianth @ Mar 3rd 2008 2:58PM]

hmm.. i thought it looked nice. Well I'm not feeling the antennas, but it's nice.

[roflercopterer @ Mar 3rd 2008 1:57PM]

Nobody is buying a $330 router for the looks. And in the world of electronics there are a lot worse things to look at.

[Shmapple @ Mar 3rd 2008 2:49PM]

Don't underestimate Apple owners. They would buy an Airport because it looks better than the better performing D-Link.

[Greg @ Mar 3rd 2008 4:19PM]

The Apple router is Draft N, can operate at 2.4 or 5ghz, and you can plug a hard drive or a usb printer into it, for use on the entire network. The performance is pretty good too, and it's the most reliable router for Mac users.
... But I'm sure it's just the looks @.@

[Michael LaFramboise @ Mar 3rd 2008 9:39PM]

Shmapple, not too sure wtf is all the whining about when it comes to Airport Extremes -- they cost just as much (and at times much cheaper) then other N routers and the range is surprisingly good... I tried Linksys, Netgear, D-Link routers, and the Airports get some of the best ranges and exceptional signal stability

[Jimmy Jones @ Mar 3rd 2008 1:58PM]

a sexy goodness of 802.11n device...... i like d OLED. Unfortunately, I'll pick up one when d next-gen lappies or desktops supports this wifi-specs... until then the price can stay as is..

[hp540 @ Mar 3rd 2008 2:01PM]

who the hell are you? Bob Marley? It's "the" not "d"

[StrangeBum @ Mar 3rd 2008 2:17PM]

@hp540
I was thinking the exact same thing. Up until the last sentence he wrote anyway.

"until then the price can stay as is"

The word 'the' is actually used. Someone seems to be having identity issues. But of course, I'm only kidding. I actually think it's a pretty sweet looking router. I really like the OLED display on it, adds some extra kick to it IMO.

[OneLove @ Mar 3rd 2008 2:06PM]

just slap "xtreme" on it

[LaughingMan @ Mar 3rd 2008 2:14PM]

If by " a wireless chipset capable of detecting both 2.4GHz and 5GHz channels " you mean just your standard Draft 2.0 N chipset on your laptop, then you'd be right. The 802.11n standard supports both 5 ghz and 2.4 ghz spectrum ranges. The limitation is that most routers up to today had no 5ghz support at all.

As an aside, Apple's new Time Capsule supports the same dual band 802.11n, as evidenced by the hands on earlier today.

[Chad @ Mar 3rd 2008 2:16PM]

a five gigabit ethernet port?

[Patrick Stark @ Mar 3rd 2008 2:31PM]

You missed the "s" on the ports so it has 5 - gigabit ethernet ports.

[DaveTheMan @ Mar 3rd 2008 2:47PM]

I was confused like you until i reread it.

[Chad @ Mar 3rd 2008 4:08PM]

I guess I'll have to put out the tag next time LOL

[Chad @ Mar 3rd 2008 4:11PM]

I guess I'll have to put out the sarcasm tag next time LOL

#@$!parser#!@$!#@!

[Richard @ Mar 3rd 2008 2:50PM]

300 bucks for a router lol.

[Mr. Gremlin @ Mar 3rd 2008 2:40PM]

$337 for a router? ::starts laughing hysterically::

I mean, do they figure that since 337 will remind people of 1337, that that justifies it?

[Drew @ Mar 3rd 2008 2:54PM]

Notice that they are quoting the price in GBP. Compare it to router prices in the UK. The actual US price may be lower.

[Flashpoint @ Mar 3rd 2008 2:40PM]

#1 It is too expensive - there are less costly n routers out there.

#2 many reviewers have been criticizing the stackability of these routers with oled on top and the huge antennae.

#3 it would be better if the antennae could be tilted upwards in a "W" shape so that this could be mounted flat against the wall.

#4 The XBOX360, PS3 and Wii are limited to 802.11 G until there is a new adapter for the 360 so running a bunch of consoles off one of these creates obvious bottlenecking at the console - you'd be better off with an ethernet cable.

[Moises @ Mar 3rd 2008 2:49PM]

Actually the Xbox360 supports 802.11a,b and g. MS recommends using 802.11a. As far as bottlenecking with the consoles you playing online games on all 3 at the same time?

[Kris @ Mar 3rd 2008 3:12PM]

Moises, the XBox 360 can use any wireless standard Microsoft wants. You just need a workable wireless adapter + a software update from Microsoft (for drivers one would assume).

Currently, as far as I know, it only supports b/g. Does the office also cover a or is there another wireless component that can do a on the XBox 360?

[griffinhart @ Mar 3rd 2008 3:27PM]

To clarify, the MS 360 wireless adapter supports a/b/g not just b/g. I know this since I connect mine using .11a

[David @ Mar 3rd 2008 2:50PM]

Holy BatSh|+ Robin.. This is one expensive over priced home or enterprise router..
IS this a Braodcom or Atheros 900x chipset?

I'll stick with my new TrendNet TEW-633GR.

[trumpton @ Mar 3rd 2008 2:47PM]

It kinda looks like it might attack you at night.

[David @ Mar 3rd 2008 2:50PM]

Ha

[DavidM @ Mar 3rd 2008 2:51PM]

D-link is providing USB adapters so that addresses the console problem.

[CraigJ @ Mar 3rd 2008 2:54PM]

The OLED display, while I guess it's cool, isn't really any more useful that a few LEDs on the front panel. In fact, for me, it is less useful: I keep my router on the top shelf in my closet, I like to see the status lights if I need to, you know, without actually dragging the device and all the attached cable off the top shelf to examine it...

[Gav @ Mar 3rd 2008 3:04PM]

It may be expensive, but I'd take this over an Airport Extreme any day!

I just wish they'd hurry up and finalise 802.11n, it's getting beyond a joke now. I use Cisco Access Points in my house (802.11g), and would like to upgrade them to N, but Cisco, being sensible, won't upgrade until the standard is final.

[Zak @ Mar 3rd 2008 4:43PM]

Why would you take this over an Airport Extreme? They both do Wireless N, the only differences seem to be that the D-Link has 5 ethernet ports while the Airport only has 3... but the Airport has a USB port and can host a printer, and the D-Link doesn't.

Oh yeah, and the Airport is $200 cheaper. Choosing the D-Link specifically over the Airport would seem to be a case of extreme fanboyism - or extreme "anti-Apple-ism". Or just a raging case of the stupids.

[Gav @ Mar 3rd 2008 4:54PM]

Well, in all fairness I wouldn't buy either, but this Router is imo much better, as it probably has many more features than the Apple (I'm not anti Apple, or a D-Link fanboy - in fact I own no D-Link products). However, that still doesn't justify the price.

[Zak @ Mar 3rd 2008 7:52PM]

I love how you say you're not "anti-Apple" and then in the same sentence you say the D-link "probably" has more features than the Airport Extreme. Can you name one feature the D-Link has than the Airport doesn't, other than 2 more ethernet ports? I mean seriously, you actually said "imo this router is much better". Why? Can you name even one reason?

To be clear, I couldn't care less which router you buy. I'm just curious to see if you have even the slightest clue what you're talking about. The fact that you said you would actually spend an additional $200 just to avoid using an Apple router speaks volumes to me.

[lilo @ Mar 3rd 2008 8:20PM]

Zak said: "Why would you take this over an Airport Extreme? They both do Wireless N, the only differences seem to be that the D-Link has 5 ethernet ports while the Airport only has 3..."

That's how this looks to uneducated eye of the Apple fanboy. Did you notice that D-Link router has three antenas whereas Apple router has none? :-)

Obviously Airport express looks sexier (as all Apple products). The problem is it works either on 2.4GHz OR 5GHz. D-Link router works on both frequences simultaneously. As a result, Apple's router max bandwidth is 300 Mbps. For D-Link it is 600 Mbps. This what you pay for. Besides, US price for DIR-855 has not been announced yet. The difference will not be $200.

[Gav @ Mar 4th 2008 12:52PM]

Features that the D-Link has that the Apple doesn't?

Quality of Service, dual band support (D-Link supports 802.11a as well), not to mention the fact that I can open any java-enabled web browser and administer the D-Link router.

I'm not denying that the AirPort isn't a decent router, but it wouldn't be suitable for me. Also, when setting up a network, buying something because it is cheaper is normally not the wisest thing to do.

[Frankenstein Black @ Mar 3rd 2008 3:21PM]

Well, I won’t get excited until there is a wireless bridge (with 4 ports) that has matching chipsets to take advantage of the speed. We all can’t run the CAT and those COD4 ping times on the wireless remote machines are horrendous. Oh, throw in an OLED display on said bridge, and SOOOOLD $337 American$$!

[SmallNetBuilder @ Mar 3rd 2008 3:32PM]

Doesn't anyone read this stuff carefully. Look at the original Trusted Reviews story "D-Link Launches Dual Channel Wireless N Router".

This is just the announcement of European availability of the same ol' DIR-855. Yeesh!

[Maestro @ Mar 3rd 2008 3:34PM]

I'd like to add that I have the 655 which is apparently the little bro to this and I get awesome perfomance from that.

[phanbouy @ Mar 3rd 2008 3:41PM]

Good thing routers are so extreme these days. Goes with my Doritos at least.

[Kurt @ Mar 3rd 2008 4:04PM]

Why is it "Quadband" when it only has 2 "bands"? It only runs on 2.4ghz or 5ghz unless I don't know subliminally suggesting it will work on 700mhz when it becomes available..loi.

[phanbouy @ Mar 3rd 2008 4:08PM]

dude, cmon 4 is the new 2!

plus "quad" is like a kickass adjective. imagine when we start having 5... "quin" just doesnt have the same ring to it

[Joseph @ Mar 3rd 2008 5:41PM]

Someone along the article chain can't read. Even the D-Link site says Duo.

[karl @ Mar 3rd 2008 4:13PM]

but will it blend???

[phanbouy @ Mar 3rd 2008 4:32PM]

input not understood try again

[Zak @ Mar 3rd 2008 4:45PM]

I think he meant "will it play Doom" but it came out wrong.

[karl @ Mar 3rd 2008 5:18PM]

zak...
it was a reference to "will it blend.com"...
which engadget references frequently...

[phanbouy @ Mar 3rd 2008 5:34PM]

no shit, you mean, "will it blend" is something said ad nauseum around here? i don't think either of us knew that.

[bloodnok @ Mar 3rd 2008 5:34PM]

how does d-link stay in business? i made the mistake of buying a d-link wireless ap & a supposed gigabit switch only to have to return them when they immediately failed or failed to live up to spec. they are guaranteed to never gain my trade again. their products are garbage.

[Jeremy @ Mar 4th 2008 1:30AM]

I love how when ONE thing fails all of a sudden ALL of their products are crap, yes D-Link just makes shitty products and puts them out there, that's how they stay on top, you didn't know? What kind of ignorant ass says something like that?

[Galley @ Mar 4th 2008 8:43AM]

Gee, I wonder where they got the idea for that status screen. *cough* Belkin N1 *cough*

[arias @ Apr 6th 2008 4:50PM]

Thank you lilo for schooling Zak on the matter. A lot of Apple fanboys that somehow think the substance of their products comes anywhere close to their marketing image are due for a spanking.

Common sense alone should dictate that such a disparity in price would HAVE to mean a major difference in performance. That's simple economics 101. The Airport is plainly not 'Extreme' enough to multiplex syncronously on both a & g bands.

So still wondering why anyone would buy this over an Airhead Extreme Zak? Does double the theoretical bandwidth sound like enough of a reason?