|
windows
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lag every 60 seconds on wireless networka lag spike on all devices, I can see by each machine pinging each other and/or the router and/or external Internet IP: Example: Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=425ms TTL=64 Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 [...57 seconds...] Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=777ms TTL=64 Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 Yet when I use the manufacturers own Wireless configuration software that came with the drivers, the lag doesn't occur, WHY? (I hate using manufacturers software - ugly and bloated) On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:12:34 -0800, dw5f7qz4 Has Frothed:
Show quoteHide quote > When using XP's built-in wireless software, every 60 seconds, there is You're not using them both at the same time (unknowingly of course)?> a lag spike on all devices, I can see by each machine pinging each > other and/or the router and/or external Internet IP: > > Example: > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=425ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > [...57 seconds...] > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=777ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > > Yet when I use the manufacturers own Wireless configuration software > that came with the drivers, the lag doesn't occur, WHY? (I hate using > manufacturers software - ugly and bloated) Not sure if disabling QoS would help but what the hell, give it a try. -- Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2004 COOSN-266-06-25794 Meat Plow wrote:
> You're not using them both at the same time (unknowingly of course)? Both XP's wireless and manufacturers software at the same time? No, formy new Netgear USB adapater, I installed only the drivers and avoided the software. > Not sure if disabling QoS would help but what the hell, give it a try. I tried disabling QoS without any difference.On 20 Nov 2006 14:12:34 -0800, dw5f7***@googlemail.com wrote:
>When using XP's built-in wireless software, every 60 seconds, there is There was a recent thread in alt.internet.wireless, where the OP had a>a lag spike on all devices, I can see by each machine pinging each >other and/or the router and/or external Internet IP: (...) >Yet when I use the manufacturers own Wireless configuration software >that came with the drivers, the lag doesn't occur, WHY? (I hate using >manufacturers software - ugly and bloated) similar problem with his Dell D600 laptop and Truemobile 1400 wireless card getting busy every 60 seconds. It could be seen as a glitch on the task manager. The culprit seems to be in the Dell Truemobile 1400 driver as it doesn't happen with the ethernet port or when the wireless card is disabled. Start at: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/browse_frm/thread/30d061c9b423202f It's rather long unfortunately, as we slug our way through my various bad guesses. You might be able to learn something useful (such as disclosing the hardware that you're using). -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 je***@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us # http://802.11junk.com je***@cruzio.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 01:01:22 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
<je***@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in <qhj4m29d7hn8evrmj4o2unf1v9d479o***@4ax.com>: Show quoteHide quote >On 20 Nov 2006 14:12:34 -0800, dw5f7***@googlemail.com wrote: That wouldn't explain why the spike is seen only with XP and not with> >>When using XP's built-in wireless software, every 60 seconds, there is >>a lag spike on all devices, I can see by each machine pinging each >>other and/or the router and/or external Internet IP: >(...) >>Yet when I use the manufacturers own Wireless configuration software >>that came with the drivers, the lag doesn't occur, WHY? (I hate using >>manufacturers software - ugly and bloated) > >There was a recent thread in alt.internet.wireless, where the OP had a >similar problem with his Dell D600 laptop and Truemobile 1400 wireless >card getting busy every 60 seconds. It could be seen as a glitch on >the task manager. The culprit seems to be in the Dell Truemobile 1400 >driver as it doesn't happen with the ethernet port or when the >wireless card is disabled. >[SNIP] the OEM software. -- Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com> John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi> Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo> Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes> Hi
Could be that the Brand drivers are not fully compatible with Windows Zero Configuration. Log to the support site of the Brand, and look for the driver's last update. Some time looking for the Card chipset manufacturer and finding OEM drivers for it to replace the Brand Drivers solve compatibility problems as well. As a theoretical example, a card is sold under Brand name X but the chipset is made by RALINK, downloading and installing the original drivers from RALINK might yield better results. Jack (MVP-Networking). <dw5f7***@googlemail.com> wrote in message Show quoteHide quote news:1164060754.041082.254230@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > When using XP's built-in wireless software, every 60 seconds, there is > a lag spike on all devices, I can see by each machine pinging each > other and/or the router and/or external Internet IP: > > Example: > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=425ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > [...57 seconds...] > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=777ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > > Yet when I use the manufacturers own Wireless configuration software > that came with the drivers, the lag doesn't occur, WHY? (I hate using > manufacturers software - ugly and bloated) > Lots of interesting asnwers but wrong on most parts in my opinion. The
problem has to do with the Windows Zero Configuration program and the setting to check for other networks periodically. Periodically to microsoft is to check once every 60 seconds. When it does its check it goes into a scan modem and searches for other access points that may offer a better signal. It does not matter if you are sitting on top of the other access point and have a maximum signal strenght indicated it will still look. As far as the comments on the vendor software being bloated I disagree. If Microsoft would quit trying to control everything on a PC and let the vendors for hardware use there drivers by default it would be much easier to solve problems or avoid them alltogether. dw5f7***@googlemail.com wrote: Show quoteHide quote > When using XP's built-in wireless software, every 60 seconds, there is > a lag spike on all devices, I can see by each machine pinging each > other and/or the router and/or external Internet IP: > > Example: > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=425ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > [...57 seconds...] > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=777ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > > Yet when I use the manufacturers own Wireless configuration software > that came with the drivers, the lag doesn't occur, WHY? (I hate using > manufacturers software - ugly and bloated) On 21 Nov 2006 15:37:40 -0800, "kbloch2001" <kbloch2***@hotmail.com> wrote in <1164152260.651782.123***@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:>Lots of interesting asnwers but wrong on most parts in my opinion. The Doesn't compute -- I'm using WZC and get no such spikes.>problem has to do with the Windows Zero Configuration program and the >setting to check for other networks periodically. Periodically to >microsoft is to check once every 60 seconds. When it does its check it >goes into a scan modem and searches for other access points that may >offer a better signal. It does not matter if you are sitting on top of >the other access point and have a maximum signal strenght indicated it >will still look. >As far as the comments on the vendor software being bloated I disagree. Respectfully disagree -- some of these 3rd-party driver packages are>If Microsoft would quit trying to control everything on a PC and let >the vendors for hardware use there drivers by default it would be much >easier to solve problems or avoid them alltogether. wildly bloated, Intel being a notable case in point at a mere 52 MB! Show quoteHide quote >dw5f7***@googlemail.com wrote: >> When using XP's built-in wireless software, every 60 seconds, there is >> a lag spike on all devices, I can see by each machine pinging each >> other and/or the router and/or external Internet IP: >> >> Example: >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=425ms TTL=64 >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 >> [...57 seconds...] >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=777ms TTL=64 >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 >> >> Yet when I use the manufacturers own Wireless configuration software >> that came with the drivers, the lag doesn't occur, WHY? (I hate using >> manufacturers software - ugly and bloated) -- Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com> John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi> Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo> Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes> John Navas wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > On 21 Nov 2006 15:37:40 -0800, "kbloch2001" <kbloch2***@hotmail.com> > wrote in <1164152260.651782.123***@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: > > >Lots of interesting asnwers but wrong on most parts in my opinion. The > >problem has to do with the Windows Zero Configuration program and the > >setting to check for other networks periodically. Periodically to > >microsoft is to check once every 60 seconds. When it does its check it > >goes into a scan modem and searches for other access points that may > >offer a better signal. It does not matter if you are sitting on top of > >the other access point and have a maximum signal strenght indicated it > >will still look. > > Doesn't compute -- I'm using WZC and get no such spikes. > > >As far as the comments on the vendor software being bloated I disagree. > >If Microsoft would quit trying to control everything on a PC and let > >the vendors for hardware use there drivers by default it would be much > >easier to solve problems or avoid them alltogether. > > Respectfully disagree -- some of these 3rd-party driver packages are > wildly bloated, Intel being a notable case in point at a mere 52 MB! > > >dw5f7***@googlemail.com wrote: > >> When using XP's built-in wireless software, every 60 seconds, there is > >> a lag spike on all devices, I can see by each machine pinging each > >> other and/or the router and/or external Internet IP: > >> > >> Example: > >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=425ms TTL=64 > >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > >> [...57 seconds...] > >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=777ms TTL=64 > >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > >> > >> Yet when I use the manufacturers own Wireless configuration software > >> that came with the drivers, the lag doesn't occur, WHY? (I hate using > >> manufacturers software - ugly and bloated) > > -- > Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com> > John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi> > Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo> > Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes> Hi
Most vendors prime goal is to sell their Hardware, even if it happen to be not fully compatible with Windows. There is lot of Hardware out there that did not pass solid QA. It usually bought by Off Brands and sold for little money (It is like a Car vendor that would buy all the Lemon Cars, and would sold them under his Own Brand "Lemon and Honey Cars"). However it is much easier for the common user to target Microsoft (The big American company) as the culprit, rather than getting upset with an obscure East Asian manufacturing shop. I am not a Microsoft employee, and I am very glad that I can offer this help as a Volunteer to the global community. After spending long time on this Newsgroup I can tell you that the vast majority of the complains on this specific newsgroup have nothing to do with Microsoft products. Jack (MVP-Networking). Show quoteHide quote "kbloch2001" <kbloch2***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1164208614.813900.182510@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > John Navas wrote: >> On 21 Nov 2006 15:37:40 -0800, "kbloch2001" <kbloch2***@hotmail.com> >> wrote in <1164152260.651782.123***@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >Lots of interesting asnwers but wrong on most parts in my opinion. The >> >problem has to do with the Windows Zero Configuration program and the >> >setting to check for other networks periodically. Periodically to >> >microsoft is to check once every 60 seconds. When it does its check it >> >goes into a scan modem and searches for other access points that may >> >offer a better signal. It does not matter if you are sitting on top of >> >the other access point and have a maximum signal strenght indicated it >> >will still look. >> >> Doesn't compute -- I'm using WZC and get no such spikes. >> >> >As far as the comments on the vendor software being bloated I disagree. >> >If Microsoft would quit trying to control everything on a PC and let >> >the vendors for hardware use there drivers by default it would be much >> >easier to solve problems or avoid them alltogether. >> >> Respectfully disagree -- some of these 3rd-party driver packages are >> wildly bloated, Intel being a notable case in point at a mere 52 MB! >> >> >dw5f7***@googlemail.com wrote: >> >> When using XP's built-in wireless software, every 60 seconds, there is >> >> a lag spike on all devices, I can see by each machine pinging each >> >> other and/or the router and/or external Internet IP: >> >> >> >> Example: >> >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 >> >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 >> >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=425ms TTL=64 >> >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 >> >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 >> >> [...57 seconds...] >> >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 >> >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=777ms TTL=64 >> >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 >> >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 >> >> >> >> Yet when I use the manufacturers own Wireless configuration software >> >> that came with the drivers, the lag doesn't occur, WHY? (I hate using >> >> manufacturers software - ugly and bloated) >> >> -- >> Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com> >> John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi> >> Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo> >> Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes> > "kbloch2001" <kbloch2***@hotmail.com> hath wroth: That would make sense if Microsoft bothered to search for other>Lots of interesting asnwers but wrong on most parts in my opinion. The >problem has to do with the Windows Zero Configuration program and the >setting to check for other networks periodically. Periodically to >microsoft is to check once every 60 seconds. When it does its check it >goes into a scan modem and searches for other access points that may >offer a better signal. It does not matter if you are sitting on top of >the other access point and have a maximum signal strenght indicated it >will still look. networks AFTER it has successfully connected. The problem is that it doesn't. Wireless Zero Config will tenaciously stick to a connection even if there is a much stronger signal available using the same SSID. You can demonstrate this for yourself by attempting to roam between access points (using the same SSID). WZC will not switch to the stronger access point until it has literally lost the connection to the original access point. That's where the approximately 60 seconds happens as a keep alive. It tries to reconnect by assuming that there was no traffic to move. When it doesn't find the original access point, it will then switch to scan mode. Note that scan mode takes much longer than the 1 second or so shown on the ping responses. You can also unplug the first access point and time how long it takes for the client to switch to another access point with the same SSID. Last time I tried it, the connect time was about 10 to 40 seconds depending on where in the 60 second timing cycle the first access point was unplugged. There are some other client managers that do a better job of switching access points. Intel Proset 10.x is one example. It even has settings at to how tenaciously it will remain connected to the initial access point. >As far as the comments on the vendor software being bloated I disagree. I don't care if the driver is 1 GBloat big. All I care is that it>If Microsoft would quit trying to control everything on a PC and let >the vendors for hardware use there drivers by default it would be much >easier to solve problems or avoid them alltogether. works. A clue as to how well the MS WZC client manager is written is the stupid requirement to enter the WPA key twice. That may make sense for the access point, where a mistyped WPA key or password will prevent future access. However, it makes no sense on the client, where a typo error is simply corrected and retried. -- Jeff Liebermann je***@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:58:29 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
<je***@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in <0608m29q8kmt2pjp743gfc4vpv6t0df***@4ax.com>: >"kbloch2001" <kbloch2***@hotmail.com> hath wroth: I do -- bloatware can affect system performance, and the amount of>>As far as the comments on the vendor software being bloated I disagree. >>If Microsoft would quit trying to control everything on a PC and let >>the vendors for hardware use there drivers by default it would be much >>easier to solve problems or avoid them alltogether. > >I don't care if the driver is 1 GBloat big. degradation can be significant. >All I care is that it I care about that too, but not to the exclusion of everything else. ;)>works. >A clue as to how well the MS WZC client manager is written is Sure, but that has nothing to do with the quality of programming, only>the stupid requirement to enter the WPA key twice. That may make >sense for the access point, where a mistyped WPA key or password will >prevent future access. However, it makes no sense on the client, >where a typo error is simply corrected and retried. with the user interface design, and is thus a bit of a cheap shot. :) For what it's worth, my own assessment is that MS WZC is pretty well written, roughly a 4 on a scale of 5 (with a user interface score of 3). While there are some manf wireless utilities that are better (e.g., IBM/Lenovo, Intel), there are others that are worse. -- Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com> John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi> Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo> Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 00:09:23 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote: >I do -- bloatware can affect system performance, and the amount of It might be if the entire package were loaded into memory and running>degradation can be significant. all the time. It's my understanding that the bulk of the bloat for Windoze wireless drivers are client manager programs that are only run when one needs to make setting or configuration changes. I don't have Proset 10.x handy to verify, but out of the 86MByte compressed download, very little of it is running all time. >>All I care is that it You mean bigger isn't better? Perhaps we might compare Intel Proset>>works. > >I care about that too, but not to the exclusion of everything else. ;) with the SUV purchasing decisions of the GUM (great unwashed masses). SUV's sell well. There's Nissan Titan pickup in the parking lot that looks and probably handles like the Titanic. The stock Windoze and applications installation on the latest Dell E310 that just arrives only gobbles 8.3GBytes on the hard disk. Well, bigger may not be better but it sure seems to be the current fashion. >>A clue as to how well the MS WZC client manager is written is It's also my favorite MS cheap shot. A good rhetorical question would>>the stupid requirement to enter the WPA key twice. That may make >>sense for the access point, where a mistyped WPA key or password will >>prevent future access. However, it makes no sense on the client, >>where a typo error is simply corrected and retried. >Sure, but that has nothing to do with the quality of programming, only >with the user interface design, and is thus a bit of a cheap shot. :) be why MS hasn't bothered to fix such an obvious, irritating, stupid, and useless mis-feature. If anything, it's a not so subtle hint that MS knowns not what they're doing with wireless. However, to their credit, others have done worse. Netgear has somehow decided that the WPA encryption key needs to be buried under several layers of "advanced" menus where few users have been able to find it. WEP is right on the main page, but WPA is buried 2 layers deep. Wouldn't want to clutter up the screen with useful information and settings. >For what it's worth, my own assessment is that MS WZC is pretty well I would give the user interface a zero or possibly negative. Want a>written, roughly a 4 on a scale of 5 (with a user interface score of 3). list of misplaced features, missing features, and user interface absurdities? Got any user diagnostics? Connection progress dialog? Encryption failure notification? Prefered SSID? Selection of access point by MAC address? Connect to any random access point? Takes forever to list available networks if there are more than about 20 available. Obnoxious warning about unsecured networks that can't be disabled. Signal strength is buried and S/N ratio is missing. Overly tenacious roaming. "Limited Access" with no explanation as to why. This is not my idea of quality software. >While there are some manf wireless utilities that are better (e.g., Agreed. There's always a way to make it worse.>IBM/Lenovo, Intel), there are others that are worse. -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 je***@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us # http://802.11junk.com je***@cruzio.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 01:29:23 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
<je***@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in <6ls9m2tm07m74ekdaeaf9s7s4fuj5d4***@4ax.com>: >On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 00:09:23 GMT, John Navas That's not the only issue -- sluggishness can come from such things as><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>I do -- bloatware can affect system performance, and the amount of >>degradation can be significant. > >It might be if the entire package were loaded into memory and running >all the time. It's my understanding that the bulk of the bloat for >Windoze wireless drivers are client manager programs that are only run >when one needs to make setting or configuration changes. I don't have >Proset 10.x handy to verify, but out of the 86MByte compressed >download, very little of it is running all time. initialization, size of working set, page faulting, swapping in and out, on demand loading, etc. My personal take is that Intel ProSet is actually sluggish (on my ThinkPad T-41 with 768 MB at least). >>>A clue as to how well the MS WZC client manager is written is I know. It is pretty silly, but then nothing is perfect -- I can list>>>the stupid requirement to enter the WPA key twice. That may make >>>sense for the access point, where a mistyped WPA key or password will >>>prevent future access. However, it makes no sense on the client, >>>where a typo error is simply corrected and retried. > >>Sure, but that has nothing to do with the quality of programming, only >>with the user interface design, and is thus a bit of a cheap shot. :) > >It's also my favorite MS cheap shot. silly things with just about any piece of software. >A good rhetorical question would Probably because it's a minor issue and because fixes can have serious>be why MS hasn't bothered to fix such an obvious, irritating, stupid, >and useless mis-feature. unintended consequences (new bugs, unexpected interactions, QA burden), not to mention the basic issue of massive documentation changes. >If anything, it's a not so subtle hint that Only to a tiny audience. ;)>MS knowns not what they're doing with wireless. >>For what it's worth, my own assessment is that MS WZC is pretty well Then you must rate other products well into the red negative range.>>written, roughly a 4 on a scale of 5 (with a user interface score of 3). > >I would give the user interface a zero or possibly negative. Want a >list of misplaced features, missing features, and user interface >absurdities? Got any user diagnostics? Connection progress dialog? >Encryption failure notification? Prefered SSID? Selection of access >point by MAC address? Connect to any random access point? Takes >forever to list available networks if there are more than about 20 >available. Obnoxious warning about unsecured networks that can't be >disabled. Signal strength is buried and S/N ratio is missing. Overly >tenacious roaming. "Limited Access" with no explanation as to why. >This is not my idea of quality software. Is anything at all in your black? ;) -- Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com> John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi> Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo> Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 01:45:56 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote: >That's not the only issue -- sluggishness can come from such things as That reminded me. I promised to do some wireless benchmarking. I'll>initialization, size of working set, page faulting, swapping in and out, >on demand loading, etc. My personal take is that Intel ProSet is >actually sluggish (on my ThinkPad T-41 with 768 MB at least). be sure to compare WZC with other client managers. >>A good rhetorical question would Sigh. The implication is that that the minor and easy to fix things>>be why MS hasn't bothered to fix such an obvious, irritating, stupid, >>and useless mis-feature. > >Probably because it's a minor issue and because fixes can have serious >unintended consequences (new bugs, unexpected interactions, QA burden), >not to mention the basic issue of massive documentation changes. will never get fixed. Kinda demonstrates my favorite axiom about software: Features and functions get added faster than bugs get fixed. At least it's fixed in Vista. >>If anything, it's a not so subtle hint that Right. How many times do you and I have to answer the same dumb>>MS knowns not what they're doing with wireless. > >Only to a tiny audience. ;) question about why WZC says that the user is connected but there's no DHCP delivered IP address. (Because the WEP key ASCII to Hex conversion is broken). There's no diagnostics, no connection progress information, no useful status information, and no useful help. The 3 common methods of converting from ASCII to Hex for the WEP key are well known and documented: http://www.wigle.net/jigle/wep.pl one would think that MS would simply have added it to their "try every combination of 64/128/ASCII/Hex key" feature. But, they didn't. Since MS had undoubtably run into the problem many times, but hasn't even bothed to generate a KB article on the problem, methinks there is more than just a tiny audience that's affected. >Then you must rate other products well into the red negative range. Nope. I hate them all. I have a very different way of handling>Is anything at all in your black? ;) complex user interface and configuration issues. Basically, I seperate the initial setup, the operational display, and the diagnostics in 3 seperate sections (instead of muddling them all together). MS software tends to be evolutionary, in that they start with an essentially good idea, and then patch it together with band-aids and false appendages until it sorta functions. A good example is what they did to Giant Software's Anti-Virus program. What was a perfectly functional and easy to use interface degenerated into an overly simplified and difficult to use MS update. I'm not sure where the problem is at MS. It seems to vary with department. With the exception of MS Outlook, the MS Office products have it together. Also, IE7 is quite good once MS, Mozilla, and Apple finished stealing from each other. However, in the wireless area, my never humble opinion of the features, functions, and user interface are very much in the red. Happy Day of the Turkeys. -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 je***@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us # http://802.11junk.com je***@cruzio.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 02:19:57 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
<je***@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in <0b0am2t0622vqbd27hmecncbes0qol6***@4ax.com>: >On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 01:45:56 GMT, John Navas I think the issue in this case is UI, not minor versus major. ><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>Probably because it's a minor issue and because fixes can have serious >>unintended consequences (new bugs, unexpected interactions, QA burden), >>not to mention the basic issue of massive documentation changes. > >Sigh. The implication is that that the minor and easy to fix things >will never get fixed. Not short of a major update.>Kinda demonstrates my favorite axiom about Serious bugs do tend to get fixed faster than adding features and>software: > Features and functions get added faster than bugs get fixed. functions -- just look at all the Microsoft updates. >At least it's fixed in Vista. Good, not that I'll be using Vista in the foreseeable future. :)Show quoteHide quote >>>If anything, it's a not so subtle hint that I agree that more than a tiny audience is affected -- my comment was>>>MS knowns not what they're doing with wireless. >> >>Only to a tiny audience. ;) > >Right. How many times do you and I have to answer the same dumb >question about why WZC says that the user is connected but there's no >DHCP delivered IP address. (Because the WEP key ASCII to Hex >conversion is broken). There's no diagnostics, no connection progress >information, no useful status information, and no useful help. The 3 >common methods of converting from ASCII to Hex for the WEP key are >well known and documented: > http://www.wigle.net/jigle/wep.pl >one would think that MS would simply have added it to their "try every >combination of 64/128/ASCII/Hex key" feature. But, they didn't. Since >MS had undoubtably run into the problem many times, but hasn't even >bothed to generate a KB article on the problem, methinks there is more >than just a tiny audience that's affected. about how many would see it discrediting MS. Most users tend to blame themselves first. MS is way down the list thanks to a still good public image.. >>Then you must rate other products well into the red negative range. I think it's more that MS, like most software companies, starts coding>>Is anything at all in your black? ;) > >Nope. I hate them all. I have a very different way of handling >complex user interface and configuration issues. Basically, I >seperate the initial setup, the operational display, and the >diagnostics in 3 seperate sections (instead of muddling them all >together). MS software tends to be evolutionary, in that they start >with an essentially good idea, and then patch it together with >band-aids and false appendages until it sorta functions. the core before the design is done, then tries to graft on a user interface later. Things tend to go much better when _all_ the spec and _all_ the documentation are completed _before_ any coding starts. >A good I agree MS made it worse, but I can understand why MS wanted to change>example is what they did to Giant Software's Anti-Virus program. What >was a perfectly functional and easy to use interface degenerated into >an overly simplified and difficult to use MS update. it -- the average user really doesn't understand what to do with it, and the old interface was confusing to them. >I'm not sure Really? I think the default hiding of menu items is horrid! And the>where the problem is at MS. It seems to vary with department. With >the exception of MS Outlook, the MS Office products have it together. grouping of menu functions is anything but intuitive. All of which is why MS has greatly overhauled the interface in the new Office. >Also, IE7 is quite good once MS, Mozilla, and Apple finished stealing Yep -- I really like it.>from each other. >However, in the wireless area, my never humble Could be much better, but I still give it a C.>opinion of the features, functions, and user interface are very much >in the red. >Happy Day of the Turkeys. Not so happy for the turkeys. :)-- Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com> John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi> Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo> Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes> In alt.internet.wireless dw5f7***@googlemail.com wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > When using XP's built-in wireless software, every 60 seconds, there is Don't know if this applies to you: I saw this once (in the beginning) when> a lag spike on all devices, I can see by each machine pinging each > other and/or the router and/or external Internet IP: > > Example: > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=425ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > [...57 seconds...] > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=777ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > > Yet when I use the manufacturers own Wireless configuration software > that came with the drivers, the lag doesn't occur, WHY? (I hate using > manufacturers software - ugly and bloated) > enabling WPA. I thought it was the result of WPA creating a new WEP key every minute. I solved this by upgrading the firmware of my WAP. Peter dw5f7***@googlemail.com wrote:
> How many other people are using your wireless? Both inhouse and in the> When using XP's built-in wireless software, every 60 seconds, there is > a lag spike on all devices, I can see by each machine pinging each > other and/or the router and/or external Internet IP: neighborhood? Plato wrote:
> How many other people are using your wireless? Both inhouse and in the None, only one wireless network detected.> neighborhood? BTW, this problem of lag every minute doesn't occur when I formatted and installed Vista RTM version. A clean install using one the latest drivers from NetGear's website (however not installing their application as it doesn't work on Vista, just using the .inf & .sys files) dw5f7***@googlemail.com wrote:
> BTW, this problem of lag every minute doesn't occur when I formatted OK, I've discovered this problem of lag every 60 seconds is caused by> and installed Vista RTM version. VMWare (possibly the networking drivers it adds to the system). I have the same problem, however it only seems to effect me on on-line
gaming, is there a resolve? Show quoteHide quote "dw5f7***@googlemail.com" wrote: > When using XP's built-in wireless software, every 60 seconds, there is > a lag spike on all devices, I can see by each machine pinging each > other and/or the router and/or external Internet IP: > > Example: > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=425ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > [...57 seconds...] > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=777ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 > > Yet when I use the manufacturers own Wireless configuration software > that came with the drivers, the lag doesn't occur, WHY? (I hate using > manufacturers software - ugly and bloated) > > 
Other interesting topics
Wireless client continuously receives from access point
Cant see other computer in workgroup why wireless doesnt work ? Windows CE - Base Router Wireless Web Pages Problem Trouble accessing Network Computers presario vs westell wireless connectivity Strong Signal but no internet What is good ranger extender (repeater) ?? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
