Vista or Not
 

Was rooting around the Microsoft website the other night and noticed they had a small programme Vista upgrade advisor..down load and see if your PC will run Vista.
Downloaded programme and it did it's thing it the started to churn out the programmes that I've got that will be incompatible starting with Nero then it went on to the cd burner programme I use in all it listed i would have problems with around 6/7 programmes I use frequently.
It even stated my H/P printer would have compatibility problems
Methinks I'll be running XP for a while yet.

You and everyone else. Nero and burner incompatibility is not an oversight, IMHO. Intentional first step in disarming you in the copying wars.

I don't remember who said it but:
"not many people are likely to change to an operating system that doesn't allow them to do things they were able to do before..."

Which vista? There are flavors for machines with new hardware and there are flavors for legacy machines that could only run XP - don't have the new hardware.

I ran Vista
 

I had a copy of Vista Ultimate RC1 on my Thinkpad (I installed it on a different hard drive).

It installed incredibly quickly.

However, it was a bit slow, used a lot of RAM, and apparently uses different drivers than XP (it would not recognize my IBM CardBus NIC). Cingular Communication Manager, which I use to hook up my Blackberry, didn't work either. Plugging in my BB actually caused it (the Blackberry) to reset.

Wi-Fi did work incredibly well, as did the ATI video drivers.

I was not impressed with what else the OS had to offer. I couldn't run what I needed to do my job. The interface was a huge change, and many things which I needed were hidden, like the command prompt.

They are completely changing the drivers around like they did for Windows 2000, and programs like Symantec AV, Nero, and others which rely on device drivers to do their job (read: have low-level access) will not work well, if at all.

Part of this "change" is to prevent a lot of third-party hooking and replacement of kernel routines, ostensibly to prevent malware infections. This also has the effect of shutting out Symantec AntiVirus, amongst other programs, from the kernel. This also is possibly because of all the DRM built into the OS itself to prevent people from doing what they want with their data, such as DVDs.

Vista will still sell hundreds of millions of copies, however, it will not sell as many had they not built DRM that deeply into the OS.

Mitch

Dell is pushing Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005. They are not clear, at least to me:o, how this differs from XP Home.

My new computer is a Dell with XP media edition. I have no idea what media edition is other than a big pile of peacock feathers designed to keep me away from iTunes. Sorry, Microsoft: Zune sucks, Media Edition sucks and you suck. If it weren't for the fact that I make a living off MS Access, I'd have switched to Linux and MySQL a long time ago.

Microsoft. Pfffft.

Vista? Not in your wildest dreams will I ever install Vista. XP is a big enough pile O crap and in that regard, Vista is to XP what the Titanic was to the SS Minnow. I am hearing too many rumors - true or not there are an unsually large number of them - that Vista is so complicated that even the engineers designing it can't "get their arms around it."

It seems that MS has tied its own hands with a Gordian knot.

My IE7 is broke. It can't connect to my home page. My home page is blank. I sense a disturbance in the force.

Maybe that's what they had to do to make mine run fast? Sorry, UT.:blush:

I'll stick to XP as long as I can. Works flawless, fast and rock-stable. Why should I switch? The only way Microsoft will get me is by discontinuing support for XP. Anyone know when this will happen?

I liked ME way more than I like XP.Some things like searching for files and help issues always come up with a blank. Same with the diagnostic built in. I am not happy with XP and was looking to upgrade to Vista eventually.

If Vista is a monster and XP is a lame duck then what else is there?

The problem is: XP works just fine. We don't need a new OS, unless it actually does something better than what we have. So far, my understanding of what Vista can actually do is: have pretty graphics (yay!), act as an agent of the RIAA/MPAA, and all at the expense of hogging a shitload more resources. Now...why exactly would we want (to spend $$$ on) that? Anybody: what does it do? All I've heard is what it can't, or won't, do.

I have ME on my (currently power-less) laptop, and I like it... I would rather downgrade my Desktop to ME than ugrade it to Vista, because at the moment I think it looks better than Vista does anyway. However, as ME doesnt run everything I want it to, and so far the ONLY thing i have found that wont run with what I've got here is Black and White (which is a good game, but alas, no XP compatability...), so... Sticking with XP.

I've heard numerous times that the vendor is not supporting this or that, but I can't figure out what that means to me. So what? The os works and there is plenty of people on the net that answer questions, if you have a problem.
I mean, software doesn't wear out. Why do I need support? Incompatability with new stuff coming out?:confused:

From what I've read by tech reporters, Vista is supposed to address most of the security issues in XP. I've downloaded a whole lot of security updates for my XP OS and I wouldn't mind having a system that started out with fewer vulnerabilities. Security is reported to have been a much higher priority in the Vista design. I've not seen anything on the heuristic aspects of its security features though.

Software development kit updates are chock full of new procedures modified for security reasons. Some features are only Vista compatible. For example, any string function that can access memory location outside of that string has been modified so that string overruns are not possible. Apparently an order two years ago from Bill Gates to stop and totally rewrite Vista for security caused most everything to change. That means everything would be rewritten with new and secure procedures and other changes to legacy code.

Vista probably will have some teething problems only because it involved rewrite or reassessment of virtually everything inside Windows. That does not mean Vista will be a reliability disaster since every new OS suffered from those same speculations.

But like each new version of Windows (and like Apple's OSX), new software will make new demands on hardware. That has always been a good thing once we eliminate doomsday hype.

Meh. I might install Vista around the time Microsoft releases Service Pack 2 (given that SP2 was basically Windows XP.5). :D

I'm with you there. With my new laptop I get one of those free upgrade to Vista things, but I wont get around to installing it even though I have the hardware (Core 2 Duo and 2 gigs ram makes it run oh so nice..) until I am convinced that my most often used programs will work close to flawlessly with it. I am having no problems with XP Media Center right now and so I'll be following the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" advice.

.

saying it and doing it are two different things
 

Tom,

Yes, Microsoft did order a rewrite of Vista two years ago.

However, it's going to take a long time to go through over 40 million lines of code, and also the design decisions made in the past. Any software project has these issues. Microsoft just built the major underpinnings of Windows before they realized what these security issues are. There will be major issues.

Vista is at best going to be an interim release before Blackcomb where they are transitioning between the old Windows and the new Windows, kind of like what Apple did with OS X. Remember, OS X didn't get to have a full API until the 10.2/10.3 era, and did away with a lot of backward compatibility with the move to Intel processors. Many people did not upgrade until 10.2 or 10.3 due to the fact that the apps were not there, and neither was the OS.

In other words, companies like Citrix are going to make a lot of money offering legacy apps in a Terminal Services environment.

Thanks,

Mitch

Changes to procedures in the ‘software development kit’ does not mean existing program code changes. But it does mean that all Windows legacy code has been rewritten in Vista to include those new security procedures.

Unknown is the condition of hardware drivers. Drivers have access to the OS that regular applications do not. A Vista compatible driver rewritten for security must include the new 'software development kit' procedures and would meet other new security requirements.

And so the unanswered question is whether old drivers will still work in Vista. It would explain, for example, why some devices will not operate under Vista.

Yes, old application software should still work in Vista. Upgrades to application software should include those new security enhancements. The point is not that all software code will or must be upgraded. The point is that new security code means all of Vista has been rewritten and that new security enhancements might mean some older drivers may not work. But then hardware manufacturers are expected to provide upgraded drivers - and for free.

Change is necessary for life - no matter how some don't like it.

you have such a way with words:
 

The problem is...
 

Tom,

Developers, like everyone else, look for the best way to do things.

Unfortunately, the Win16 API (which is not part of 64-bit Windows, so 16-bit programs won't run on it- unfortunately this includes many Installshield installers!) and early Win32 API (pre XP Service Pack 2) was designed poorly in many spots. Many of the API calls which older applications use, such as Access 97 (which I have personally seen with a vertical market app) and others rely on functions which are either deprecated or no longer exist. In the case of Access 97, the Buffer Overflow protection introduced in Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 gets tripped when you try and execute the runtime. Vista is based on Windows Server 2003 SP1, which is a superset of Windows XP Service Pack 2.

Microsoft has even gone on record as saying that the older Microsoft Access runtime (based on Office 97) and MSDE (versions based on SQL Server 7.0 and 2000) will not be supported in Windows Vista, and will not work correctly.

Microsoft, due to their emphasis on security which was several years late IMHO, had to cut out Service Pack 5 for Windows 2000 because they would have had to deliver a whole new OS, literally, as a service pack. Many organizations would have balked at this. In fact, many organizations treated XP SP2 like a new OS and had to requalify and retest their deployed applications.

At one of my customer sites, which is a large healthcare organization, many of the third-party vendor applications had to have portions rewritten for Windows XP Service Pack 2, not to mention IE7. Thankfully, I help manage the internal development team and client deployments, and we had no major issues transferring our client/server apps to XP SP2 :).

Microsoft made really bad design decisions IRT the Win32 API. Part of their security cleanup was cleaning up the APIs and code that they consisted of. Due to the major changes in the OS infrastructure, many applications that were written according to the API rules of a few years back will no longer work because either the parameters or return values from functions are different.

I've seen way too many applications require patches and updates for XP Service Pack 2 and beyond to ever believe that Microsoft can keep the APIs consistent across OS versions and preserve backward compatibility.

These aren't mom and pop software shops, either. The list includes Microsoft themselves, Symantec, GE Health Systems, and Oracle.

Change is necessary, and I don't disagree with you on that. However, I am just noting that the backward compatibility which Windows was once famous for is no longer there in Vista. Whether or not this is a good thing for vendors other than Citrix has yet to be decided.

Clearly to gain security, then backwards compatibility is at risk. However previously we were told MS-DOS applications would not work on NT. Some did not only because they were written in violation of previous standards for code writing. But most all did contrary to the rumors.

As I understand it, Microsoft had a 'change of heart' concerning Windows. They invited security experts into a large meeting. As a result of MS 'new attitude', this meeting is said to have continued all through the night and into morning. MS was given an earful.

Some things are said to have changed with Vista. MS has provided security coders deeper access into NT's core functions. MS's Operating System group is now working more cooperatively with non-MS application software vendors. This would have happened earlier had MS been broken up. As a result of 'turning the ship', even the head of MS's Operating Systems group lost his job. He could not implement the change.

So yes, Vista is the beginning of big changes. History says we will learn what really does and does not work with Vista. History also says some hardware manufacturers are so anti-innovative as to not adapt their drivers, properly, to Vista security requirements. Yes there will be some software that cannot make the cut. History says, at this point, we don't know how much 'legacy compatibility' will be lost.

My guess is that security enhancements to Vista will be as major (only in the Operating Systems group) as the need to adpat to Internet was maybe a decade earlier. Back then, MS was on the verge of going like DEC only because MS had ignored the Internet - until some MS employees kept Bill up all night showing him this thing called Internet. Same could be said of MS Operating System group ignoring security for too long.

Products will 'fall off the deck' as the SS Microsoft turns abruptly - as did MS mailbox based programs and Netbios, NetBeui, etc before MS discovered the internet (without Al Gore's help).

From EE Times on 12 Feb 2007: From http://www.nvidiaclassaction.org

Try this one then....
 

TW,

I invite you to try any app that relies on a serial port and DOS-style timing APIs to do its work. I also invite you to try some of the older direct APIs (which were part of previous standards) for direct printer port access :).

When I worked in the controls field, we had all machines that had Windows 95 booted into DOS mode for a reason. Windows was not (and still isn't) a hard real-time system. OS/2 was quite better at handling timing, and you had to rewrite everything to use the Windows API and pray that it worked. Many good apps were written close to the hardware in DOS to get the timing right.

However, change is good. Many of those apps have been rewritten for other OSes. Windows is still a decent SCADA platform, but not much else :).

Windows Vista is a good step forward for enhanced security. However, we need to evaluate how the product works on the market for a few months before drawing any conclusions. Remember, Windows XP was the most secure Windows ever (as said by MS themselves).

There will be victims of this approach, as there have been at every previous generation (Novell, WordPerfect, Ashton-Tate), however there will be new software vendors to replace them.

Do you mean on Vista or on any Windows?

both
 

both, seriously :)

I am not sure what was posted. I still use my DOS programs (ir Word Star 4 and a DOS based schematic capture program) even with XP and also to print. Restrictions exist because some functions in NT based Windows are were not available in DOS. But what worked in DOS still works in XP.

I am curious what we have gained and lost in Vista because Vista may be the first major step since NT obsoleted Windows 95 and since ME finally gave up and conceded to Windows 2000.

In the case of DOS serial access, I would write serial programs to work in DOS and NT. If the serial progarm used serial hardware in functions not intended, then the NT version failed. Only some serial access fucntions initiated in software actually appeared on that serial port hardware because the action was simulated - part of the NT separation of hardware from appliction software. And those programs worked just fine IF standard access was used when written for DOS.

Even some hardware functions - dedicated access to printer port - work just fine in both DOS and XP. But again, access to the printer required acces via standard DOS functions. Some software tried printing using 'innovative' techniques.

Well some of those functions always left me wondering how much security was lost because DOS compatibility was preserved. And with the complete rewrite of NT - now called Vista - are those DOS simulations still available?

The point is that even my WordStar 4.0 only for DOS works even in XP. I can access files, use serial ports, and print to local printers even using Wordstar 4.0 - a program with a 1978 copywrite works even in 2003 XP.

What was the problem with Windows in real time? Its clock time period was too slow (something like 1 millisecond). Its abilities to reply to real time events - too slow. OS/2 was better suited to real time applications because it was faster at responding to real time events, faster at switching between processes, and used a faster real time event clock. But then Windows was not intended to be a real time operating system. Windows was intended for multitasking to an operator interface; need not be so fast as a real time OS.

Meanwhile, the OS called Vista is a major change. So radical that Nvidea GeForce controller drivers - one of the few hardware items that can crash a real pre-emptive multitasking system - are defective.

I don't know the major changes that MS performed to change APIs. I would expect that many programs were written using API in manner not originally intended by MS.

Futhermore, it is my experience with MS, Unix, Dec, Perkin Elmer, HP, Macrodata, and even GE computers - the developer has little regard for the user - often does not bother to properly document what is intended. Seen this often with some MS products and would not be surprised to see many MS APIs implemented as not intended - just as I have found uses of the serial port as a total violation of what that hardware was intended for.

As an example, look at MS APIs for TCP-IP access. Where in MS documentation is there anything related to TCP/IP defined functions. The code is describes as if the author had no idea was the seven ISO layers were.

Mbpark - in short, I am not sure where you are going and whether above paragraphs agree or disagree with some part of your posts. I expect Vista to be chock full of surprises because I expect Vista to be a change as fundamental as Windows 3.1 was to Windows 95 - but without those changed causing anything immediately obvious to the user. Curious will be whether all DOS compatibilty that existed in XP is lost in Vista. But with emphasis on security, I would not be surprised to see some DOS compatibility lost. Still my DOS programs from the 1980s still worked in XP.

I was at staples today. They are pushing vista in 32 flavors and for another month or so, if you buy it from them they will come to your house and install it. As a reality check for those that are comfortable probing your PCs Psyche, there are many that wouldn't think of attempting to install anything. :D

I would make the statement, "If you can read, you can fix or build a computer." But think I'll wait a few days and see if my new one boots.
:tinfoil:

44

If you WANT to. If you can read, you can fix or service your car. Most people don't want to....just use it till it stops then call AAA.

How many hours have you invested in this project, Buster? ;)

We just purchased a laptop with vista already installed. The problem is, our motorola cable modem driver isn't available here yet, so we can't use the bloody thing with the cable anyway.

To me, this is very annoying and very poor customer service.

Why do you need drivers for a cable modem? Its a stand alone device that works without interfacing with the OS, right?

i know this sounds weird...
 

However,

They may actually be using a Cable Modem without a router (they really need to use a router), or have a Cable Modem that doesn't have an Ethernet port on it (which are rare, but they do exist).

You're right...they really need a router.

Mitch

I bought a HP laptop (dv2214us) with Vista Home Premium onit a couple of weeks ago. I'm going to set it up for a couple of motnhs and then hand it off to her.

I'm finding the interface a bit annoying, it's all rounded and flashy but they've changed everything so it's less intuitive.

I don't know the deep ins and outs, we have ZoneAlarm as a firewall and Spybot for Malware on our other computers. Vista seems to be handling these functions so I'm not sure I need to add more layers.

In summary I wouldnt bother upgrading existing computers to Vista, if your buying new then that's whats going to be on it.

the problem is with the cable modem. It's designed for xp and me etc, so the drivers that come standard with the device don't support vista as an os. Therefor, we have to wait another week or so till motorola has the drivers available so that cable will work with vista.

I could probably go out and buy a different brand of cable modem, but that'd just be a waste of money since the drivers will be available in a week or so.

It's just annoying that's all.

I don't think I've ever seen a cable modem that required OS drivers, though. Care to share a model number? mbpark might be right in that it doesn't have an ethernet connection on it, but I've never seen one like that, before.

It does have an earthnet connection.

Model is SB5101i.

I have spoken to my isp a number of times about the matter. I can't imagine any reason for them to be dishonest about the situation.

They are not being dishonest. Maybe only parroting what they were told. But a Motorola SB5101 connects one ethernet port from their box to one ethernet port on your computer. Connect cable wire from cable company wire to your modem. That's it. Bring up Internet Explorer. Access the cable modem as if it was another web site like cellar.org.

Instead of entering www.cellar.org, enter 192.168.1.1 .

'Web server' inside that cable modem will display modem's 'home page'.

You may need to enter a MAC ID later. MAC address is located on a label on that cable modem. Every ethernet device has a unique MAC address. Yours will start
00:xx:xx: ...
where xx are further hexadecimal digits. Record that number.

Do not use a USB connection from comptuer to modem. Use the Ethernet connection to make things so easy - and faster.

From Windows XP, open a Command Prompt Window (found in Start>All Programs>Accessoriesd>Command Prompt ). In that CRT Terminal like screen, enter IPCONFIG . That command reports about everything you need to see the computer connected to the modem - to be an informed computer technician.

Further information is found at:
http://broadband.motorola.com/consum...5101_UG_EN.pdf
See page 30 (Adobe page 36) for further details.


What they may call a driver is simply software that taps your keyboard keys for you - to access the modem's web server and enter setup information. No drivers. Setup is simple. Trying it once can even create 'computer literacy'.

If it has an ethernet connection, there's a 99% chance it doesn't need a single driver loaded on the OS to operate. A router will suffice just fine.

They're not dishonest, they usually just suggest end users use their custom applications to make setup easier for both their call centers and you. If any connection to an ISP involves installing software they provide you, they're usually providing you a scripted shortcut that runs commands you could do on your own without their aid.

And malware.

That's all very interesting thanks. I'll have a go at it later and see if I can get it to work.

Once again, thanks for the advice. I really appreciate it. :)

OK...I've had a look at that site, and it doesn't have any information about vista on it at all tw. Only xp and prior.

I did look up the command window, and it says I'm connected to the cable etc, but it wont let me open webpages.

I have been trying to use the earthnet cable all along btw, so that's not the solution at this stage.

I might give the isp another call and see what they've got to say about all this.

IPCONFIG program does not report a modem connected. It reports an IP address such as 192.168.1.20 . That number and other information from IPCONFIG should be posted because details provide significant facts - information you do not yet realize.

Meanwhile the ethernet cable is how to connect. (Not earthnet - 'ether' as in what some once speculated was the universe). USB cable that requires drivers - don't bother.

Once that IPCONFIG number and report is confirmed, then a correct entry in IE Explorer can be entered.

OK, this is how that model of Cable Modem operates
 

tw,

The Motorola cable modems, when connected via Ethernet, usually give you a public IP address (not a 192.168.x.x) address. Depending on your cable provider, this will be the case. Verizon is the only ISP I know that gives you a device with an integrated router (this is for their business DSL).

Comcast also is known to disable the internal firmware configuration utilities within their devices. Verizon surprisingly doesn't.

If she gets a Linksys router and connects that in-line, then she will have to go to 192.168.1.1 to configure it :).

Part of the reason they give the USB cable is because they lock down the network by MAC address, and the other part is due to the fact that it's a heck of a lot easier to write one call center script to troubleshoot cable modem issues if there is one NIC card (or cable device acting like one).

Yes, this can be spoofed, but the number of people that know how to do it is not significant enough to hurt their hand over fist profits.

The first thing you're going to want to do is get yourself a Linksys router at the local computer store or Wal-Mart. Windows Vista has made a lot of changes to how the network operates, and that's going to cause many issues with Motorola, who is less than reliable at writing good USB drivers for their cable modems.

You also don't want to have your computer acting as the firewall between you and lots of people with "owned" PCs. Really, you don't.

Plug the Linksys router in at the WAN port to your Cable Modem.
Plug your laptop/desktop into one of the four ports on the router. Go to 192.168.1.1 and make sure that the router is set to acquire its IP address by DHCP.

You'll be fine, and Linksys has a decent "wizard" CD-based setup that should work fine under Vista.

Many thanks,

Mitch

In Australia too?:confused:

Which is why the actual numbers from IPCONFIG are required.

Aliantha said IPCONFIG reported modem connected. How did she know? IPCONFIG does not report modem protected. IPCONFIG only reports an IP address (ie 192.168.1.20). Another example of knowing something also demands why - the numbers.

Because it is Vista, then just another reason why Motorla modem should be connect via ethernet cable - not USB cable.

How does a Comcast modem connect to separate router? What protocol? Does modem connect using IP or does it use PPP protocols? IOW does Comcast modem act as a one port router or does it act as a bridge?

Comcast does not provide a multiple port router version of their modem? SB5101 is the single ethernet Motorola version. SB5102 is a modem with router (multiport) version. Does Comcast offer SB5102?

comcast offers....
 

tw,

Comcast offers a single port version, no multiple-port version. If you have a business setup with them, they will provide you with a Linksys or Netgear router.

Verizon, on the other hand, will give you an integrated Westell 4-port router with 802.11g wireless (with WPA-PSK support, no less), and very good support for user configurability. I.E. if you have a good enough (read: business with static IP) plan from them, they will help you even configure it for server usage.

Their cable modems connect to the routers out there over TCP/IP (the router has to use DHCP to connect to the modem, and usually requires you to use the "MAC Cloning" feature of the Linksys modems to connect the router from your PC as some cable providers associate a cable modem with a NIC card in a PC).

However, I have heard that Telstra in AU does require PPPoE over Cable and DSL. Verizon's consumer service requires PPPoE. Most, if not all routers support that.

The Linksys routers even have specific settings for AU/Telstra. I've seen them on the WRT54GS that I use :).

Thanks,

Mitch

I won't touch Vista because it has too much unnecessary DRM crap in it. Vista is basically the result of Microsoft currying favour with the big media companies. Don't expect to run anything in high-definition on Vista unless Microsoft approves it.

It looks as if Microsoft are trying to tighten their grip. But as Tarkin discovered, the more one tightens one's grip, the more will slip through the fingers. I would expect some companies to migrate to non-Windows platforms and many more to consider the move. One thing that companies can rely on with platforms like *BSD and Linux is that the operating system won't be pulled out from under them with another unnecessary "upgrade" or "end of life" five or ten years from now.

Verizon modems (ie Westell) permit a connection either under IP or using PPPoE to a router. Reason for using PPPoE option: it eliminates some latency.

Also curious is that PPPoE is provided by ATM - using existing equipment in Verizon's network.

I am surprised that (if) the Motorola modem does not also offer PPPoE - for faster operation.

Biggest sin in any modem is no status page to view signal strength. Again, Verizon DSL modems offer that, but I don't remember seeing such status information in FIOS. Comcast modems, as best I can tell, offer no signal strength even though that parameter is essential to understanding data loss and future failures. To not provide such numbers is akin to calling the user an 'idiot who need not know anything'. Rather insulting to assume a user should always be dumb.

Motorola and PPPoE
 

tw,

I believe Motorola has that option, due to Telstra using it. However, Comcast is known for requesting certain firmware revisions for their cable modems, as is Verizon (check the Westell pages if you want to flash a Westell router, you can't).

Verizon's corporate services use static IP addresses.

Comcast's approach is that the hardware is cheap and replaceable. They'll swap out modems without doing proper signal tests until they fix the problem. This happened to my sister. Someone put a nail in the wall and nicked the wire. Comcast had to come back at least three times to fix the issue, and it was after they ran signal tests at the location that they finally figured it out. This was after three cable modems as well :).

Verizon, on the other hand, has better testing tools and methodologies because they've been doing this for a century. When they fix a signal problem, it doesn't take three times and three hardware swaps.

I am sure that they have built some rather sophisticated testing tools for FIOS. After all, it is supposed to replace the telephone, and we don't have signal strength meters on those lines :). They're just supposed to work.

It is reasons like this why Verizon or its descendants will be around fifty years from now in roughly the same form, and Comcast more than likely will not.

Well Verizon's response is true when you finally get the lineman. But Verizon DSL tech support (according to the linemen) get bonuses when they don't roll a truck.

The wire clearly was broken. Westell reported signal stengths of 0 and worse dB. Repeated calls to Verizon - and they had the cutomer swapping ethernet cables. Told what the dB was, they did not want to know. Reality was not important. They had this procedure which only resulted in all ethernet cables screwed up.

Furthermore, after five day, when Verizon said a truck was being rolled, they lied. So I got a supervisor who then threatend $60 and $120 service charges. Yes, those charges exist when the problem is on customers wire. But I was making a connection direct to their wire - at the NID. Therefore the problem was 100% on his wire. So they said service could not come out for two day. In reality, he was taking revenge and never dispatched a single truck. Again, their intent is to eliminate truck rolls for increase bonuses.

Eventually I got someone on the day shift. Truck arrived at 9 AM next morning. He found the broken wire. Signal strength increased by almost 20 dB - all problems solved.

Yes, if you can get a patriot - someone who knows even minimal science - then Verizon works real good. But when I get a customer service rep with an American accent, then too often a technical grasp is missing.


Meanwhile, Westell modems can be flashed. Dell even warns about some early Westell modems with firmware that must be updated a software bug discovered by Dell.

Their turnover rate would explain this -- it is around three months or so. Training rooms are full on a daily basis, but always with new employees. They're pretty much trained to enter tickets and read from a troubleshooting script, nothing more.

I didn't mean can't from a technical perspective..
 

tw,

What I meant is that you can't find newer firmware for the Verizon-specific devices.

Thanks,

Mitch

I would wait at least a year before using Vista.

I have Vista on my laptop, but only because it came with it. I spent abou 6 hours trying to configure all the settings and panels to look like something I was halfway familiar with. My computer, however, is horribly slow, and I'm making the switch to Linux to my laptop really soon. I'm sick of Micro$oft, and I'm afraid the next OS they release will cripple any computer running anything that wasn't made by M$.

My Windows 98 machine, however, works just fine, if the PSU on it didn't fry out last night =)

I was always curious exactly what "XP" stood for up until the other day when it dawned on me that XP is a popular internet smiley, and that M$ has been laughing at us for years with a crappy OS.

NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT

This is my opinion

mmmmm... tend to agree with ali-oops.


NEVER EVER use odd-numbered versions...