The encryption was much of the problem. The Linksys cable modem was also either slow or faulty in getting DHCP information from the ISP. The access point was also slow or faulty in handing out DHCP information to the same brand wireless card. Hooking up my MBP directly to the cable modem actually fetched the DHCP properly, but the access point could not do the same reliably, even using the same Ethernet cable.
The access point also required a firmware update to work properly. I was able to use Linksys' access point with my MBP with encryption just fine. I think my Buffalo wireless adapter worked properly too, but using the Linksys Cardbus module and the Linksys setup software for XP, it would often not accept the same encryption key.
I also have a Linksys gigabit switch that would lock up on occasion, requiring a reset. Power level changes from a UPS because of power interruptions had caused it to lock up and stall the network, when no other device connected to the same UPS had a problem. I reverted to a hand-me-down Asante 10/100 managed switch which has performed flawlessly since.
Obviously, you have compatibility problems. I've never had that. But, I usually check these things out very carefully before buying devices like this.
It's always recommended to upgrade the firmware on routers, gateways, and the like.
Apple has caused some problems with their OS upgrades. A couple of years ago, 10.3 caused problems with the big CISCO network routers.
I've always found Linksys to be one of the better brands.
Obviously, you have compatibility problems. I've never had that. But, I usually check these things out very carefully before buying devices like this.
The Linksys adapter was recommended for the Linksys AP. And the Linksys AP was recommended for the cable modem. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that when all points in the chain are from the same company at the same level of technology, that they actually work together.
Quote:
It's always recommended to upgrade the firmware on routers, gateways, and the like.
True, but it would be nice if the product worked out of the box, with working firmware, but I think that's probably too much to expect these days. Even with the latest adapter drivers, their adapter did not work properly with any encryption. All I'm saying is that I've used too many different models of Linksys equipment and had too many different problems and quirks with them to think it's a fluke. Buffalo has done me a lot better with far less hassle.
The Linksys adapter was recommended for the Linksys AP. And the Linksys AP was recommended for the cable modem. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that when all points in the chain are from the same company at the same level of technology, that they actually work together.
True, but it would be nice if the product worked out of the box, with working firmware, but I think that's probably too much to expect these days. Even with the latest adapter drivers, their adapter did not work properly with any encryption. All I'm saying is that I've used too many different models of Linksys equipment and had too many different problems and quirks with them to think it's a fluke. Buffalo has done me a lot better with far less hassle.
Well, it's interesting that we seem to have had completely different experiences here.
Well, it's interesting that we seem to have had completely different experiences here.
True. I know some people that have had problems, and others that did not. I haven't figured out what really separates the two. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I never know, but I try to be as thoughrough as I can. Maybe the models you use are different from the models I've used.
True. I know some people that have had problems, and others that did not. I haven't figured out what really separates the two. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I never know, but I try to be as thoughrough as I can. Maybe the models you use are different from the models I've used.
Who knows? But that's the best part of all this, isn't it?
Otherwise, we would have nothing to talk about.
Though, the fact that I've been working with this stuff for ages probably helps.
Who knows? But that's the best part of all this, isn't it?
Otherwise, we would have nothing to talk about.
Though, the fact that I've been working with this stuff for ages probably helps.
Have you messed around with the Firewall and PortForward settings eg. for BitTorrent?
That throws a whole 'nother level of problems into the mix..
My Netcomm DSL/Router (wired) hooks up to an Asus 802.11b transmitter. After about 10 or so port forward rules on the NetComm, it starts just locking up and crashing (the Netcomm).
I was trying to set up port forwarding so that BitTorrent ports are opened up only for those routed to a specific IP on the internal network (eg. blah.blah.blah.10). Eventually I just gave up on teh port forwarding and left all the firewalling on, etc.
I tried to put a computer (eg. Toshiba laptop or MacBook) in the DMZ and then let the computer firewall handle the stuff, with the appropriate BitTorrent ports opened up. Good, but the Netcomm and Asus gets flooded with BitTorrent traffic, particularly if the BitTorrent client computer is further from the base station, the wireless traffic slows down for the client computer and other 1 or 2 computers on the wireless network.
Now actually I think for some reason even though I took a a local IP off the DMZ, I think the Netcomm router firewall and port blocking is somewhat hosed. It might have put all the clients served by the router *into* the DMZ. Some general weirdness going on.... Not a great huge deal though things work for the most part and downloads are alright for BitTorrent even though I am behind firewalls and have my inbound access 6881--etc TCP ports closed.
Have you messed around with the Firewall and PortForward settings eg. for BitTorrent?
That throws a whole 'nother level of problems into the mix..
My Netcomm DSL/Router (wired) hooks up to an Asus 802.11b transmitter. After about 10 or so port forward rules on the NetComm, it starts just locking up and crashing (the Netcomm).
I was trying to set up port forwarding so that BitTorrent ports are opened up only for those routed to a specific IP on the internal network (eg. blah.blah.blah.10). Eventually I just gave up on teh port forwarding and left all the firewalling on, etc.
I tried to put a computer (eg. Toshiba laptop or MacBook) in the DMZ and then let the computer firewall handle the stuff, with the appropriate BitTorrent ports opened up. Good, but the Netcomm and Asus gets flooded with BitTorrent traffic, particularly if the BitTorrent client computer is further from the base station, the wireless traffic slows down for the client computer and other 1 or 2 computers on the wireless network.
Now actually I think for some reason even though I took a a local IP off the DMZ, I think the Netcomm router firewall and port blocking is somewhat hosed. It might have put all the clients served by the router *into* the DMZ. Some general weirdness going on.... Not a great huge deal though things work for the most part and downloads are alright for BitTorrent even though I am behind firewalls and have my inbound access 6881--etc TCP ports closed.
I've used port fowarding, but not for BitTorrent, so I can't speak to that specifically.
You know, while it helps, a software firewall is not really required on home networks. The router takes care of enough.
<paranoia>Trust No One [Including Routers], Mr. Mulder...</paranoia>
I trust me! "Oh sure", you say, "take that chance, will ya?"
An article I read a while ago, as well as security experts I've spoken to say that a hardware router with NAT, and unneeded ports closed, is a far more secure method than a software based firewall. The firewall allows the problem onto your computer. If it isn't as effective as you think, and they never are, you can get screwed more easily. It's much more difficult to get around the external hardware, assuming that it, also, is a good one.
It's always recommended to upgrade the firmware on routers, gateways, and the like.
Apple has caused some problems with their OS upgrades. A couple of years ago, 10.3 caused problems with the big CISCO network routers.
Your two statements contradict each other.
First you say we should always update our router firmware. Then you say we should be cautious upgrading Mac OS, because some updates break things.
Well, believe it or not, some router updates also break things. I remember one Linksys update that broke all Mac connectivity (but the Windows PCs continued working, which makes no sense to me, since they are all using static IP addresses.) Reverting back to the previous firmware re-established connectivity.
Unless you're experiencing a problem or have to patch a critical security hole, don't bother updating your router. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
First you say we should always update our router firmware. Then you say we should be cautious upgrading Mac OS, because some updates break things.
Well, believe it or not, some router updates also break things. I remember one Linksys update that broke all Mac connectivity (but the Windows PCs continued working, which makes no sense to me, since they are all using static IP addresses.) Reverting back to the previous firmware re-established connectivity.
Unless you're experiencing a problem or have to patch a critical security hole, don't bother updating your router. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Well, no.
That wasn't a contradiction.
If I get what you're saying, one should either NEVER update, or upgrade anything, because there might by a small chance of bugs, or one should always update or upgrade everything as soon as the update or upgrade comes out because of the improvements, damn any possibility of bugs.
My advice is to always read about new updated and upgrades on sites such as Macfixit, and Macintouch for a week or so to find out what any problems might be before doing any updating or upgrading.
For anything major, it pays to wait longer.
But, the updates or upgrades must eventually be made, like it or not.
Firmware updated to routers always fix bugs, and add functionality. Often early versions don't have functions that you need, or want. Sometimes they speed up transfers. There are many reasons to update.
The idea of never updating unless you KNOW you have a problem is wrongheaded.
But, the updates or upgrades must eventually be made, like it or not.
No, this is not true.
Especially for a device like a router. If it does what you need (in my case, routes all of my LAN's packets to the internet), then there is no need to upgrade. Ever.
This isn't like a computer where you're constantly dealing with new things and failure to keep current will result in functionality gradually going away over time. (e.g. web sites that stop working if you don't use the latest version of Flash, etc.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The idea of never updating unless you KNOW you have a problem is wrongheaded.
So, if everything's working fine, and I have no complaints, you think I should periodically roll the dice on periodic updates anyway? If the update works, I notice no change. If the update fails, I have to spend a few days figuring out how to revert the change.
Especially for a device like a router. If it does what you need (in my case, routes all of my LAN's packets to the internet), then there is no need to upgrade. Ever.
This isn't like a computer where you're constantly dealing with new things and failure to keep current will result in functionality gradually going away over time. (e.g. web sites that stop working if you don't use the latest version of Flash, etc.)
So, if everything's working fine, and I have no complaints, you think I should periodically roll the dice on periodic updates anyway? If the update works, I notice no change. If the update fails, I have to spend a few days figuring out how to revert the change.
This makes sense to you?
I'm sorry, but that's simply incorrect. All routers have a design that can be firmware updated. When I look at what's being updated in various models, I see better compliance with standards, error correction, etc.
The fact that ypu may not realise that the throughput in your router isn't up to snuff doesn't mean that it is. I'm not going to go through a liteny of examples, but that's one common problem. Packets in routers have to be resent if there are problems anywhere, including the router itself. Do you check this constantly to see what problems with packets are occuring, and from where? No? Then how do you know that your router, like most, isn't reflecting packets because of a firmware error? You don't?
But, if you're satisfied with not knowing that your router is operating at less than optimum, for any reason, that's fine.
You roll the dice if you don't follow my advice and see if there are any problems to watch out for, yes.
Sorry if this has been asked, but: Will Apple charge the fee if I bought a new Macbook Pro now? If they are, I can wait...until the summer
AFAIK At this stage the only things are "plans have been announced and confirmed" by Apple about $1.99. If you bought a new MacBookPro *now*, you won't get the unlock *yet* as it has not been officially released.
However, if you bought a MacBookPro *and* a AirportExtreme 802.11n you get the unlock with the base station purchase (so you can have a complete 802.11n solution happening straight away)...
I am surprised that new owners of 802.11n Airport Extreme have not reported on the "enabler software" and that this hasn't been released[leaked] into the wild yet. Apple wouldn't care really if the "enabler software" was leaked, I don't think they would go to the trouble of checking via software if you *had* a 802.11n Airport Extreme before "enabling" you MacIntel Core2Duo's 802.11n chip.
But, if you're satisfied with not knowing that your router is operating at less than optimum, for any reason, that's fine....You roll the dice if you don't follow my advice and see if there are any problems to watch out for, yes.
I checked Netcomm (Australian company) www.netcomm.com.au and there's no updates for the ADSL Modem/Router [non-wireless]................ Pisses me off a bit because the port forwarding rules on the Netcomm chokes after like 8-10 rules are put in ...Longer story, I'm not going to mess with things too much because my aunt relies on my cousin-in-law for all things IT (he's a professional 30-something Windows-support dude for a major Australian IT implementor/support/solutions/corporate-level stuff) ...so well... yeah, whole 'nother story. Including how the hell he deals with Windows every single day. But hey, that pays the bills, keeps the family reputation in play, and has a nice Honda Accord Euro (Acura TSX I believe in the US).......... \
The 802.11b access point (transmitter) running off the Modem/Router is an Asus, I'll check that soon-ish if there is an update. Given it's 802.11b though, not sure if it's too worthwhile. Throughput is alright if the Toshiba laptop is about 15 feet away from the base station, the reception on the Toshiba goes to pot though if it's past the living room where the Asus wireless is. (Anything more than 20+ feet) The MacBook can get a decent signal in the patio out the back (30 feet or so(?)) and the iBook does well at 25 feet.......
Hmmm.... DSL is only 512kbit/s down 128kbit/sec ... Asus wireless 802.11b throughput within 15-20feet for transfers between the Toshiba laptop and iBook is 2mbit/sec...
Sorry if this has been asked, but: Will Apple charge the fee if I bought a new Macbook Pro now?
If they are, I can wait...until the summer
Unless you have a "thing" about being charged, the $1.99 is not exactly a deal breaker. For all we know, with all of the bad publicity coming down, they may change their minds.
Why would you wait until summer to avoid $1.99? That makes no sense.
Comments
The encryption was much of the problem. The Linksys cable modem was also either slow or faulty in getting DHCP information from the ISP. The access point was also slow or faulty in handing out DHCP information to the same brand wireless card. Hooking up my MBP directly to the cable modem actually fetched the DHCP properly, but the access point could not do the same reliably, even using the same Ethernet cable.
The access point also required a firmware update to work properly. I was able to use Linksys' access point with my MBP with encryption just fine. I think my Buffalo wireless adapter worked properly too, but using the Linksys Cardbus module and the Linksys setup software for XP, it would often not accept the same encryption key.
I also have a Linksys gigabit switch that would lock up on occasion, requiring a reset. Power level changes from a UPS because of power interruptions had caused it to lock up and stall the network, when no other device connected to the same UPS had a problem. I reverted to a hand-me-down Asante 10/100 managed switch which has performed flawlessly since.
Obviously, you have compatibility problems. I've never had that. But, I usually check these things out very carefully before buying devices like this.
It's always recommended to upgrade the firmware on routers, gateways, and the like.
Apple has caused some problems with their OS upgrades. A couple of years ago, 10.3 caused problems with the big CISCO network routers.
I've always found Linksys to be one of the better brands.
Obviously, you have compatibility problems. I've never had that. But, I usually check these things out very carefully before buying devices like this.
The Linksys adapter was recommended for the Linksys AP. And the Linksys AP was recommended for the cable modem. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that when all points in the chain are from the same company at the same level of technology, that they actually work together.
It's always recommended to upgrade the firmware on routers, gateways, and the like.
True, but it would be nice if the product worked out of the box, with working firmware, but I think that's probably too much to expect these days. Even with the latest adapter drivers, their adapter did not work properly with any encryption. All I'm saying is that I've used too many different models of Linksys equipment and had too many different problems and quirks with them to think it's a fluke. Buffalo has done me a lot better with far less hassle.
The Linksys adapter was recommended for the Linksys AP. And the Linksys AP was recommended for the cable modem. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that when all points in the chain are from the same company at the same level of technology, that they actually work together.
True, but it would be nice if the product worked out of the box, with working firmware, but I think that's probably too much to expect these days. Even with the latest adapter drivers, their adapter did not work properly with any encryption. All I'm saying is that I've used too many different models of Linksys equipment and had too many different problems and quirks with them to think it's a fluke. Buffalo has done me a lot better with far less hassle.
Well, it's interesting that we seem to have had completely different experiences here.
Well, it's interesting that we seem to have had completely different experiences here.
True. I know some people that have had problems, and others that did not. I haven't figured out what really separates the two. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I never know, but I try to be as thoughrough as I can. Maybe the models you use are different from the models I've used.
True. I know some people that have had problems, and others that did not. I haven't figured out what really separates the two. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I never know, but I try to be as thoughrough as I can. Maybe the models you use are different from the models I've used.
Who knows? But that's the best part of all this, isn't it?
Otherwise, we would have nothing to talk about.
Though, the fact that I've been working with this stuff for ages probably helps.
Who knows? But that's the best part of all this, isn't it?
Otherwise, we would have nothing to talk about.
Though, the fact that I've been working with this stuff for ages probably helps.
Have you messed around with the Firewall and PortForward settings eg. for BitTorrent?
That throws a whole 'nother level of problems into the mix..
My Netcomm DSL/Router (wired) hooks up to an Asus 802.11b transmitter. After about 10 or so port forward rules on the NetComm, it starts just locking up and crashing (the Netcomm).
I was trying to set up port forwarding so that BitTorrent ports are opened up only for those routed to a specific IP on the internal network (eg. blah.blah.blah.10). Eventually I just gave up on teh port forwarding and left all the firewalling on, etc.
I tried to put a computer (eg. Toshiba laptop or MacBook) in the DMZ and then let the computer firewall handle the stuff, with the appropriate BitTorrent ports opened up. Good, but the Netcomm and Asus gets flooded with BitTorrent traffic, particularly if the BitTorrent client computer is further from the base station, the wireless traffic slows down for the client computer and other 1 or 2 computers on the wireless network.
Now actually I think for some reason even though I took a a local IP off the DMZ, I think the Netcomm router firewall and port blocking is somewhat hosed. It might have put all the clients served by the router *into* the DMZ. Some general weirdness going on.... Not a great huge deal though things work for the most part and downloads are alright for BitTorrent even though I am behind firewalls and have my inbound access 6881--etc TCP ports closed.
Have you messed around with the Firewall and PortForward settings eg. for BitTorrent?
That throws a whole 'nother level of problems into the mix..
My Netcomm DSL/Router (wired) hooks up to an Asus 802.11b transmitter. After about 10 or so port forward rules on the NetComm, it starts just locking up and crashing (the Netcomm).
I was trying to set up port forwarding so that BitTorrent ports are opened up only for those routed to a specific IP on the internal network (eg. blah.blah.blah.10). Eventually I just gave up on teh port forwarding and left all the firewalling on, etc.
I tried to put a computer (eg. Toshiba laptop or MacBook) in the DMZ and then let the computer firewall handle the stuff, with the appropriate BitTorrent ports opened up. Good, but the Netcomm and Asus gets flooded with BitTorrent traffic, particularly if the BitTorrent client computer is further from the base station, the wireless traffic slows down for the client computer and other 1 or 2 computers on the wireless network.
Now actually I think for some reason even though I took a a local IP off the DMZ, I think the Netcomm router firewall and port blocking is somewhat hosed. It might have put all the clients served by the router *into* the DMZ. Some general weirdness going on.... Not a great huge deal though things work for the most part and downloads are alright for BitTorrent even though I am behind firewalls and have my inbound access 6881--etc TCP ports closed.
I've used port fowarding, but not for BitTorrent, so I can't speak to that specifically.
You know, while it helps, a software firewall is not really required on home networks. The router takes care of enough.
You know, while it helps, a software firewall is not really required on home networks. The router takes care of enough.
<paranoia>Trust No One [Including Routers], Mr. Mulder...</paranoia>
<paranoia>Trust No One [Including Routers], Mr. Mulder...</paranoia>
I trust me! "Oh sure", you say, "take that chance, will ya?"
An article I read a while ago, as well as security experts I've spoken to say that a hardware router with NAT, and unneeded ports closed, is a far more secure method than a software based firewall. The firewall allows the problem onto your computer. If it isn't as effective as you think, and they never are, you can get screwed more easily. It's much more difficult to get around the external hardware, assuming that it, also, is a good one.
It's always recommended to upgrade the firmware on routers, gateways, and the like.
Apple has caused some problems with their OS upgrades. A couple of years ago, 10.3 caused problems with the big CISCO network routers.
Your two statements contradict each other.
First you say we should always update our router firmware. Then you say we should be cautious upgrading Mac OS, because some updates break things.
Well, believe it or not, some router updates also break things. I remember one Linksys update that broke all Mac connectivity (but the Windows PCs continued working, which makes no sense to me, since they are all using static IP addresses.) Reverting back to the previous firmware re-established connectivity.
Unless you're experiencing a problem or have to patch a critical security hole, don't bother updating your router. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Your two statements contradict each other.
First you say we should always update our router firmware. Then you say we should be cautious upgrading Mac OS, because some updates break things.
Well, believe it or not, some router updates also break things. I remember one Linksys update that broke all Mac connectivity (but the Windows PCs continued working, which makes no sense to me, since they are all using static IP addresses.) Reverting back to the previous firmware re-established connectivity.
Unless you're experiencing a problem or have to patch a critical security hole, don't bother updating your router. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Well, no.
That wasn't a contradiction.
If I get what you're saying, one should either NEVER update, or upgrade anything, because there might by a small chance of bugs, or one should always update or upgrade everything as soon as the update or upgrade comes out because of the improvements, damn any possibility of bugs.
My advice is to always read about new updated and upgrades on sites such as Macfixit, and Macintouch for a week or so to find out what any problems might be before doing any updating or upgrading.
For anything major, it pays to wait longer.
But, the updates or upgrades must eventually be made, like it or not.
Firmware updated to routers always fix bugs, and add functionality. Often early versions don't have functions that you need, or want. Sometimes they speed up transfers. There are many reasons to update.
The idea of never updating unless you KNOW you have a problem is wrongheaded.
But, the updates or upgrades must eventually be made, like it or not.
No, this is not true.
Especially for a device like a router. If it does what you need (in my case, routes all of my LAN's packets to the internet), then there is no need to upgrade. Ever.
This isn't like a computer where you're constantly dealing with new things and failure to keep current will result in functionality gradually going away over time. (e.g. web sites that stop working if you don't use the latest version of Flash, etc.)
The idea of never updating unless you KNOW you have a problem is wrongheaded.
So, if everything's working fine, and I have no complaints, you think I should periodically roll the dice on periodic updates anyway? If the update works, I notice no change. If the update fails, I have to spend a few days figuring out how to revert the change.
This makes sense to you?
No, this is not true.
Especially for a device like a router. If it does what you need (in my case, routes all of my LAN's packets to the internet), then there is no need to upgrade. Ever.
This isn't like a computer where you're constantly dealing with new things and failure to keep current will result in functionality gradually going away over time. (e.g. web sites that stop working if you don't use the latest version of Flash, etc.)
So, if everything's working fine, and I have no complaints, you think I should periodically roll the dice on periodic updates anyway? If the update works, I notice no change. If the update fails, I have to spend a few days figuring out how to revert the change.
This makes sense to you?
I'm sorry, but that's simply incorrect. All routers have a design that can be firmware updated. When I look at what's being updated in various models, I see better compliance with standards, error correction, etc.
The fact that ypu may not realise that the throughput in your router isn't up to snuff doesn't mean that it is. I'm not going to go through a liteny of examples, but that's one common problem. Packets in routers have to be resent if there are problems anywhere, including the router itself. Do you check this constantly to see what problems with packets are occuring, and from where? No? Then how do you know that your router, like most, isn't reflecting packets because of a firmware error? You don't?
But, if you're satisfied with not knowing that your router is operating at less than optimum, for any reason, that's fine.
You roll the dice if you don't follow my advice and see if there are any problems to watch out for, yes.
If they are, I can wait...until the summer
Sorry if this has been asked, but: Will Apple charge the fee if I bought a new Macbook Pro now?
AFAIK At this stage the only things are "plans have been announced and confirmed" by Apple about $1.99. If you bought a new MacBookPro *now*, you won't get the unlock *yet* as it has not been officially released.
However, if you bought a MacBookPro *and* a AirportExtreme 802.11n you get the unlock with the base station purchase (so you can have a complete 802.11n solution happening straight away)...
http://www.apple.com/wireless/80211/
"These Mac computers support 802.11n in the new AirPort Extreme Base Station using the included enabler software:
* iMac with Intel Core 2 Duo (except 17-inch, 1.83GHz iMac)
* MacBook with Intel Core 2 Duo
* MacBook Pro with Intel Core 2 Duo
* Mac Pro with AirPort Extreme card option
"
But, if you're satisfied with not knowing that your router is operating at less than optimum, for any reason, that's fine....You roll the dice if you don't follow my advice and see if there are any problems to watch out for, yes.
I checked Netcomm (Australian company) www.netcomm.com.au and there's no updates for the ADSL Modem/Router [non-wireless]................ Pisses me off a bit because the port forwarding rules on the Netcomm chokes after like 8-10 rules are put in
The 802.11b access point (transmitter) running off the Modem/Router is an Asus, I'll check that soon-ish if there is an update. Given it's 802.11b though, not sure if it's too worthwhile. Throughput is alright if the Toshiba laptop is about 15 feet away from the base station, the reception on the Toshiba goes to pot though if it's past the living room where the Asus wireless is. (Anything more than 20+ feet) The MacBook can get a decent signal in the patio out the back (30 feet or so(?)) and the iBook does well at 25 feet.......
Sorry if this has been asked, but: Will Apple charge the fee if I bought a new Macbook Pro now?
If they are, I can wait...until the summer
Unless you have a "thing" about being charged, the $1.99 is not exactly a deal breaker. For all we know, with all of the bad publicity coming down, they may change their minds.
Why would you wait until summer to avoid $1.99? That makes no sense.