Lag every 60 seconds on wireless network

Discussion in 'Wireless Networking' started by dw5f7qz4@googlemail.com, Nov 20, 2006.

  1. Guest

    When using XP's built-in wireless software, every 60 seconds, there is
    a lag spike on all devices, I can see by each machine pinging each
    other and/or the router and/or external Internet IP:

    Example:
    Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=425ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    [...57 seconds...]
    Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=777ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64

    Yet when I use the manufacturers own Wireless configuration software
    that came with the drivers, the lag doesn't occur, WHY? (I hate using
    manufacturers software - ugly and bloated)
     
    , Nov 20, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Meat Plow Guest

    On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:12:34 -0800, dw5f7qz4 Has Frothed:

    > When using XP's built-in wireless software, every 60 seconds, there is
    > a lag spike on all devices, I can see by each machine pinging each
    > other and/or the router and/or external Internet IP:
    >
    > Example:
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=425ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > [...57 seconds...]
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=777ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    >
    > Yet when I use the manufacturers own Wireless configuration software
    > that came with the drivers, the lag doesn't occur, WHY? (I hate using
    > manufacturers software - ugly and bloated)


    You're not using them both at the same time (unknowingly of course)?
    Not sure if disabling QoS would help but what the hell, give it a try.

    --
    Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2004

    COOSN-266-06-25794
     
    Meat Plow, Nov 20, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    Meat Plow wrote:
    > You're not using them both at the same time (unknowingly of course)?


    Both XP's wireless and manufacturers software at the same time? No, for
    my new Netgear USB adapater, I installed only the drivers and avoided
    the software.

    > Not sure if disabling QoS would help but what the hell, give it a try.


    I tried disabling QoS without any difference.
     
    , Nov 20, 2006
    #3
  4. On 20 Nov 2006 14:12:34 -0800, wrote:

    >When using XP's built-in wireless software, every 60 seconds, there is
    >a lag spike on all devices, I can see by each machine pinging each
    >other and/or the router and/or external Internet IP:

    (...)
    >Yet when I use the manufacturers own Wireless configuration software
    >that came with the drivers, the lag doesn't occur, WHY? (I hate using
    >manufacturers software - ugly and bloated)


    There was a recent thread in alt.internet.wireless, where the OP had a
    similar problem with his Dell D600 laptop and Truemobile 1400 wireless
    card getting busy every 60 seconds. It could be seen as a glitch on
    the task manager. The culprit seems to be in the Dell Truemobile 1400
    driver as it doesn't happen with the ethernet port or when the
    wireless card is disabled.

    Start at:
    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.wireless/browse_frm/thread/30d061c9b423202f
    It's rather long unfortunately, as we slug our way through my various
    bad guesses. You might be able to learn something useful (such as
    disclosing the hardware that you're using).



    --
    # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
    # 831-336-2558 -cruz.ca.us
    # http://802.11junk.com
    # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Nov 21, 2006
    #4
  5. Hi

    Could be that the Brand drivers are not fully compatible with Windows Zero
    Configuration.

    Log to the support site of the Brand, and look for the driver's last update.

    Some time looking for the Card chipset manufacturer and finding OEM drivers
    for it to replace the Brand Drivers solve compatibility problems as well.
    As a theoretical example, a card is sold under Brand name X but the chipset
    is made by RALINK, downloading and installing the original drivers from
    RALINK might yield better results.

    Jack (MVP-Networking).



    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > When using XP's built-in wireless software, every 60 seconds, there is
    > a lag spike on all devices, I can see by each machine pinging each
    > other and/or the router and/or external Internet IP:
    >
    > Example:
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=425ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > [...57 seconds...]
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=777ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    >
    > Yet when I use the manufacturers own Wireless configuration software
    > that came with the drivers, the lag doesn't occur, WHY? (I hate using
    > manufacturers software - ugly and bloated)
    >
     
    Jack \(MVP-Networking\)., Nov 21, 2006
    #5
  6. John Navas Guest

    On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 01:01:22 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
    <-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
    <>:

    >On 20 Nov 2006 14:12:34 -0800, wrote:
    >
    >>When using XP's built-in wireless software, every 60 seconds, there is
    >>a lag spike on all devices, I can see by each machine pinging each
    >>other and/or the router and/or external Internet IP:

    >(...)
    >>Yet when I use the manufacturers own Wireless configuration software
    >>that came with the drivers, the lag doesn't occur, WHY? (I hate using
    >>manufacturers software - ugly and bloated)

    >
    >There was a recent thread in alt.internet.wireless, where the OP had a
    >similar problem with his Dell D600 laptop and Truemobile 1400 wireless
    >card getting busy every 60 seconds. It could be seen as a glitch on
    >the task manager. The culprit seems to be in the Dell Truemobile 1400
    >driver as it doesn't happen with the ethernet port or when the
    >wireless card is disabled.
    >[SNIP]


    That wouldn't explain why the spike is seen only with XP and not with
    the OEM software.

    --
    Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
    John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
    Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
    Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
     
    John Navas, Nov 21, 2006
    #6
  7. kbloch2001 Guest

    Lots of interesting asnwers but wrong on most parts in my opinion. The
    problem has to do with the Windows Zero Configuration program and the
    setting to check for other networks periodically. Periodically to
    microsoft is to check once every 60 seconds. When it does its check it
    goes into a scan modem and searches for other access points that may
    offer a better signal. It does not matter if you are sitting on top of
    the other access point and have a maximum signal strenght indicated it
    will still look.

    As far as the comments on the vendor software being bloated I disagree.
    If Microsoft would quit trying to control everything on a PC and let
    the vendors for hardware use there drivers by default it would be much
    easier to solve problems or avoid them alltogether.


    wrote:
    > When using XP's built-in wireless software, every 60 seconds, there is
    > a lag spike on all devices, I can see by each machine pinging each
    > other and/or the router and/or external Internet IP:
    >
    > Example:
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=425ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > [...57 seconds...]
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=777ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    >
    > Yet when I use the manufacturers own Wireless configuration software
    > that came with the drivers, the lag doesn't occur, WHY? (I hate using
    > manufacturers software - ugly and bloated)
     
    kbloch2001, Nov 21, 2006
    #7
  8. John Navas Guest

    On 21 Nov 2006 15:37:40 -0800, "kbloch2001" <>
    wrote in <>:

    >Lots of interesting asnwers but wrong on most parts in my opinion. The
    >problem has to do with the Windows Zero Configuration program and the
    >setting to check for other networks periodically. Periodically to
    >microsoft is to check once every 60 seconds. When it does its check it
    >goes into a scan modem and searches for other access points that may
    >offer a better signal. It does not matter if you are sitting on top of
    >the other access point and have a maximum signal strenght indicated it
    >will still look.


    Doesn't compute -- I'm using WZC and get no such spikes.

    >As far as the comments on the vendor software being bloated I disagree.
    >If Microsoft would quit trying to control everything on a PC and let
    >the vendors for hardware use there drivers by default it would be much
    >easier to solve problems or avoid them alltogether.


    Respectfully disagree -- some of these 3rd-party driver packages are
    wildly bloated, Intel being a notable case in point at a mere 52 MB!

    > wrote:
    >> When using XP's built-in wireless software, every 60 seconds, there is
    >> a lag spike on all devices, I can see by each machine pinging each
    >> other and/or the router and/or external Internet IP:
    >>
    >> Example:
    >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=425ms TTL=64
    >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    >> [...57 seconds...]
    >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=777ms TTL=64
    >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    >>
    >> Yet when I use the manufacturers own Wireless configuration software
    >> that came with the drivers, the lag doesn't occur, WHY? (I hate using
    >> manufacturers software - ugly and bloated)


    --
    Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
    John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
    Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
    Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
     
    John Navas, Nov 22, 2006
    #8
  9. In alt.internet.wireless wrote:
    > When using XP's built-in wireless software, every 60 seconds, there is
    > a lag spike on all devices, I can see by each machine pinging each
    > other and/or the router and/or external Internet IP:
    >
    > Example:
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=425ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > [...57 seconds...]
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=777ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    >
    > Yet when I use the manufacturers own Wireless configuration software
    > that came with the drivers, the lag doesn't occur, WHY? (I hate using
    > manufacturers software - ugly and bloated)
    >


    Don't know if this applies to you: I saw this once (in the beginning) when
    enabling WPA. I thought it was the result of WPA creating a new WEP key every
    minute. I solved this by upgrading the firmware of my WAP.

    Peter

    --
    http://www.boosten.org

    Mail: peter at boosten dot org
     
    Peter Boosten, Nov 22, 2006
    #9
  10. "kbloch2001" <> hath wroth:

    >Lots of interesting asnwers but wrong on most parts in my opinion. The
    >problem has to do with the Windows Zero Configuration program and the
    >setting to check for other networks periodically. Periodically to
    >microsoft is to check once every 60 seconds. When it does its check it
    >goes into a scan modem and searches for other access points that may
    >offer a better signal. It does not matter if you are sitting on top of
    >the other access point and have a maximum signal strenght indicated it
    >will still look.


    That would make sense if Microsoft bothered to search for other
    networks AFTER it has successfully connected. The problem is that it
    doesn't. Wireless Zero Config will tenaciously stick to a connection
    even if there is a much stronger signal available using the same SSID.
    You can demonstrate this for yourself by attempting to roam between
    access points (using the same SSID). WZC will not switch to the
    stronger access point until it has literally lost the connection to
    the original access point. That's where the approximately 60 seconds
    happens as a keep alive. It tries to reconnect by assuming that there
    was no traffic to move. When it doesn't find the original access
    point, it will then switch to scan mode. Note that scan mode takes
    much longer than the 1 second or so shown on the ping responses. You
    can also unplug the first access point and time how long it takes for
    the client to switch to another access point with the same SSID. Last
    time I tried it, the connect time was about 10 to 40 seconds depending
    on where in the 60 second timing cycle the first access point was
    unplugged.

    There are some other client managers that do a better job of switching
    access points. Intel Proset 10.x is one example. It even has
    settings at to how tenaciously it will remain connected to the initial
    access point.

    >As far as the comments on the vendor software being bloated I disagree.
    >If Microsoft would quit trying to control everything on a PC and let
    >the vendors for hardware use there drivers by default it would be much
    >easier to solve problems or avoid them alltogether.


    I don't care if the driver is 1 GBloat big. All I care is that it
    works. A clue as to how well the MS WZC client manager is written is
    the stupid requirement to enter the WPA key twice. That may make
    sense for the access point, where a mistyped WPA key or password will
    prevent future access. However, it makes no sense on the client,
    where a typo error is simply corrected and retried.


    --
    Jeff Liebermann -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
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Nov 22, 2006
    #10
  11. kbloch2001 Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    > On 21 Nov 2006 15:37:40 -0800, "kbloch2001" <>
    > wrote in <>:
    >
    > >Lots of interesting asnwers but wrong on most parts in my opinion. The
    > >problem has to do with the Windows Zero Configuration program and the
    > >setting to check for other networks periodically. Periodically to
    > >microsoft is to check once every 60 seconds. When it does its check it
    > >goes into a scan modem and searches for other access points that may
    > >offer a better signal. It does not matter if you are sitting on top of
    > >the other access point and have a maximum signal strenght indicated it
    > >will still look.

    >
    > Doesn't compute -- I'm using WZC and get no such spikes.
    >
    > >As far as the comments on the vendor software being bloated I disagree.
    > >If Microsoft would quit trying to control everything on a PC and let
    > >the vendors for hardware use there drivers by default it would be much
    > >easier to solve problems or avoid them alltogether.

    >
    > Respectfully disagree -- some of these 3rd-party driver packages are
    > wildly bloated, Intel being a notable case in point at a mere 52 MB!
    >
    > > wrote:
    > >> When using XP's built-in wireless software, every 60 seconds, there is
    > >> a lag spike on all devices, I can see by each machine pinging each
    > >> other and/or the router and/or external Internet IP:
    > >>
    > >> Example:
    > >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=425ms TTL=64
    > >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > >> [...57 seconds...]
    > >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=777ms TTL=64
    > >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    > >>
    > >> Yet when I use the manufacturers own Wireless configuration software
    > >> that came with the drivers, the lag doesn't occur, WHY? (I hate using
    > >> manufacturers software - ugly and bloated)

    >
    > --
    > Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
    > John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
    > Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
    > Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
     
    kbloch2001, Nov 22, 2006
    #11
  12. Hi
    Most vendors prime goal is to sell their Hardware, even if it happen to be
    not fully compatible with Windows.
    There is lot of Hardware out there that did not pass solid QA. It usually
    bought by Off Brands and sold for little money (It is like a Car vendor
    that would buy all the Lemon Cars, and would sold them under his Own Brand
    "Lemon and Honey Cars").
    However it is much easier for the common user to target Microsoft (The big
    American company) as the culprit, rather than getting upset with an obscure
    East Asian manufacturing shop.
    I am not a Microsoft employee, and I am very glad that I can offer this help
    as a Volunteer to the global community. After spending long time on this
    Newsgroup I can tell you that the vast majority of the complains on this
    specific newsgroup have nothing to do with Microsoft products.
    Jack (MVP-Networking).

    "kbloch2001" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > John Navas wrote:
    >> On 21 Nov 2006 15:37:40 -0800, "kbloch2001" <>
    >> wrote in <>:
    >>
    >> >Lots of interesting asnwers but wrong on most parts in my opinion. The
    >> >problem has to do with the Windows Zero Configuration program and the
    >> >setting to check for other networks periodically. Periodically to
    >> >microsoft is to check once every 60 seconds. When it does its check it
    >> >goes into a scan modem and searches for other access points that may
    >> >offer a better signal. It does not matter if you are sitting on top of
    >> >the other access point and have a maximum signal strenght indicated it
    >> >will still look.

    >>
    >> Doesn't compute -- I'm using WZC and get no such spikes.
    >>
    >> >As far as the comments on the vendor software being bloated I disagree.
    >> >If Microsoft would quit trying to control everything on a PC and let
    >> >the vendors for hardware use there drivers by default it would be much
    >> >easier to solve problems or avoid them alltogether.

    >>
    >> Respectfully disagree -- some of these 3rd-party driver packages are
    >> wildly bloated, Intel being a notable case in point at a mere 52 MB!
    >>
    >> > wrote:
    >> >> When using XP's built-in wireless software, every 60 seconds, there is
    >> >> a lag spike on all devices, I can see by each machine pinging each
    >> >> other and/or the router and/or external Internet IP:
    >> >>
    >> >> Example:
    >> >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    >> >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    >> >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=425ms TTL=64
    >> >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    >> >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    >> >> [...57 seconds...]
    >> >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    >> >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=777ms TTL=64
    >> >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    >> >> Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
    >> >>
    >> >> Yet when I use the manufacturers own Wireless configuration software
    >> >> that came with the drivers, the lag doesn't occur, WHY? (I hate using
    >> >> manufacturers software - ugly and bloated)

    >>
    >> --
    >> Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
    >> John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
    >> Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
    >> Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

    >
     
    Jack \(MVP-Networking\)., Nov 22, 2006
    #12
  13. John Navas Guest

    On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:58:29 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
    <-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
    <>:

    >"kbloch2001" <> hath wroth:


    >>As far as the comments on the vendor software being bloated I disagree.
    >>If Microsoft would quit trying to control everything on a PC and let
    >>the vendors for hardware use there drivers by default it would be much
    >>easier to solve problems or avoid them alltogether.

    >
    >I don't care if the driver is 1 GBloat big.


    I do -- bloatware can affect system performance, and the amount of
    degradation can be significant.

    >All I care is that it
    >works.


    I care about that too, but not to the exclusion of everything else. ;)

    >A clue as to how well the MS WZC client manager is written is
    >the stupid requirement to enter the WPA key twice. That may make
    >sense for the access point, where a mistyped WPA key or password will
    >prevent future access. However, it makes no sense on the client,
    >where a typo error is simply corrected and retried.


    Sure, but that has nothing to do with the quality of programming, only
    with the user interface design, and is thus a bit of a cheap shot. :)

    For what it's worth, my own assessment is that MS WZC is pretty well
    written, roughly a 4 on a scale of 5 (with a user interface score of 3).

    While there are some manf wireless utilities that are better (e.g.,
    IBM/Lenovo, Intel), there are others that are worse.

    --
    Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
    John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
    Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
    Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
     
    John Navas, Nov 23, 2006
    #13
  14. On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 00:09:23 GMT, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    >I do -- bloatware can affect system performance, and the amount of
    >degradation can be significant.


    It might be if the entire package were loaded into memory and running
    all the time. It's my understanding that the bulk of the bloat for
    Windoze wireless drivers are client manager programs that are only run
    when one needs to make setting or configuration changes. I don't have
    Proset 10.x handy to verify, but out of the 86MByte compressed
    download, very little of it is running all time.

    >>All I care is that it
    >>works.

    >
    >I care about that too, but not to the exclusion of everything else. ;)


    You mean bigger isn't better? Perhaps we might compare Intel Proset
    with the SUV purchasing decisions of the GUM (great unwashed masses).
    SUV's sell well. There's Nissan Titan pickup in the parking lot that
    looks and probably handles like the Titanic. The stock Windoze and
    applications installation on the latest Dell E310 that just arrives
    only gobbles 8.3GBytes on the hard disk. Well, bigger may not be
    better but it sure seems to be the current fashion.

    >>A clue as to how well the MS WZC client manager is written is
    >>the stupid requirement to enter the WPA key twice. That may make
    >>sense for the access point, where a mistyped WPA key or password will
    >>prevent future access. However, it makes no sense on the client,
    >>where a typo error is simply corrected and retried.


    >Sure, but that has nothing to do with the quality of programming, only
    >with the user interface design, and is thus a bit of a cheap shot. :)


    It's also my favorite MS cheap shot. A good rhetorical question would
    be why MS hasn't bothered to fix such an obvious, irritating, stupid,
    and useless mis-feature. If anything, it's a not so subtle hint that
    MS knowns not what they're doing with wireless. However, to their
    credit, others have done worse. Netgear has somehow decided that the
    WPA encryption key needs to be buried under several layers of
    "advanced" menus where few users have been able to find it. WEP is
    right on the main page, but WPA is buried 2 layers deep. Wouldn't
    want to clutter up the screen with useful information and settings.

    >For what it's worth, my own assessment is that MS WZC is pretty well
    >written, roughly a 4 on a scale of 5 (with a user interface score of 3).


    I would give the user interface a zero or possibly negative. Want a
    list of misplaced features, missing features, and user interface
    absurdities? Got any user diagnostics? Connection progress dialog?
    Encryption failure notification? Prefered SSID? Selection of access
    point by MAC address? Connect to any random access point? Takes
    forever to list available networks if there are more than about 20
    available. Obnoxious warning about unsecured networks that can't be
    disabled. Signal strength is buried and S/N ratio is missing. Overly
    tenacious roaming. "Limited Access" with no explanation as to why.
    This is not my idea of quality software.

    >While there are some manf wireless utilities that are better (e.g.,
    >IBM/Lenovo, Intel), there are others that are worse.


    Agreed. There's always a way to make it worse.

    --
    # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
    # 831-336-2558 -cruz.ca.us
    # http://802.11junk.com
    # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Nov 23, 2006
    #14
  15. John Navas Guest

    On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 01:29:23 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
    <-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
    <>:

    >On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 00:09:23 GMT, John Navas
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>I do -- bloatware can affect system performance, and the amount of
    >>degradation can be significant.

    >
    >It might be if the entire package were loaded into memory and running
    >all the time. It's my understanding that the bulk of the bloat for
    >Windoze wireless drivers are client manager programs that are only run
    >when one needs to make setting or configuration changes. I don't have
    >Proset 10.x handy to verify, but out of the 86MByte compressed
    >download, very little of it is running all time.


    That's not the only issue -- sluggishness can come from such things as
    initialization, size of working set, page faulting, swapping in and out,
    on demand loading, etc. My personal take is that Intel ProSet is
    actually sluggish (on my ThinkPad T-41 with 768 MB at least).

    >>>A clue as to how well the MS WZC client manager is written is
    >>>the stupid requirement to enter the WPA key twice. That may make
    >>>sense for the access point, where a mistyped WPA key or password will
    >>>prevent future access. However, it makes no sense on the client,
    >>>where a typo error is simply corrected and retried.

    >
    >>Sure, but that has nothing to do with the quality of programming, only
    >>with the user interface design, and is thus a bit of a cheap shot. :)

    >
    >It's also my favorite MS cheap shot.


    I know. It is pretty silly, but then nothing is perfect -- I can list
    silly things with just about any piece of software.

    >A good rhetorical question would
    >be why MS hasn't bothered to fix such an obvious, irritating, stupid,
    >and useless mis-feature.


    Probably because it's a minor issue and because fixes can have serious
    unintended consequences (new bugs, unexpected interactions, QA burden),
    not to mention the basic issue of massive documentation changes.

    >If anything, it's a not so subtle hint that
    >MS knowns not what they're doing with wireless.


    Only to a tiny audience. ;)

    >>For what it's worth, my own assessment is that MS WZC is pretty well
    >>written, roughly a 4 on a scale of 5 (with a user interface score of 3).

    >
    >I would give the user interface a zero or possibly negative. Want a
    >list of misplaced features, missing features, and user interface
    >absurdities? Got any user diagnostics? Connection progress dialog?
    >Encryption failure notification? Prefered SSID? Selection of access
    >point by MAC address? Connect to any random access point? Takes
    >forever to list available networks if there are more than about 20
    >available. Obnoxious warning about unsecured networks that can't be
    >disabled. Signal strength is buried and S/N ratio is missing. Overly
    >tenacious roaming. "Limited Access" with no explanation as to why.
    >This is not my idea of quality software.


    Then you must rate other products well into the red negative range.
    Is anything at all in your black? ;)

    --
    Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
    John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
    Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
    Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
     
    John Navas, Nov 23, 2006
    #15
  16. On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 01:45:56 GMT, John Navas
    <> wrote:

    >That's not the only issue -- sluggishness can come from such things as
    >initialization, size of working set, page faulting, swapping in and out,
    >on demand loading, etc. My personal take is that Intel ProSet is
    >actually sluggish (on my ThinkPad T-41 with 768 MB at least).


    That reminded me. I promised to do some wireless benchmarking. I'll
    be sure to compare WZC with other client managers.

    >>A good rhetorical question would
    >>be why MS hasn't bothered to fix such an obvious, irritating, stupid,
    >>and useless mis-feature.

    >
    >Probably because it's a minor issue and because fixes can have serious
    >unintended consequences (new bugs, unexpected interactions, QA burden),
    >not to mention the basic issue of massive documentation changes.


    Sigh. The implication is that that the minor and easy to fix things
    will never get fixed. Kinda demonstrates my favorite axiom about
    software:
    Features and functions get added faster than bugs get fixed.
    At least it's fixed in Vista.

    >>If anything, it's a not so subtle hint that
    >>MS knowns not what they're doing with wireless.

    >
    >Only to a tiny audience. ;)


    Right. How many times do you and I have to answer the same dumb
    question about why WZC says that the user is connected but there's no
    DHCP delivered IP address. (Because the WEP key ASCII to Hex
    conversion is broken). There's no diagnostics, no connection progress
    information, no useful status information, and no useful help. The 3
    common methods of converting from ASCII to Hex for the WEP key are
    well known and documented:
    http://www.wigle.net/jigle/wep.pl
    one would think that MS would simply have added it to their "try every
    combination of 64/128/ASCII/Hex key" feature. But, they didn't. Since
    MS had undoubtably run into the problem many times, but hasn't even
    bothed to generate a KB article on the problem, methinks there is more
    than just a tiny audience that's affected.

    >Then you must rate other products well into the red negative range.
    >Is anything at all in your black? ;)


    Nope. I hate them all. I have a very different way of handling
    complex user interface and configuration issues. Basically, I
    seperate the initial setup, the operational display, and the
    diagnostics in 3 seperate sections (instead of muddling them all
    together). MS software tends to be evolutionary, in that they start
    with an essentially good idea, and then patch it together with
    band-aids and false appendages until it sorta functions. A good
    example is what they did to Giant Software's Anti-Virus program. What
    was a perfectly functional and easy to use interface degenerated into
    an overly simplified and difficult to use MS update. I'm not sure
    where the problem is at MS. It seems to vary with department. With
    the exception of MS Outlook, the MS Office products have it together.
    Also, IE7 is quite good once MS, Mozilla, and Apple finished stealing
    from each other. However, in the wireless area, my never humble
    opinion of the features, functions, and user interface are very much
    in the red.

    Happy Day of the Turkeys.


    --
    # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
    # 831-336-2558 -cruz.ca.us
    # http://802.11junk.com
    # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Nov 23, 2006
    #16
  17. John Navas Guest

    On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 02:19:57 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
    <-cruz.ca.us> wrote in
    <>:

    >On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 01:45:56 GMT, John Navas
    ><> wrote:


    >>Probably because it's a minor issue and because fixes can have serious
    >>unintended consequences (new bugs, unexpected interactions, QA burden),
    >>not to mention the basic issue of massive documentation changes.

    >
    >Sigh. The implication is that that the minor and easy to fix things


    I think the issue in this case is UI, not minor versus major.

    >will never get fixed.


    Not short of a major update.

    >Kinda demonstrates my favorite axiom about
    >software:
    > Features and functions get added faster than bugs get fixed.


    Serious bugs do tend to get fixed faster than adding features and
    functions -- just look at all the Microsoft updates.

    >At least it's fixed in Vista.


    Good, not that I'll be using Vista in the foreseeable future. :)

    >>>If anything, it's a not so subtle hint that
    >>>MS knowns not what they're doing with wireless.

    >>
    >>Only to a tiny audience. ;)

    >
    >Right. How many times do you and I have to answer the same dumb
    >question about why WZC says that the user is connected but there's no
    >DHCP delivered IP address. (Because the WEP key ASCII to Hex
    >conversion is broken). There's no diagnostics, no connection progress
    >information, no useful status information, and no useful help. The 3
    >common methods of converting from ASCII to Hex for the WEP key are
    >well known and documented:
    > http://www.wigle.net/jigle/wep.pl
    >one would think that MS would simply have added it to their "try every
    >combination of 64/128/ASCII/Hex key" feature. But, they didn't. Since
    >MS had undoubtably run into the problem many times, but hasn't even
    >bothed to generate a KB article on the problem, methinks there is more
    >than just a tiny audience that's affected.


    I agree that more than a tiny audience is affected -- my comment was
    about how many would see it discrediting MS. Most users tend to blame
    themselves first. MS is way down the list thanks to a still good public
    image..

    >>Then you must rate other products well into the red negative range.
    >>Is anything at all in your black? ;)

    >
    >Nope. I hate them all. I have a very different way of handling
    >complex user interface and configuration issues. Basically, I
    >seperate the initial setup, the operational display, and the
    >diagnostics in 3 seperate sections (instead of muddling them all
    >together). MS software tends to be evolutionary, in that they start
    >with an essentially good idea, and then patch it together with
    >band-aids and false appendages until it sorta functions.


    I think it's more that MS, like most software companies, starts coding
    the core before the design is done, then tries to graft on a user
    interface later. Things tend to go much better when _all_ the spec and
    _all_ the documentation are completed _before_ any coding starts.

    >A good
    >example is what they did to Giant Software's Anti-Virus program. What
    >was a perfectly functional and easy to use interface degenerated into
    >an overly simplified and difficult to use MS update.


    I agree MS made it worse, but I can understand why MS wanted to change
    it -- the average user really doesn't understand what to do with it, and
    the old interface was confusing to them.

    >I'm not sure
    >where the problem is at MS. It seems to vary with department. With
    >the exception of MS Outlook, the MS Office products have it together.


    Really? I think the default hiding of menu items is horrid! And the
    grouping of menu functions is anything but intuitive. All of which is
    why MS has greatly overhauled the interface in the new Office.

    >Also, IE7 is quite good once MS, Mozilla, and Apple finished stealing
    >from each other.


    Yep -- I really like it.

    >However, in the wireless area, my never humble
    >opinion of the features, functions, and user interface are very much
    >in the red.


    Could be much better, but I still give it a C.

    >Happy Day of the Turkeys.


    Not so happy for the turkeys. :)

    --
    Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
    John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
    Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
    Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
     
    John Navas, Nov 23, 2006
    #17
  18. Plato Guest

    wrote:
    >
    > When using XP's built-in wireless software, every 60 seconds, there is
    > a lag spike on all devices, I can see by each machine pinging each
    > other and/or the router and/or external Internet IP:


    How many other people are using your wireless? Both inhouse and in the
    neighborhood?

    --
    http://www.bootdisk.com/
     
    Plato, Nov 23, 2006
    #18
  19. Guest

    Plato wrote:
    > How many other people are using your wireless? Both inhouse and in the
    > neighborhood?


    None, only one wireless network detected.

    BTW, this problem of lag every minute doesn't occur when I formatted
    and installed Vista RTM version. A clean install using one the latest
    drivers from NetGear's website (however not installing their
    application as it doesn't work on Vista, just using the .inf & .sys
    files)
     
    , Nov 23, 2006
    #19
  20. Guest

    wrote:
    > BTW, this problem of lag every minute doesn't occur when I formatted
    > and installed Vista RTM version.


    OK, I've discovered this problem of lag every 60 seconds is caused by
    VMWare (possibly the networking drivers it adds to the system).
     
    , Dec 12, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    536
  2. James

    Rebooting machine every 30 seconds or so

    James, Nov 13, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,578
    Clear Horizon
    Nov 13, 2003
  3. Replies:
    19
    Views:
    830
  4. Sherene

    Wireless On & Off every few seconds!!

    Sherene, Jan 21, 2008, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    499
    Sherene
    Jan 21, 2008
  5. Boris_yo

    Wireless Disconnects Every 5 - 10 Seconds

    Boris_yo, Sep 10, 2010, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,417
    Boris_yo
    Sep 10, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page