Another Victim of Linksys.
flamestar
in screen. Lyksys is nothing but a rip off and COMPUSA sells nothing
but ripoffs.
Jack Daniels
are ready to undergo an inquisition-type
grilling, you can get some help from LinkSys
Customer Service..From the Philippines, I might
add. 800 numbers and on-line chat are available.
Of course time-zones are different..Luck to you.
Will be long and rigorous..but you have a LinkSys
device and what goes with it!!!
chicagofan
product you have, what you did... and what resulted... exactly?
bj
Neill Massello
Tony Hwang
Hmmm.
Are you the one who blames everything, everyone but yourself when things
don't go well? What's wrong with Linksys? You did not even mention your
hardware platform, OS, or problem you incurred.
flamestar
I am wrong about COMPUSA most of its products are quite good.Linksys
sucks just google linksys and see what people are saying.
--------------------------
Linksys Hookup Nightmare ... Pictures? I thought we dumped
hieroglyphics in favor of ASCII text about 2000 years
ago. Just how basic do you need the instructions? Linksys EasyLink
Advisor. ...
alt.internet.wireless - Dec 2 2006, 1:14 pm by Jeff Liebermann - 15
messages - 10 authors
Linksys vulnerability? Linksys makes a shitty product. ... I have a
Linksys BEFSR41 firewall connected to
my comcast cable modem. It has worked flawlessly for years. ...
comp.security.firewalls - Mar 22 2004, 10:26 am by Tarapia Tapioco - 6
messages - 5 authors
Beating a Dead Horse - UPnP - Linksys BEFSR41 ... You may want to
contact Linksys about this one: http://www.linksys.
com/support/ _____ Jonathan Kay Windows MVP ...
microsoft.public.windowsxp.messenger - Feb 9 2003, 11:36 am by Jonathan
Kay [MVP] - 7 messages - 2 authors
Linksys WAG54GS and the Power goes down... ... I manage a number of
remote networks for companies and I always use Linksys ADSL
Modem / Routers, as a standard I've tended to use the LINKSYS
WAG54G-UK... ...
microsoft.public.broadbandnet.hardware - Oct 8 2006, 10:17 am by Chris
H. - 4 messages - 2 authors
Linksys and Airport and WEP oh my In article OK you Linksys mavens
out there, someone tell me what I'm doing
wrong here... I have one of those lovely Linksys BEFW11s4 ...
comp.sys.mac.comm - Dec 1 2002, 4:12 pm by Tom Stiller - 5 messages - 3
authors
Blue linksys DSL switches We have a blue linksys DSL box. I am ...
But how would the rest of the world
be able to see this computer behind the linksys box? I do ...
comp.os.linux.networking - Nov 6 2003, 9:16 pm by David Efflandt - 8
messages - 5 authors
Jeff Liebermann
>I am wrong about COMPUSA most of its products are quite good.Linksys
>sucks just google linksys and see what people are saying.
Ok. Let's do just that.
Googling for various manufacturers (with the quote marks):
"Linksys sucks" yields 4070 hits.
"Cisco sucks" yields 2530 hits.
"Netgear sucks" yields 1580 hits.
"Dlink sucks" yields 941 hits.
"Belkin sucks" yields 672 hits.
Belkin is the winner as the wireless manufactory that sucks the lease.
Buy Belkin. It's all very scientific.
> Linksys Hookup Nightmare ... Pictures? I thought we dumped
>hieroglyphics in favor of ASCII text about 2000 years
>ago. Just how basic do you need the instructions? Linksys EasyLink
>Advisor. ...
Yep. I wrote that.
So, you bought a BEFW11S4 at CompUSA? I can see you did zero research
before buying. Linksys doesn't manufacture anything. They put their
name on products thrown together by various international
manufactories. Some are really good. Some are crap. You apparently
bought crap. However, you don't seem to care about getting help
making your purchase work. You're only interesting in complaining and
attracting comments.
>alt.internet.wireless - Dec 2 2006, 1:14 pm by Jeff Liebermann - 15
>messages - 10 authors
I think you missed a few of my messages:
<http://groups-beta.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=tWGMphwAAAAGTj9X4k0U7wKkGyU8QhaBhaxMG2M1PWkMtCZAt5tdxQ>
16,129 postings since 1994.
5,043 in alt.internet.wireless
Hmmm.... Methinks I might be posting too much.
--
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
decaturtxcowboy
> "flamestar" <agni...@gmail.com> hath wroth:
>
>> I am wrong about COMPUSA most of its products are quite good.Linksys
>> sucks just google linksys and see what people are saying.
>
> Ok. Let's do just that.
> Googling for various manufacturers (with the quote marks):
> "Linksys sucks" yields 4070 hits.
> "Cisco sucks" yields 2530 hits.
> "Netgear sucks" yields 1580 hits.
> "Dlink sucks" yields 941 hits.
> "Belkin sucks" yields 672 hits.
> Belkin is the winner as the wireless manufactory that sucks the lease.
> Buy Belkin. It's all very scientific.
[engaging tongue-in-cheek mode]
Perhaps one reason Linksys was listed so often is that its been sold in
Walmart at least two years before Belkin.
Consider the average skill set level of Walmart shoppers.
Adair Witner
>
> Perhaps one reason Linksys was listed so often is that its been sold in
> Walmart at least two years before Belkin.
>
> Consider the average skill set level of Walmart shoppers.
It's likely that the linksys sucks query is so much higher because they sell
so much product.
Skill and general understand have a lot to do with the way someone perceives
a product....
Adair
flamestar
The rate of complaint is important not the number of complaints. A
random sample of messages yeild a high rate of complaints for linksys.
Moreover the kind of complains is import and linksys hurts computers
rather then merely not work.
flamestar
product. A good product with a low RATE of complaints will likely have
a large number of complaints because of high sales. If a product had a
1% percent complaint rate then a 1,000,000 sales would yield 1000
complaints. If a product had a 50% percent complaint rate then a 100
sales would yield 50 complaints. Moreover this idea doesn't address
the rate of complaint per discussion. If most discussions about a
product are positive and another product most discussions are negative
that indicates a difference in the quality of a product. So talking a
random sample based on Google rate of relevance yields this about
BELKIN.
_________________________________________________________
Belkin wireless router WAN/LAN problem
Hi, I have a Belkin F5D7230-4 wireless router and I am trying to set it
up in my
house with CAT 5 outlets in several rooms (one outlet per room). ...
alt.internet.wireless - Jul 29 2006, 9:36 pm by Robert Coe - 11
messages - 4 authors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belkin 802.11g Wireless card F5D7001 card
Thanks for the help looks like a Belkin router might be the answer. I
just recently
purchased a Belkin 802.11g Wireless card F5D7001 card. ...
alt.internet.wireless - Feb 20 2005, 12:45 am by @Winkie - 7 messages -
5 authors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belkin F5D7633 ADSL modem, router and highspeed wireless access ...
I choose the Belkin F5D7633 ADSL modem, router and highspeed wireless
access point,
which is connected to a Netgear FM114P router, printer server and
wireless ...
alt.internet.wireless - Apr 27 2006, 9:08 pm by nemo2 - 1 message - 1
author
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belkin vs 3Com
... I came across the Belkin F5D7633UK4A, which someone said was the
same hardware as
the 3Com one; and it's available from broadbandbuyer, who will ship to
my ...
uk.telecom.broadband - Aug 31 2006, 7:48 pm by Gaz - 5 messages - 3
authors
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belkin router
... network. These are handled by a Belkin FSD 7632-4 router. I ...
internet. I
can't even access the Belkin's configuration page. However ...
uk.comp.home-networking - Apr 22 2006, 2:06 pm by Conor - 13 messages -
7 authors
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ipaq 3650 with Belkin CF WIFI card - connection problems
spambegone.coSun, 16 Jan 2005 22:15:39 (Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:15:39)
about "Re: ipaq
3650 with Belkin CF WIFI card - connection problems": I can't get my
iPAQ ...
microsoft.public.pocketpc - Jan 17 2005, 10:10 am by Sooner Al - 6
messages - 3 authors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installing a Belkin wireless router on a network with two ...
I bought a Belkin wireless router (part # F5D7230-4) and a Belkin
notebook
card (F5D7010) so that I can network my new laptop computer. ...
comp.os.ms-windows.networking.windows - Apr 26 2005, 3:51 pm by Daniel
Prince - 5 messages - 3 authors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can Belkin router connect to airport base station?
I can see my Ibook seperately on the Belkin Router and it naturally
assigned it
an ip address, however how do configure safari to use the shared
connection? ...
comp.sys.mac.comm - Dec 4 2004, 7:09 am by Bob Harris - 5 messages
_____________________________________________________________________
Where are the complaints? People are asking for help rather then
complaining. They aren't complaining because BELKIN is a better
product.
The rate of complaints is not as bad as the nature of complaints.
Linksys causes problems while most complaints are about a product not
working. In this case the product is hurting people's computer
systems. I am not saying that Linksys software contains a virus only
that the software is buggy and creates problems. However if one product
merely didn't work and another contained a virus then the product
with the virus would be far worse then one that merely didn't work to
spite the rate of complaints.
Linksys shouldn't sell a product that hurts its customers. The
responsible thing would be to remove the harmful products from stores
and offer people who brought the product a fix. They don't even offer
fix. All they would have to do is apologize and put a fix on their web
site and I would not have complained at all. I went to the site and
nothing was mentioned. I checked out their forum people are asking to
help and they are being ignored by Linksys and the only help that is
get is from other users.
ALL LINKSYS NEEDS TO DO IS OFFER A FIX ON THEIR WEB SITE
flamestar
>
> So, you bought a BEFW11S4 at CompUSA? I can see you did zero research
> before buying. Linksys doesn't manufacture anything. They put their
> name on products thrown together by various international
> manufactories. Some are really good. Some are crap. You apparently
> bought crap. However, you don't seem to care about getting help
> making your purchase work. You're only interesting in complaining and
> attracting comments.
I know how to fix the problem. As for buying the product a friend who
knows computers got it for me. He made a mistake in not realizing that
Linksys and Compusa would knowingly sell a malicious product. By the
way selling malicious products is wrong even if you don't think so.
You blame me for that fact that Linksys is hurting people's systems.
You clearly have no sense of responsibility and blame the victim rather
then the criminal.
flamestar
Good answer. I got the Linksys compact Wireless-G USB Adapter and later
found that it took away my log in screen and made it impossible to
switcher users. I am pretty sure I know how to fix it. My problem with
linksys USB compact is they are selling a product that hurts people's
computers.
Adair Witner
> You blame me for that fact that Linksys is hurting people's systems.
> You clearly have no sense of responsibility and blame the victim rather
> then the criminal.
You've still yet to say what exactly was harmed by using a linksys
product... and I really don't think compusa has anything to do with linksys
being crappy or not.. There are a ton of places that sell linksys products..
Persoanlly you are a moron.
Adair
Adair Witner
> should I mention my platform as you are not interred in helping anyone?
> Besides I know how to fix it.
>
Troll
Jeff Liebermann
>. I wrote that.
>>
>> So, you bought a BEFW11S4 at CompUSA? I can see you did zero research
>> before buying. Linksys doesn't manufacture anything. They put their
>> name on products thrown together by various international
>> manufactories. Some are really good. Some are crap. You apparently
>> bought crap. However, you don't seem to care about getting help
>> making your purchase work. You're only interesting in complaining and
>> attracting comments.
>I know how to fix the problem.
What problem? What product? Is it a secret?
>As for buying the product a friend who
>knows computers got it for me.
So, you're blaming Linksys and CompUSA for your friends lack of
experience, lack of research, and lack of product knowledge. When I
recommend a product to a customer, and it turns out to be a lemon, I
end up dealing with the issues and sometimes eating the costs. Where's
your friend now? That's also why I hesistate to recommend anything I
haven't personally tried and have a clue how it works.
>He made a mistake in not realizing that
>Linksys and Compusa would knowingly sell a malicious product. By the
>way selling malicious products is wrong even if you don't think so.
Malicious?
"Having the nature of or resulting from malice; deliberately
harmful; spiteful."
So, Linksys and CompUSA conspired to intentionally sell you a product
that was specifically intended to trash your computah and ruin your
day? Are you suggesting that they did it intentionally? You should
be honored that they would consider you worthy of their collective
malicious attention. Perhaps you're being a bit overly paranoid?
>You blame me for that fact that Linksys is hurting people's systems.
Sure. The first step to solving a problem is to blame someone. You'll
do quite nicely.
>You clearly have no sense of responsibility and blame the victim rather
>then the criminal.
Victim? You did create a Windoze restore point before installing the
software? Surely you understand why one does this. Did you bother to
download the latest drivers or firmware? I don't blame the victim
because there is no victim. Only a clueless user, who is fishing for
a culprit to substitute for his own lack of experience. If anything,
Linksys and CompUSA are about to become victims as they loose money
every time someone returns a product.
Pen
Still working just fine 10 months later.
Mark McIntyre
<agni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Tony Hwang wrote:
>
>> Are you the one who blames everything, everyone but yourself when things
>> don't go well? What's wrong with Linksys? You did not even mention your
>> hardware platform, OS, or problem you incurred.
>
So when someone criticizes you, your natural reaction is to call them
a shill or sockpuppet. Grown up of you.
>Why should I mention my platform as you are not interred in helping anyone?
Perhaps so that the several dozen knowledgeable people here can help
you.
>Besides I know how to fix it.
Then why did you waste our time?
--
Mark McIntyre
Jerry Peters
> should I mention my platform as you are not interred in helping anyone?
>
fix it!
Jerry
Eric
> I know how to fix the problem. As for buying the product a friend who
> knows computers got it for me. He made a mistake in not realizing that
> Linksys and Compusa would knowingly sell a malicious product. By the
> way selling malicious products is wrong even if you don't think so.
>
> You blame me for that fact that Linksys is hurting people's systems.
> You clearly have no sense of responsibility and blame the victim rather
> then the criminal.
Linksys and Compusa aren't conspiring together to mess up people's
computers.
If this router isn't meeting your expectations, why not just return it for
something else?
The BEFW11S4 is pretty old, anyway. Its even for going for $10 on Ebay.
All the consumer wireless stuff by Linksys, DLink, Belkin, Hawking, etc, is
"junk" -- but, it is "junk that usually works fairly well for home use".
Thrown together, no real technical support, etc, is all just nature of the
beast. All these brands have models that work fairly well for home use,
while at the same time have models that have issues. Before you buy home
consumer wireless stuff, you really need to read some reviews on different
products first so you can aquaint yourself with their known issues and
limitations. Again, its just the nature of this beast. Its also possible
that you just got a bad piece of hardware.
There is a reason, other than just name, why Cisco products are much more
expensive...
Jeff Liebermann
>The term, rate implies it has to be based on simple math.
For calendar 2005, there were approximately 140 million wi-fi chipsets
predicted to be sold by the major manufactories. The rate of increase
is approximately 50% per year. It's a fair assumption that about half
or more will end up in products sold in the USA. Of these, 40 million
chipsets were intended for wireless routers and access points world
wide. You can scrape some interesting numbers from various market
research pages such as:
<http://www.instat.com/catalog/wcatalogue.asp?ID=167&year=2005#IN0501813NT>
As I vaguely recall, the 140 million and 40 million numbers turned out
to be rather conservative, but I'm too lazy to excavate the real
numbers for 2006. Foundit. 200 million chipsets for 2006.
<http://midmarket.eweek.com/article/WiFi+Chipset+Sales+Expected+To+Grow+25+in+2006/196005_1.aspx>
Now for the math. About half the chipsets sold will end up in the
USA. So, we have 100 million chipsets for 3.7 million square miles.
That makes 27 radios for every square mile in the USA, not counting
chipsets sold prior to 2006. If I include chipsets sold in 2005 (half
of 160 million), I get 49 radios per square mile in the USA. No
wonder I'm seeing interference.
Another way to look at it is that are about 31.5 million seconds each
year. 200 million chipsets worldwide each year is about 6.3 radios
sold every second, 24 hours per day. Kinda like a deluge?
Isn't math fun?
Jack Daniels
"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:lgdlq2lqioca1ptra...@4ax.com...
seaweedsteve
forum or group in order to get a reaction?
It's a variation on the old "I irritate, therefore I am" !
It worked!
But this is such a group that people turn the irritation into an
opportunity to discuss.
Cool.
Steve
flamestar
> If you know how to fix it, then why are you whining here? Just go and
> fix it!
>
> Jerry
Why are you here is all you want to do is put down peple who warn
others about bad products.
Jim
Jeff Liebermann
Because you didn't put down the product. You didn't even bother to
specify the product you bought at the recommendation of your expert
friend. What you did was put down the manufacturer and the dealer. If
you need help with the distinction, I'll be glad to explain.
Meanwhile, here's your fix:
<http://linksys.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/linksys.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=3536&p_created=1143766419&p_sid=DwSBoJri&p_accessibility=0&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MSZwX3Byb2RzPTgsMTQxOSZwX2NhdHM9JnBfcHY9Mi4xNDE5JnBfY3Y9JnBfc2NmX2xhbmc9MSZwX3BhZ2U9MSZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PXdlbGNvbWU*&p_li=&p_topview=1>
No need to thank me. You already thought you knew the answer.
decaturtxcowboy
> linksys hurts computers
> rather then merely not work.
Yer new to high technology, right?
decaturtxcowboy
> You blame me for that fact that Linksys is hurting people's systems.
> You clearly have no sense of responsibility and blame the victim rather
> then the criminal.
Perhaps if you described the issue you are having.
flamestar
> "flamestar" <agni...@gmail.com> hath wroth:
>
> >
> >> If you know how to fix it, then why are you whining here? Just go and
> >> fix it!
> >>
> >> Jerry
> >
> >Why are you here is all you want to do is put down peple who warn
> >others about bad products.
> >Jim
>
> Because you didn't put down the product. You didn't even bother to
> specify the product you bought at the recommendation of your expert
> friend. What you did was put down the manufacturer and the dealer. If
> you need help with the distinction, I'll be glad to explain.
________________________________________________________________
I know you thought I was confused already but now I am confused. Please
explain how this is a fix, unless I have a time machine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possible Workaround
If the WUSB54GC is installed without the Linksys Wireless Network
Monitor software, the Windows XP Welcome Screen and Fast User Switching
will not be disabled. You can install just the WUSB54GC driver and use
Windows XP Wireless Zero Configuration to configure and connect to
wireless networks.
Warnings
Fast User Switching is disabled by the file GTGina.dll. If this file
reference is removed incorrectly from the Windows registry, your
computer may fail to boot. Linksys does not support removing this file
reference from the registry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It says install the software without the Linksys Monitor. Well what
happens if you have done this already? A fix is something that happens
after the damage is not something to do to avoid the problem in the
first place.
As you seem to be their spokesman, if your so called fix is only a way
of avoiding the problem in the first place then; why pray tell, is the
reason that Linksys doesn't attach a warning to the product.You know
like a l;ittle piece of paper explaining the problem and how to avoid
it.
flamestar
---------------------------
6 From: Jeff - view profile
Date: Mon, Apr 24 2006 9:23 pm
Email: "Jeff" <jeffwha...@comcast.net>
Groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
No problem, it drove me crazy; I even uninstalled stuff. It seems that
their
Wusb54gc Wireless adapter(which I bought last week) works great. It's
the
install cd that causes that peculiar "quirk". So I uninstalled the
Linksys
utility using add/remove went to their site-downloaded the newest
driver(v2.0) unplugged the adapter-plugged it back in-when the hardware
wizard asked to find the driver I clicked the I'll choose option and it
took
me right to the folder that had the new linksys driver-clicked on the
driver
folder-not the wusb54gc;the subfolder driver, and BINGO no more locked
out
fast switching. But it uses XP's wireless utility is all;not the "cute"
little green Linksys one (that is where that GTGina.dll file is
located) And
just like Vincent said when he showed you that link to the
answer;Linksys
still;as of yesterday; are figuring out that there's a problem. Glad we
could help
Jeff
"Joni" <J...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
------------------------------------------------------------------
news:66BF34F5-92FB-49E2...@microsoft.com...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
flamestar
> Now for the math. About half the chipsets sold will end up in the
> USA. So, we have 100 million chipsets for 3.7 million square miles.
> That makes 27 radios for every square mile in the USA, not counting
> chipsets sold prior to 2006. If I include chipsets sold in 2005 (half
> of 160 million), I get 49 radios per square mile in the USA. No
> wonder I'm seeing interference.
>
> Another way to look at it is that are about 31.5 million seconds each
> year. 200 million chipsets worldwide each year is about 6.3 radios
> sold every second, 24 hours per day. Kinda like a deluge?
>
> Isn't math fun?
>
with have a problem and what kind or problem do they have.
If 90% of the people have a problem that's worse then 10% have a
problem and if one product is hard to install but works great once it
is installed and another trashes your computers that's worse then one
that is hard to install.
flamestar
It depends on your definition. Actually I first learned porograming in
a summer program at high school in 1961. I have owned PCs since since
1982. My first computer had an Intel 8088 chip. I have owned
computers since then but I strongly object to products that do harm. If
you want your computer trashed then be my guest.
do...@86.usenet.us.com
> By the way this does seem to be the answer. Am I right?
Something that is lacking from the Linksys page that Jeff cited is what you
called the Time Machine element.
"Question
After I installed the WUSB54GC on my Windows XP computer, I no longer can
see the Windows XP Welcome Screen and cannot switch between multiple users
without completely logging off. Why does this happen and what can I do?
Answer: "
Essentially: Don't do that. But no time machine or solution.
The advice that you copied is to remove the product and reinstall it
differently.
There doesn't appear to be a warning posted on the product page at Linksys,
nor on the support site that is obvious.
There is this update:
"Due to a major earthquake in the South-Pacific area, telephone, internet
circuits, and services from the United States have interrupted our call
center operations. "
When was that?
Searching for "WUSB54GC login" on the support forum yields the proper
advice. Uninstall what you have, and install the new driver. But I hate
searching forums. you usually have to wade through many articles to find a
clean solution. This should be a prominent article right at the top of any
WUSB54GC search.
But you already knew that, since flamestar is a recent contributor,
complaining about CompUSA selling the product.
On the download page, I don't see the software similar to the CDROM
available, just the driver, which I suppose you might have been able to
install from the CDROM without adding the Linksys interface.
Overall, I would say this is a pretty startling error, and deserves some
prominent display on the Linksys web site.
It adds a login screen to some systems, such that people are unable to
access the system, and in your case it removed a login screen, as I recall.
The solution is not easy to find, and even visiting the download site to
get the latest driver might not lead you to uninstall the additional
software, which is where the problem lies.
With Windows XP-SP2, I generally don't load anything from the vendor. The
Windows-supplied drivers, if you have access to the internet, seem to be
good. In this case, the "new" 1.0.2.0 driver is from 2005, so I suspect it
would be available from Microsoft.
Jeff Liebermann
>> Yer new to high technology, right?
>It depends on your definition.
High technology is anything that hasn't had the benefit of years of
experience and is not already obsolete. That covers just about
anything you can purchase new for computers.
>Actually I first learned porograming in
>a summer program at high school in 1961. I have owned PCs since since
>1982. My first computer had an Intel 8088 chip. I have owned
>computers since then but I strongly object to products that do harm. If
>you want your computer trashed then be my guest.
Impressive. I'm 59. You have all those years of experience and you
didn't bother to check the web site and download the latest drivers?
As I understand it, the solution you posted, which is better than the
one from the Linksys web pile, is to use the latest driver and Windoze
Wireless Zero Config. Good enough, but you didn't do that. Instead,
you denounced the manufacturer and the dealer while doing an
impressive job of not asking for assistance or describing your
problem. As you stated, you're not interested in solving the problem,
only bashing Linksys and CompUSA.
I need a rant. In the wonderful world of high technology, there isn't
a single device that I can buy that does NOT require an update of some
form or other. There isn't a single device that works perfectly. If
I dig out the test equipment, there are also very few devices that
meet their own published specifications. None of this stuff works
perfectly or I wouldn't be in this business. Get used to it because I
suspect it will get more complex, more buggy, and even more
destructive, as such systems grow faster than bugs get fixed.
There was a time, in about 1990, when I decided that unless something
radical was going to change in computing, the whole bug pile would
collapse under its own weight. At the time, about 10% of the US
population had computers. If computers were going to expand to the
rest, it had to have all the features of an appliance. It had to be
simple, safe, obvious, standardized, and have a long lifetime. My
vision of computing was collection of dedicated appliances, such as a
spreadsheet machine, a dedicated word processor, a dedicated database
cruncher, and so on, where everything talked to everything else via a
common protocol. Divide and conquer as this was the only way to
remove the ever growing bugs of a general purpose machine. Lots of
other advantages which I won't go into. Since I was in the
communications business at the time, I anxiously awaited the release
of the ultimate universal communications protocol. And waited, and
waited, and waited....
So, what went wrong? Instead of divide and conquer, the industry
went for bigger is better. Just pile on the applications and
accessories, and let the operating system try to keep order. Well,
that's what operating systems are suppose to do. I saw this as
ludicrous, since some minor application added on top of this software
tower of bable was fully capeable of collapsing the while system.
Well, that's what's happening to you. Instead of noticing that 99% of
your computer is working absolutely correctly, your life is spent
dealing with the malfunctional 1%. Welcome to the new reality of
computing. The tail really does wag the dog.
I learned this lesson with the HP45 calculator. I purchased one back
in the late 1970's and was immediately informed that it was a loser
because some of the obscure trig functions produced erronious results.
When I pointed out that I rarely used these functions, I was told that
such errors implies that there were other errors and that I shouldn't
take the chance. I was apparently more tolerant of errors than my
co-workers.
The problem is that you're somewhat of an anachronism. You want
perfection. You equate the loss of your precious fast user switching
(which I don't use because it's a performance and memory hog), with
"trashing" your precious computer and ignore that the wireless device
continues to work, that you can still do useful work, and that 99% of
everything that you might even remotely want to use on your computer
is still working. Perfection is a wonderful goal, but it's not going
to happen this week. We might make it with my appliance idea, but
that's not where we're going. Meanwhile, the greatest accomplishment
of current computer industry, and one which I'm sure it will be most
remembered, is training the users to tolerate and live with bugs.
Without this, the industry cannot grow, because features and functions
get added faster than bugs get fixed.
End of rant. I'll try answer some of your questions:
>As you seem to be their spokesman, if your so called fix is only a way
>of avoiding the problem in the first place then; why pray tell, is the
>reason that Linksys doesn't attach a warning to the product.You know
>like a l;ittle piece of paper explaining the problem and how to avoid
>it.
That's easy. Have you ever heard of the Linksys support web site? It
has the URL I posted which includes a crude version of the fix. It
could be much better, but it only took me about a minute to guess the
model number of your product (since you didn't even bother to supply
that), and find something that vaguely resembles your problem. There
was a time when little pieces of paper in the box labelled "read me
first" were popular, but these days, such addenda, updates, and
supplimentary documentation are found on the vendors web pile.
>By the way this does seem to be the answer. Am I right?
Yes, using WZC to retain use of fast user switching seems like a good
solution. Incidentally, there are many other programs that replace
the Windoze login system in the name of enhancing security. Novell
client, Symantec PC Anywhere, some VPN software, and assorted single
sign on systems, come to mind.
However, I do have an issue with the official Linksys justification
at:
<http://linksys.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/linksys.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=3536>
which claims that:
Cause
The WUSB54GC software supports LEAP security. In order to link
Windows login account information to LEAP authentication, Fast User
Switching in Windows XP must be disabled.
LEAP has been recognized to be a loser for security and is not
recommended.
<http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid7_gci843996,00.html>
Without a RADIUS server, all that LEAP authentication offers is WEP
with dynamic key delivery. In that case, there's no reason for any
changes to the Windoze login and security system. In other words,
somebody goofed.
Steve
--
Steve Cole
President, Kingston Online Services
http://www.kos.net/Posted from WISP Forums: www.wispforums.com
Jerry Peters
I bought a linksys wireless adopet fromn Compusa. It scredew up mu log
in screen. Lyksys is nothing but a rip off and COMPUSA sells nothing
but ripoffs.
What product? You don't mention a product number, you just bitch about
Linksys and CompUSA, and your problem description leaves alot to be
desired. Do you seriously think Consumer Reports would have much of a
readership if, for example, when reporting on say a Ford car they said
all Fords suck?
Fow all the time you've spent whining you could have fixed the problem
already.
Jerry
flamestar
Like you think I am Consumer Reports. There never was any confusion as
to which product I was having a problem with. When I said the Linksys
Wireless Adaptor screwed up my log in screen everyone knew what I was
talking about. People somehow guessed right away that the problem was
with WUSB54GC and miracle of miracles they were right. It turns out
that this is well known problem involving their compact wireless
adapters.
Even though people knew what product I was talking about I was still
the first one to post the correct answer here.
I had several goals when I started the discussion.
1. I wanted the question to provoke a discussion. Bad spelling and an
incoherent message really attracts attention. (I do both naturally but
sometimes I do it to provoke a response.)
2. I wanted people to know that Linksys was wrong not to warn people
that the software for the WUSB54GC caused problems for a person's
computer.
3. I wanted people to know how poor a job Linksys did in warning people
about the problem.
4. I wanted people to know to know that Linksys never provided an
answer for the problem but instead it was the people on the forums that
had to figure out the answer on their own.
5. I wanted people to look at complaints about the whole Linksys line
of products. I am not saying they are all bad but no product line seems
to have generated as many different complaints. Most other products
seem to have trouble being installed but Linksys software seems buggy.
6. I wanted to deal with the heckling of people who ask for help. I am
grateful that there are people who are willing to help but for every 1
person who actually tries to help there are about 4 who make fun of
people for asking for help.
By the way I first learned programming in 1962 and I bought my first
computer in 1983 and I have fond memories of DOS.
Jeff Liebermann
>My WRT54G is screwed. As far as I can tell, Linksys hasn't updated the software either. Unfortunately, mine is not the version that can run Linux as far as i can tell.
Is this a complaint or a request for help?
If the former, please submit it to Linksys via the comments tag at:
<http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?c=L_Content_C1&childpagename=US%2FLayout&cid=1114037291276&pagename=Linksys%2FCommon%2FVisitorWrapper>
If it's a request for help, kindly:
1. Start a new thread.
2. Disclose the hardware version of your WRT54G.
3. Disclose the exact firmware version you claim is not being
updated.
4. Disclose the problem which has converted your router into a
helical fastener.
As far as I know, only the very latest Linksys WRT54G v7 version is
incapeable of running Linux. All the others have Linux versions
available. See:
<http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Linksys_WRT54G/GL/GS/GX>
Also, if you compare the firmware update history for the various
bottom of the line wireless vendors, only Linksys bothers to update
the firmware for products they no longer sell. You can generally get
a clue about how concerned a company is for their EXISTING customers
by looking at the firmware revision history. There are several
vendors where you're lucky to see one revision and more commonly are
stuck at v1.0 with all bugs being considered permanent.
Oh yeah, thank you for another mindless and uninformative complaint.
Jeff Liebermann
>Do you seriously think Consumer Reports would have much of a
>readership if, for example, when reporting on say a Ford car they said
>all Fords suck?
Actually, Consumer Reports did something worse to me once. I was
working for a marine radio manufacturer at the time. Consumer Reports
reviewed a collection of comparable marine radios. One particular
model from one vendor was praised with a glowing report. Our model
was treated little better than garbage. There was just one problem.
Behind the cosmetic plastic escusion, decals, stickers, and package,
both radios came from the same Japanese manufacturer and were
internally identical. The high command couldn't believe it either, so
they bought the competitors radio, and I bench tested it as close to
what Consumer Reports did with their tests. Absolutely identical
performance. I've had my doubts about Consumer Reports ever since
then.
do...@86.usenet.us.com
> Like you think I am Consumer Reports. There never was any confusion as
> to which product I was having a problem with.
Some people thought you had a BEFW11S4 router. I didn't try to guess.
Eventually you restated the problem, including the model.
> When I said the Linksys Wireless Adaptor screwed up my log in screen
> everyone knew what I was talking about.
Not until Jeff posted a URL.
> People somehow guessed right away
I think not.
> Even though people knew what product I was talking about I was still
> the first one to post the correct answer here.
It's easy to win when you make up the rules.
> 1. I wanted the question to provoke a discussion. Bad spelling and an
> incoherent message really attracts attention. (I do both naturally but
> sometimes I do it to provoke a response.)
What a crock.
The end result is what? That some people now realize something about
Linksys that they didn't know before? The only people that followed this
thread to the end are the ones who are really trying to help.
That's why, even though my typing is sometimes poor, I try to post URLs
with some cogent keywords so that someone searching for this problem later
might find it, instead of the gibberish that you posted.
I accept some people's typing errors as typing errors (mine especially),
others I believe are doing very well at a second language.
Some others I presume are drunken trolls.
--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA GPS: 38.8,-122.5
Steve
>complaint.
You know what... Linksys customers shouldn't have to put up with such shoddy software, and they shouldn't have to put alternative software on their products to make them work properly.
But more importantly, they shouldn't have to put up with arrogant dickheads like you who are trolling the newgroups.
flamestar
do...@86.usenet.us.com wrote:
> flamestar <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Like you think I am Consumer Reports. There never was any confusion as
> > to which product I was having a problem with.
>
> Some people thought you had a BEFW11S4 router. I didn't try to guess.
> Eventually you restated the problem, including the model.
>
> > When I said the Linksys Wireless Adaptor screwed up my log in screen
> > everyone knew what I was talking about.
>
> Not until Jeff posted a URL.
>
> > People somehow guessed right away
>
> I think not.
>
> > Even though people knew what product I was talking about I was still
> > the first one to post the correct answer here.
>
> It's easy to win when you make up the rules.
>
You are a liar. Jeff was wrong and you are lying about it. His answer
was wrong but you won't admit it because you are a lying phony.
flamestar
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Jerry Peters <je...@example.invalid> hath wroth:
>
> >Do you seriously think Consumer Reports would have much of a
> >readership if, for example, when reporting on say a Ford car they said
> >all Fords suck?
>
> Actually, Consumer Reports did something worse to me once. I was
> working for a marine radio manufacturer at the time. Consumer Reports
> reviewed a collection of comparable marine radios. One particular
> model from one vendor was praised with a glowing report. Our model
> was treated little better than garbage. There was just one problem.
> Behind the cosmetic plastic escusion, decals, stickers, and package,
> both radios came from the same Japanese manufacturer and were
> internally identical. The high command couldn't believe it either, so
> they bought the competitors radio, and I bench tested it as close to
> what Consumer Reports did with their tests. Absolutely identical
> performance. I've had my doubts about Consumer Reports ever since
> then.
>
the lowest common denominator. They like cheaply made low tech
products. I first noticed it when they trashed high carbon knives and
pushed for stainless steel rather then the kind of stainless knives
that they have now. The latest was the Dyson Vacuum which we got and
love. I am sorry about being difficult.
do...@86.usenet.us.com
> You are a liar. Jeff was wrong and you are lying about it. His answer
> was wrong but you won't admit it because you are a lying phony.
Okay... I see now...
Thanks.
Bye.
Jeff Liebermann
>You are a liar. Jeff was wrong and you are lying about it. His answer
>was wrong but you won't admit it because you are a lying phony.
Yep. I guessed wrong. You win. Congratulations.
Unfortunately, that doesn't solve your problem, doesn't effect Linksys
or CompUSA in the slightest, win you any friends, or fix your spelling
chequer.
If you search my previous postings for the word "guess(tm)" with
Google Groups, you'll find that I've used it 313 times in this
newsgroup in the last year or so. That's 313 times that someone has
neglected to supply sufficient information in order to answer what is
usually a simple question. Lately, it's become so common that I've
been ignoring such questions because I get tired of playing abusive,
arrogant, and obnoxious expert, while trying to extract what I
consider to be the absolute minimum information necessary to solve a
problem or answer a question:
1. What are you trying to accomplish? (One line is fine)
2. What do you have to work with? (hardware, software, versions)
3. Where are you stuck? (error messages, symptoms, clues).
There are other items that would be interesting, but these are the
basics.
It's not often that someone fails on all three. Usually they manage
to disclose at least one of the 3 questions. You missed on all of
them. I can't figure out what you're trying to accomplish beside
maintaining a dialog. You still haven't bothered to disclose the
model number of your Linksys hardware. You haven't given a clear
description of how your system has been "screwed". Myself and others
have done an exemplary job of guessing this information, to which
you've never even bothered to acknowledge if the guesses are correct.
Like I said, you win. Congratulation. Now what?
Rico
>"flamestar" <agni...@gmail.com> hath wroth:
>
>>
>>> If you know how to fix it, then why are you whining here? Just go and
>>> fix it!
>>>
>>> Jerry
>>
>>Why are you here is all you want to do is put down peple who warn
>>others about bad products.
>>Jim
>
>Because you didn't put down the product. You didn't even bother to
>specify the product you bought at the recommendation of your expert
>friend. What you did was put down the manufacturer and the dealer. If
>you need help with the distinction, I'll be glad to explain.
>
>Meanwhile, here's your fix:
><http://linksys.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/linksys.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqi
>d=3536&p_created=1143766419&p_sid=DwSBoJri&p_accessibility=0&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcm
>NoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MSZwX3Byb2RzPTgsMTQxOSZwX2Nhd
>HM9JnBfcHY9Mi4xNDE5JnBfY3Y9JnBfc2NmX2xhbmc9MSZwX3BhZ2U9MSZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PXdl
>bGNvbWU*&p_li=&p_topview=1>
>No need to thank me. You already thought you knew the answer.
>
So instead of watching the ballgame(s) Sunday you've spent your time
feeding trolls. Interesting.
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
Rico
>"flamestar" <agni...@gmail.com> hath wroth:
>>You are a liar. Jeff was wrong and you are lying about it. His answer
>>was wrong but you won't admit it because you are a lying phony.
>
>Yep. I guessed wrong. You win. Congratulations.
>
>Unfortunately, that doesn't solve your problem, doesn't effect Linksys
>or CompUSA in the slightest, win you any friends, or fix your spelling
>chequer.
In one of his posts there is mention of a file GTGINA.DLL (my caps). Is
linksys suppling an alternate GINA to msgina.dll? This would of course
explain why people have problems logging in, but why would a vendor or
wireless products need to alter Windows authentication? Why would they want
to?
>
>If you search my previous postings for the word "guess(tm)" with
>Google Groups, you'll find that I've used it 313 times in this
>newsgroup in the last year or so. That's 313 times that someone has
>neglected to supply sufficient information in order to answer what is
>usually a simple question. Lately, it's become so common that I've
>been ignoring such questions because I get tired of playing abusive,
>arrogant, and obnoxious expert, while trying to extract what I
>consider to be the absolute minimum information necessary to solve a
>problem or answer a question:
>1. What are you trying to accomplish? (One line is fine)
>2. What do you have to work with? (hardware, software, versions)
>3. Where are you stuck? (error messages, symptoms, clues).
>There are other items that would be interesting, but these are the
>basics.
>
>It's not often that someone fails on all three. Usually they manage
>to disclose at least one of the 3 questions. You missed on all of
>them. I can't figure out what you're trying to accomplish beside
>maintaining a dialog. You still haven't bothered to disclose the
>model number of your Linksys hardware. You haven't given a clear
>description of how your system has been "screwed". Myself and others
>have done an exemplary job of guessing this information, to which
>you've never even bothered to acknowledge if the guesses are correct.
>
>Like I said, you win. Congratulation. Now what?
>
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
Bob Willard
Uh, you bought the cheapest product available without doing any research,
and you are surprised that it isn't perfectly matched to your needs. :-P
And, speaking of arrogant dickheads, Jeff L. doesn't qualify -- he is one
of the most knowledgeable and helpful guys in this NG. I only see one
arrogant dickhead in this thread ...
--
Cheers, Bob
Steve
> any research, and you are surprised that it isn't perfectly
Incorrect. My needs include having one computer connected via wireless and one via ethernet, both of them for casual home use, very rarely any large transfers going on. Sometimes twice a day, the router stops passing packets, but is still connected via PPPoE according to the NAS. Linksys fails at that... and no downloadable update for my model.
And it wasn't the cheapest router on the shelf, and it came recommended by a number of people who should know - it just "locks up" irregularly, so to speak.
I'm sure the whole newsgroup thanks you two for being so "helpful."
--
Steve Cole
President, Kingston Online Services
Pen
If you really want help. instead of merely acting stupid, post your
model and version and faults.
Jeff Liebermann
>In one of his posts there is mention of a file GTGINA.DLL (my caps). Is
>linksys suppling an alternate GINA to msgina.dll?
Yes, I think that's what's happening. Linksys decided that in order
to impliment LEAP authentication, it needed to replace the MSGINA
(Microsoft Graphical Identification and Authentication):
<http://linksys.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/linksys.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=3536>
Replacing MSGINA is supported by Microsoft, so Linksys didn't do
anything evil or devious. MS even supplies instructions on how to do
it:
<http://support.microsoft.com/kb/810756>
<http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/maintain/security/msgina.mspx>
<http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa378750.aspx>
However, LEAP is not used or worth the effort for most users. Having
a major component replaced for a feature rarely used is rather a lousy
idea. In addition, there are other applications that replace MSGINA,
such as PcAnywhere, Novell Client, various kerberos clients, some VPN
clients, single signon systems, fingerprint ID systems, just about all
remote control software, etc. I'll leave what happens to the Linksys
install if you have one of these already installed an open question.
Note that the solution to the problem is apparently to replace
GTGINA.DLL with the original MSGINA.DLL as recommened in the above URL
under "Recovering From a GINA-related System Failure". I haven't
tried it.
>This would of course
>explain why people have problems logging in, but why would a vendor or
>wireless products need to alter Windows authentication? Why would they want
>to?
The vague Linksys "answer id=3536" noted above says that it was to
impliment LEAP authentication. I have my doubts if it was necessary
or desireable to replace the existing authentication module. It just
might be, but I are not a programmist.
As for spending Sunday feeding the trools, I've been under house
arrest since Weds with various maladies and am having problems
concentrating. Fortunately, posting usenet answers does not require
much effort and provides a suitable alternative to TV.
Mark McIntyre
<shaman[at]kos[dot]net> wrote:
>But more importantly, they shouldn't have to put up with arrogant dickheads like you who are trolling the newgroups.
>--
>Steve Cole
>President, Kingston Online Services
You claim to be the chairman of an online services company, and you
speak to people like that. Your stock just dropped sharply.
Oh, and by the way, you just flamed one of hte most knowledgeable
posters here. Congrats.
--
Mark McIntyre
Mark McIntyre
<shaman[at]kos[dot]net> wrote:
>I'm sure the whole newsgroup thanks you two for being so "helpful."
Just for the record, I personally thank Jeff for his extremely helpful
posts over the years. Without his considerable knowledge, this would
be a much less useful group.
And steve, you didn't ask for help, you just flamed people.
Nonetheless Jeff tried to assist as best he could, by asking for
appropriate details in order to (for free and on his own time)
diagnose the problem.
--
Mark McIntyre
Steve
Steve Cole
President, Kingston Online Services
Jeff Liebermann
>> Uh, you bought the cheapest product available without doing
>> any research, and you are surprised that it isn't perfectly
>> matched to your needs. :p
>Incorrect. My needs include having one computer connected via wireless
>and one via ethernet, both of them for casual home use, very rarely any
>large transfers going on. Sometimes twice a day, the router stops passing
>packets, but is still connected via PPPoE according to the NAS.
>Linksys fails at that... and no downloadable update for my model.
>And it wasn't the cheapest router on the shelf, and it came recommended
>by a number of people who should know - it just "locks up" irregularly,
>so to speak.
That's because it's not a problem that can be solved in firmware.
It's probably a WRT54G version 5.0 or 6.0. You'll find the version
number on the serial number tag. I did battle with a few of these
losers and ended up exchanging them for other routers. The problem
was very similar to what you describe. I've commented on these
models in the past in alt.internet.wireless. Also see:
<http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/26843/51/>
which has been available since June 2006. My experience has been
that firmware changes to DD-WRT would not solve the erratic hangs
and failures to pass traffic from existing connections. A reboot
would fix the problems, but that's unacceptable for most users.
There were other problems that I found with the v5, but I don't
want to spend hours on this.
>I'm sure the whole newsgroup thanks you two for being so "helpful."
No problem. Perhaps I owe you an explanation. I don't have any
problems with complains, rants, denunciations, and generalizations.
I do these myself on ocassion. It's when someone delivers one of
these without any substantiation that I find it necessary to ask
for details. These "one-line" comments are what has polluted and
ruined many mailing lists and blogs. The author of the previous
"one-line" denunciation of Linksys and CompUSA eventually supplied
the missing substantiations. You didn't.
Jerry Peters
> Jerry Peters <je...@example.invalid> hath wroth:
>
>>Do you seriously think Consumer Reports would have much of a
>>readership if, for example, when reporting on say a Ford car they said
>>all Fords suck?
>
> Actually, Consumer Reports did something worse to me once. I was
> working for a marine radio manufacturer at the time. Consumer Reports
> reviewed a collection of comparable marine radios. One particular
> model from one vendor was praised with a glowing report. Our model
> was treated little better than garbage. There was just one problem.
> Behind the cosmetic plastic escusion, decals, stickers, and package,
> both radios came from the same Japanese manufacturer and were
> internally identical. The high command couldn't believe it either, so
> they bought the competitors radio, and I bench tested it as close to
> what Consumer Reports did with their tests. Absolutely identical
> performance. I've had my doubts about Consumer Reports ever since
> then.
>
power rating rulings (measure the power at almost the highest
dissipation point for a class B amp).
I take their ratings with some very large grains of salt, their
methodology is many times overly simplistic.
They also are "rubber room" proponents, to the almost total exclusion
of common sense. My attitude is if someone is stupid enough to stick
their fingers under a rotary lawnmower they deserve whatever happens.
Perhaps a bad sample or test setup error? Although casual inspection
should have shown the units were well nigh identical.
Jerry
Jerry Peters
tend to be taken more seriously if you calmly state the problem. I
know ranting _feels_ good, but usually does little or nothing to
actually solve the problem.
Don't think I like Linsys -- made the mistake of buying a LNE100tx (?)
100BaseT ethernet card once (at least it was cheap). Getting iut
working was a pain, there are at least 5 different variations with
mostly different chipsets, it never did work right. I finally replaced
it with a 3Com 3c905 which worked immediately. I've avoided Linksys
ever since then.
Jerry
Jeff Liebermann
>Don't think I like Linsys -- made the mistake of buying a LNE100tx (?)
>100BaseT ethernet card once (at least it was cheap). Getting iut
>working was a pain, there are at least 5 different variations with
>mostly different chipsets, it never did work right. I finally replaced
>it with a 3Com 3c905 which worked immediately. I've avoided Linksys
>ever since then.
Chuckles. I've used about quite a large number of both LNE100TX and
3C905 cards in various SCO Unix boxes over the years. The first
versions of the LNE100TX used a DEC Tulip chip, which I consider to be
the best ethernet PAD (packet assembler/disassembler) chips of its
day. It used the fewest CPU cycles, least latency, and was quite
reliable. For Unix and later Linux, the drivers were bulletproof. I
even went out of my way to find boards using the Tulip chip.
The 3C905 was mixed bag. The original version (no suffix) was a total
dog. As I vaguely recall, it had a tendency to hang erratically
requiring a power cycle (a reboot wouldn't work). I think the 3C905A
did the same with the added non-benefit of having NWAY negotiation
settle on the wrong protocol. The 3C905B fixed the hangs, but left
the NWAY negotiation problem. In a Windows box, it would end up with
the wrong ethernet protocol so often, that I would have to go into the
advanced properties and pre-set the desired protocol. The 3C905C
apparently fixed the problem, but I was so paranoid by that point that
I tended to avoid them.
I had a recent experience at a local ISP. The owner just loved 3C905
cards for some unknown reason. Yet, when I arrived, where were
numerous weird connectivity problems which seemed to point to the
ethernet card. Instead of using a different card, I just replaced all
the 3C905, 3C905A, and 3C905B cards with 3C905C cards. Unfortunately,
I didn't have enough, so I exchanged some of the 3C905C cards from
desktops and management stations with those from the server farm. End
of problems in the servers, but the problems moved to the desktops.
That was eventually fixed by using other cards in the desktops.
I've ranted on the subject many times in the past. For example:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.sco.misc/msg/446af1612a47ff8c>
It's interesting to see how such conclusions are generated. Reading
between the lines, my guess is that you had bad luck with exactly one
card and you don't know the exact 3C905 suffix. Is that correct? For
what it's worth, I've only dealt with perhaps 50 assorted 3C905 cards.
So, on the basis of one card, that didn't work for you (probably
because of NWAY failure), you categorically condemn 3Com. Meanwhile,
on the basis of my experience with about 50 3Com cards, I was merrily
installing a box of about 40ea 3CR990-TX-95 3DES encrypting cards in
assorted servers without problems (except for a few that hung on boot
when using PXE and required a flash firmware update).
The difference is that I didn't condemn the company. I condemned the
product or in the case of 3com, the specific product version. Can you
see the difference?
Drivel: This is weird. The more "feel good" pills, antihistamines,
and analgesics I take, the better my spelling becomes. My head feels
like it's stuffed with cotton and my brain is on strike, but my
spelling is much better.
Gordon Montgomery
>Drivel: This is weird. The more "feel good" pills, antihistamines,
>and analgesics I take, the better my spelling becomes. My head feels
>like it's stuffed with cotton and my brain is on strike, but my
>spelling is much better.
>
>
<M.A.S.H.>
" Is is my imagination, or is your english improving?"
" Nah... eet must bee da whiskeeey"
</M.A.S.H.>
Jeff Liebermann
>power rating rulings (measure the power at almost the highest
>dissipation point for a class B amp).
Don't get me started on what I think of peak music power an it's
variations:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_power>
This is one case where the numbers are next to worthless.
However, I don't recall what inspired the FTC to apply guidelines. It
was in the early 1970's and hi-fi was just becoming a consumer
phenomenon. The problem was that so were Japanese imports. At the
time, I was working for Sony Superscope, so I was in the middle of the
mess. However, I was not doing hi-fi, and also not paying attention.
Oh well. I suspect the rules were established to make the imports
look bad in comparison to domestic manufacturers. I would have a
difficult time proving that today.
>I take their ratings with some very large grains of salt, their
>methodology is many times overly simplistic.
I Consumer Reports defense, they have a difficult problem. One one
side, they have techy types like me that want lots of numbers and
rigorous testing. On the other side, they have Joe Sixpack, who just
wants to know if it works. It's very difficult to write a report that
satisfys both these extremes (and everyone in between). I was
pleasantly suprised to read a recent review on $500 digital cameras
that was amazingly accurate and quite useful without burying me in
technobabble. There is hope for Consumer Reports, but I still have my
doubts.
>They also are "rubber room" proponents, to the almost total exclusion
>of common sense. My attitude is if someone is stupid enough to stick
>their fingers under a rotary lawnmower they deserve whatever happens.
I subscribe to a rather unfashionable theory that safety devices
actually cause accidents. Details on request as we're getting way of
topic.
>Perhaps a bad sample or test setup error? Although casual inspection
>should have shown the units were well nigh identical.
I wasn't directly involved in the yelling and screaming after the
report was published. I do know that the Consumer Report reviewers
were not allowed to tear apart the products unless they failed in some
way, and then only to complete their test report. None of the boxes
were opened. One clue is that the tests were performed by 3 different
people, and the final report was written by a 4th. There's a real
possibility of miscommunications, but no evidence. We were able to
recover the test unit (through subtrifuge) and found it to perform
normally. I really don't know what went wrong, and don't want to
speculate. Strangely, the dismal review had absolutely no effect on
sales, but was a constant source of irritation at Boat Shows and
conferences.
Mark McIntyre
<shaman[at]kos[dot]net> wrote:
>I won't be directing anybody here for this sort of "help," I assure you.
Knock yourself out, its a free world.
--
Mark McIntyre
Rico
>rico...@hotmail.com (Rico) hath wroth:
>
>>In one of his posts there is mention of a file GTGINA.DLL (my caps). Is
>>linksys suppling an alternate GINA to msgina.dll?
>
>Yes, I think that's what's happening. Linksys decided that in order
>to impliment LEAP authentication, it needed to replace the MSGINA
>(Microsoft Graphical Identification and Authentication):
><http://linksys.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/linksys.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqi
>d=3536>
>
>Replacing MSGINA is supported by Microsoft, so Linksys didn't do
>anything evil or devious. MS even supplies instructions on how to do
>it:
Oh yes, I've a friend in the biometric biz and their product replaces the
default Gina. But they really are providing an alternate 'login' proceedure
and thus the need. I just can't beleive this is being done for USB wireless
gizmo. Truthfully I can't say that I blame consumers who are shall we say
less then pleased when this happens to them without at least an on screen
warning ahead of time. I sure would never expect such. Say with a biometric
device such a change is at least implied if not stated up front, but with
this??
BTW I'm told it is not all that hard to code a replacement GINA, the trick
is getting a good install which seems to be what is biting linksys with
some customers. No idea why it is 'not easy' to get things installed right,
but this is what I've been told.
><http://support.microsoft.com/kb/810756>
><http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/maintain/security
>/msgina.mspx>
><http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa378750.aspx>
>However, LEAP is not used or worth the effort for most users. Having
>a major component replaced for a feature rarely used is rather a lousy
>idea. In addition, there are other applications that replace MSGINA,
>such as PcAnywhere, Novell Client, various kerberos clients, some VPN
>clients, single signon systems, fingerprint ID systems, just about all
>remote control software, etc. I'll leave what happens to the Linksys
>install if you have one of these already installed an open question.
>
>Note that the solution to the problem is apparently to replace
>GTGINA.DLL with the original MSGINA.DLL as recommened in the above URL
>under "Recovering From a GINA-related System Failure". I haven't
>tried it.
Why would replacement be the default in the first place, makes no sense to
me. Sure maybe if you know you want LEAP, but as you note most consumers
will not.
>
>>This would of course
>>explain why people have problems logging in, but why would a vendor or
>>wireless products need to alter Windows authentication? Why would they want
>>to?
>
>The vague Linksys "answer id=3536" noted above says that it was to
>impliment LEAP authentication. I have my doubts if it was necessary
>or desireable to replace the existing authentication module. It just
>might be, but I are not a programmist.
I am so in agreement with you here.
>
>As for spending Sunday feeding the trools, I've been under house
>arrest since Weds with various maladies and am having problems
>concentrating. Fortunately, posting usenet answers does not require
>much effort and provides a suitable alternative to TV.
Yeah, I picked up on that in other threads, HOPE YOU ARE SPEEDILY
RECOVERING now. Ouch... (Townsend/Daltry may have been right "Hope I die
before I get old': but not really <wink />)
>
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
Jerry Peters
> Jerry Peters <je...@example.invalid> hath wroth:
>
>>I'll agree. IIRC they were the idiots behind the FTC's audio amplifier
>>power rating rulings (measure the power at almost the highest
>>dissipation point for a class B amp).
>
> Don't get me started on what I think of peak music power an it's
> variations:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_power>
> This is one case where the numbers are next to worthless.
>
> However, I don't recall what inspired the FTC to apply guidelines. It
> was in the early 1970's and hi-fi was just becoming a consumer
> phenomenon. The problem was that so were Japanese imports. At the
> time, I was working for Sony Superscope, so I was in the middle of the
> mess. However, I was not doing hi-fi, and also not paying attention.
> Oh well. I suspect the rules were established to make the imports
> look bad in comparison to domestic manufacturers. I would have a
> difficult time proving that today.
Story I once heard, I forget where, was that some FTC staffers picked
the continuous at 80% of max rated power because it seemed
appropriate. I assume that they were liberal arts types, not
engineers.
>
>>I take their ratings with some very large grains of salt, their
>>methodology is many times overly simplistic.
>
> I Consumer Reports defense, they have a difficult problem. One one
> side, they have techy types like me that want lots of numbers and
> rigorous testing. On the other side, they have Joe Sixpack, who just
> wants to know if it works. It's very difficult to write a report that
> satisfys both these extremes (and everyone in between). I was
> pleasantly suprised to read a recent review on $500 digital cameras
> that was amazingly accurate and quite useful without burying me in
> technobabble. There is hope for Consumer Reports, but I still have my
> doubts.
>
>>They also are "rubber room" proponents, to the almost total exclusion
>>of common sense. My attitude is if someone is stupid enough to stick
>>their fingers under a rotary lawnmower they deserve whatever happens.
>
> I subscribe to a rather unfashionable theory that safety devices
> actually cause accidents. Details on request as we're getting way of
> topic.
>
Of course, it (whatever _it_ is) has all these safety features so I
really don't need to pay any attention to safety issues.
>>Perhaps a bad sample or test setup error? Although casual inspection
>>should have shown the units were well nigh identical.
>
> I wasn't directly involved in the yelling and screaming after the
> report was published. I do know that the Consumer Report reviewers
> were not allowed to tear apart the products unless they failed in some
> way, and then only to complete their test report. None of the boxes
> were opened. One clue is that the tests were performed by 3 different
> people, and the final report was written by a 4th. There's a real
> possibility of miscommunications, but no evidence. We were able to
> recover the test unit (through subtrifuge) and found it to perform
> normally. I really don't know what went wrong, and don't want to
> speculate. Strangely, the dismal review had absolutely no effect on
> sales, but was a constant source of irritation at Boat Shows and
> conferences.
>
How the heck can they do any valid comparison without looking at
construction? For example how well are components mounted, PC board
quality etc? I always like to take apart my new toys to see how
they're put together, and to see how much trouble I'm going to have
when they need to be fixed.
Jerry
Jerry Peters
> Jerry Peters <je...@example.invalid> hath wroth:
>
>>Don't think I like Linsys -- made the mistake of buying a LNE100tx (?)
>>100BaseT ethernet card once (at least it was cheap). Getting iut
>>working was a pain, there are at least 5 different variations with
>>mostly different chipsets, it never did work right. I finally replaced
>>it with a 3Com 3c905 which worked immediately. I've avoided Linksys
>>ever since then.
>
> Chuckles. I've used about quite a large number of both LNE100TX and
> 3C905 cards in various SCO Unix boxes over the years. The first
> versions of the LNE100TX used a DEC Tulip chip, which I consider to be
> the best ethernet PAD (packet assembler/disassembler) chips of its
> day. It used the fewest CPU cycles, least latency, and was quite
> reliable. For Unix and later Linux, the drivers were bulletproof. I
> even went out of my way to find boards using the Tulip chip.
>
-- it worked perfectly. The part that really ticked me off with
Linksys was going to their web pit to find updated drivers and finding
that there were 5 different versions of the card. I had to look at
pictures to figure out which version I had since Linksys did _not_ put
such essential information on the card itself. I could never get the
card to autonegotiate correctly and setting the interface up through
the Windows interface produced strange results. The gui would claim
I'd set the card to 100 half duplex, but the lights on the card & the
switch said 10. The 3c905 (probably rev c) just worked, using just the
Windows drivers at 100Mb with no problems. In fact it's still working
today and it's been years since I put it in that machine.
I tend to leave that machine alone, it runs Win 98SE. It's really my
only Windows machine, and I find that it works best if I do as little
as possible to it. In the next few weeks I'll be installing Taxcut on
it to do my taxes, hopefully that won't break it.
seaweedsteve
> --
> Steve Cole
No offense, Steve Cole, but, dude, you are so wrong - those guys ARE
consistently VERY helpful. Those who do much research on wireless
problems will quickly see that Jeff L is, basically, the most helpful
human online today for wireless stuff. He's actually one of the more
tolerant among those who are knowledgable and answering questions. As
I follow the questions and answers, I can see how difficult it is, day
in and day out, to be helpful when people make themselves into the most
difficult part of the equation.
If you want to see what it's like to swim with the real sharks, go find
the netstumbler forum: they are knowledgable there too perhaps, but
actually seem to feed on posters. It's not pretty, but helps build an
appreciation for this group.
Anyway, yeah, you got snapped at for being yet another poster who
failed to value the help they are asking for enough to ask a clear
question. Probably you meant well enough, (what was the question?)
but the irritation factor accumulates.
But really, you are insulting the guy you want on your side. I think
that most people on this forum would agree !
My suggestion is to forget about the slight and act like you are paying
$100 an hour for Jeff's help and simply do all you can to help him
solve your problem (what is it?) and expedite the process.
Then you can move on to the next computer problem. Never ends! We
must be training for something !
Cheers,
Steve L
Steve
>complaint.
If this how Jeff greets new people to the newsgroup, then you'll never get me to agree he's a swell guy. Sorry.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>> I subscribe to a rather unfashionable theory that safety devices
>> actually cause accidents. Details on request as we're getting way of
>> topic.
>Of course, it (whatever _it_ is) has all these safety features so I
>really don't need to pay any attention to safety issues.
Yep, but there's more. I've seen some production machines in the
distant past get retrofitted with the latest safety interlocks and
gadgets, only to find that the accident rate increased. The problem
wasn't just that the workers felt safe. The problem was that the
added complexity of the safety devices prevented the worker from
actually understanding how the machine operated. Without this
knowledge, they are incapeable of understanding how much damage the
machine can do to the operator. There's also the problem of idiot
error on the part of the machine vendors. The clear acrylic "safety
shields" probably clobbered plenty of fingers because the worker could
not see the shields (because they were so clear). This is the reason
that many such shields now have brightly painted borders. I could go
on forever on the topic...
>How the heck can they do any valid comparison without looking at
>construction? For example how well are components mounted, PC board
>quality etc? I always like to take apart my new toys to see how
>they're put together, and to see how much trouble I'm going to have
>when they need to be fixed.
Yeah, I know. The problem is that Consumer Reports (Consumer Union)
allegedly pays for "expert opinions" on their products, but doesn't
appear to hire what I consider to be experts. When they do, they
don't let them do what all experts enjoy most.... tearing into the
product. However, the test are not performed by experts. They're
performed by competent technicians.
Not much online:
How We Test:
<http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/aboutus/test/index.htm>
Lab Tour:
<http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/aboutus/labtour/index.htm>
I've had the displeasure of trying to specify a repeatable and valid
test for various consumer devices. That certainly does take an
expert. However, the actual tests can be performed by any competent
technician, who may not necessarily be qualifies to pass judgement on
the results. When I was running a small R&D group, I had to
constantly remind the techs *NOT* to pass judgement on data. I
certainly did not want them "modifying" the units under test in the
process. Methinks Consumer Reports is doing the right thing and keep
the itchy fingers out of the electronics.
Also, I think (not sure) that they sell the units they test
afterwards, so I'm sure they don't want them trashed.
--
# 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
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>The part that really ticked me off with
>Linksys was going to their web pit to find updated drivers and finding
>that there were 5 different versions of the card.
I couldn't find the page of photographs, but I remember it well. Now,
there's a list of 11 different mutations:
<http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?c=L_Download_C2&childpagename=US%2FLayout&cid=1115417109934&packedargs=sku%3D1115416833483&pagename=Linksys%2FCommon%2FVisitorWrapper>
However, I think Intel and 3com both get the award for recycling model
numbers. Both have downloadable programs that identify the card
inside the machine.
>I could never get the
>card to autonegotiate correctly and setting the interface up through
>the Windows interface produced strange results. The gui would claim
>I'd set the card to 100 half duplex, but the lights on the card & the
>switch said 10.
That's the situation with NWAY negotiation failure. However, you
can't always blame the ethernet card. There were also several early
ethernet switches that would also do it badly. As I recall, Netgear
FS-108 switch was one. I've used a substantial number of Tulip chip
based ethernet devices (Compaq, DEC, etc), and don't recall any NWAY
failures attributable to the card. It's really a difficult problem to
identify because it doesn't always happen. However, if you end up
with a weird or slow ethernet connection that can only be solved by
literally removing power from the machine (not just a reboot), then it
probably was an NWAY failure. It's possible the Windoze XP, with it's
ability to reset the IP stack when disconnecting the media, might
recover without a power cycle, but XP wasn't around when I was using
3C905 cards.
Mark McIntyre
<shaman[at]kos[dot]net> wrote:
>>Oh yeah, thank you for another mindless and uninformative
>>complaint.
>
>If this how Jeff greets new people to the newsgroup,
Which part of what he said was incorrect?
Oh, and for someone claiming to work in computing, you have an
astoundingly thin skin. This is usenet, not nursery, we're big boys
and girls and we don't have to be polite to people who wander in off
the street and do nothing but complain.
>then you'll never get me to agree he's a swell guy.
Like I said, its a free world.
--
Mark McIntyre
decaturtxcowboy
> Don't get me started on what I think of peak music power an it's
> variations:
I had a tech support contract for a dance/night club. As long as the
sub-woofers could blow out a match at five feet, they were happy.
Can we say thrombotic distress
Pair of boxes with six each 18" sub-woofers with and one 1,500 amplifier
driving two speakers each. Six thousand watts of power. Total power thrown
on the dance floor was 45,000 watts.
Jeff Liebermann
Ummm... That's overkill, but I've done bigger. I was working for an
unspecified aerospace contractor on large battlefield audio systems in
the 1960's. I swept the floor, but one has to start somewhere. There
were no conventional loudspeakers. Instead, it used huge air
compressors and fluidic valves. I think it was at least 100
horsepower delivered (at 746 watts/hp). The frequency response was
awful, but it was incredibly loud. It was certainly more efficient
than the average loudspeaker.
I never actually attended or heard the full power testing, but I was
told that broken instruments, glass, fasteners, and even welds were a
constant problem. One fun test was to estimate the resonant frequency
of the human intestinal tract and induce a stampede to the bathrooms.
Anyway, measuring the delivered power in watts or horsepower was
useless. I vaguely recall that the white lab suits were using
differential air pressure in psi (assuming a flat wave front) and ergs
for delivered energy, but it a constant point of contention. The
hi-fi contingent just could not pull themselves away from watts. I
didn't stay around long enough to identify the winner.
decaturtxcowboy
> decaturtxcowboy <nope_...@nowayspam.com> hath wroth:
>
>> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> Don't get me started on what I think of peak music power an it's
>>> variations:
>
>> I had a tech support contract for a dance/night club. As long as the
>> sub-woofers could blow out a match at five feet, they were happy.
>>
>> Can we say thrombotic distress
>>
>> Pair of boxes with six each 18" sub-woofers with and one 1,500 amplifier
>> driving two speakers each. Six thousand watts of power. Total power thrown
>> on the dance floor was 45,000 watts.
>
> Ummm... That's overkill, but I've done bigger.
Well...you know kids. Its never loud enough
> I never actually attended or heard the full power testing, but I was
> told that broken instruments, glass, fasteners, and even welds were a
Teh bar staff knew I had been in there doing audio sweep testing as all the
pineapple tins and glassware (actually plastic) were danced all over the
place. I used pink noise too, but used a fast sweep so that nothing would
go into resonance and shatter.
> One fun test was to estimate the resonant frequency
> of the human intestinal tract and induce a stampede to the bathrooms.
I read some that Tesla found a frequency that caused Edison to...umm.