Vista Hardware Incompatibility - D-Link DCS-5300 Internet Camera

How do you report a manufacturer that claims that its hardware is compatible
with Vista, but in fact is not?

"Randy" <Randy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:684AE7C1-F677-43E3-9DCA-F1E7C5D43E26@microsoft.com...
> How do you report a manufacturer that claims that its hardware is
> compatible
> with Vista, but in fact is not?


To whom? Right now there is no official way or to anyone that can do
anything about it. Just word of mouth is all you can do. You might want to
contact the manufacturer directly. It may also be the case that it is just
your experience (opinion) that it isn't, and all the possible drivers and
other options haven't been exhausted. Or you may be right and community may
want to know about it to take steps where necessary.

--
BobF.

"Randy" <Randy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:684AE7C1-F677-43E3-9DCA-F1E7C5D43E26@microsoft.com...
> How do you report a manufacturer that claims that its hardware is
> compatible
> with Vista, but in fact is not?


Another thought. We need a better word then "compatible". This word could
mean it will reside in the same space as your item (system) and not
misbehave or interfere with it, or it could mean it will interoperated with
it, and even that might mean to different degrees. So how is such a
reporting service set up? To what standard? Who tests this? How do they
get funded? How do you get on and off the list? You see, you could create
a whole industry out of this. Remember the "COS dot"?

--
BobF.

I have contacted D-Link directly, and they ultimately admitted that it does
not work. I did also extensively search for anyone who had a workaround to no
avail. This device is a fine one but it does not deserve either the 'works
with vista' or 'vista compatible' designation and people should know that.

"Bob F." wrote:

> "Randy" <Randy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:684AE7C1-F677-43E3-9DCA-F1E7C5D43E26@microsoft.com...
> > How do you report a manufacturer that claims that its hardware is
> > compatible
> > with Vista, but in fact is not?
>
>
> To whom? Right now there is no official way or to anyone that can do
> anything about it. Just word of mouth is all you can do. You might want to
> contact the manufacturer directly. It may also be the case that it is just
> your experience (opinion) that it isn't, and all the possible drivers and
> other options haven't been exhausted. Or you may be right and community may
> want to know about it to take steps where necessary.
>
> --
> BobF.
>

to be more specific, by compatibility I am talking about function 1 for a
camera. that would be the ability to see things with it at all. let alone the
other functions like controlling it or motion detection. all of those things
do work with XP or windows 2000, but not Vista. Not at all.

"Bob F." wrote:

> "Randy" <Randy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:684AE7C1-F677-43E3-9DCA-F1E7C5D43E26@microsoft.com...
> > How do you report a manufacturer that claims that its hardware is
> > compatible
> > with Vista, but in fact is not?
>
>
> Another thought. We need a better word then "compatible". This word could
> mean it will reside in the same space as your item (system) and not
> misbehave or interfere with it, or it could mean it will interoperated with
> it, and even that might mean to different degrees. So how is such a
> reporting service set up? To what standard? Who tests this? How do they
> get funded? How do you get on and off the list? You see, you could create
> a whole industry out of this. Remember the "COS dot"?
>
> --
> BobF.
>

"Randy" <Randy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C73A0CED-374B-47F5-8F06-FD8C03E73764@microsoft.com...
>I have contacted D-Link directly, and they ultimately admitted that it does
> not work. I did also extensively search for anyone who had a workaround to
> no
> avail. This device is a fine one but it does not deserve either the 'works
> with vista' or 'vista compatible' designation and people should know that.
>
> "Bob F." wrote:
>
>> "Randy" <Randy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:684AE7C1-F677-43E3-9DCA-F1E7C5D43E26@microsoft.com...
>> > How do you report a manufacturer that claims that its hardware is
>> > compatible
>> > with Vista, but in fact is not?
>>
>>
>> To whom? Right now there is no official way or to anyone that can do
>> anything about it. Just word of mouth is all you can do. You might want
>> to
>> contact the manufacturer directly. It may also be the case that it is
>> just
>> your experience (opinion) that it isn't, and all the possible drivers and
>> other options haven't been exhausted. Or you may be right and community
>> may
>> want to know about it to take steps where necessary.
>>
>> --
>> BobF.
>>


Did they say what it was about it that does not work? You very often have a
situation that a manufacturer produces a product that does not quit comply
to a standard. A long time may go by and the deficiency never discovered.
Then when another manufacturer uses a feature that demand performance from
the old product, it fails. So where's the problem? I believe it's with the
original product. Most people blame the last guy on the block. After all
"everything was working just fine 'til you got here!". See the problem? In
this case, there might be a problem with IPv6. It was slow to roll out, not
many manufacturers observed it and now that it's being implemented, it's
"breaking" the router. Is this Vista's fault? I don't no if it's anyone's
fault, it's just the nature of things when technologies roll out in an
uncoordinated fashion and the technology is very difficult to understand by
most.

You know, I've been around for a while and I look at all the new technology,
and being a technology officer in a fortune 500 company, now retired, I am
amazed that any of this works at all. Do you realize how complicated things
have gotten and how fast things are rolling out? We need to stand back and
put things into perspective and give the industry a break, and have some
patience. Sorry ... of the soap box now.

--
BobF.

did you download the vista compatible software and update to the
Vista compatible firmware?
http://www.dlink.com/products/suppor...0#applications



On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:57:01 -0800, Randy
<Randy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>How do you report a manufacturer that claims that its hardware is compatible
>with Vista, but in fact is not?
--

Barb Bowman
MS-MVP
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...ts/bowman.mspx
http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/

"Randy" <Randy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A3A3438B-994A-4CAE-B037-F008D59DB65C@microsoft.com...
> to be more specific, by compatibility I am talking about function 1 for a
> camera. that would be the ability to see things with it at all. let alone
> the
> other functions like controlling it or motion detection. all of those
> things
> do work with XP or windows 2000, but not Vista. Not at all.
>
> "Bob F." wrote:
>
>> "Randy" <Randy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:684AE7C1-F677-43E3-9DCA-F1E7C5D43E26@microsoft.com...
>> > How do you report a manufacturer that claims that its hardware is
>> > compatible
>> > with Vista, but in fact is not?
>>
>>
>> Another thought. We need a better word then "compatible". This word
>> could
>> mean it will reside in the same space as your item (system) and not
>> misbehave or interfere with it, or it could mean it will interoperated
>> with
>> it, and even that might mean to different degrees. So how is such a
>> reporting service set up? To what standard? Who tests this? How do
>> they
>> get funded? How do you get on and off the list? You see, you could
>> create
>> a whole industry out of this. Remember the "COS dot"?
>>
>> --
>> BobF.
>>

Ah...here is even another view of the problem when there is no open
standard, and the two manufacturers have to agree and keep in sync with each
other. If one doesn't want to play, or keep up, the other can do nothing
about it and the customer suffers.
--
BobF.

Bob F.;633402 Wrote:
> "Randy" <Randy@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:A3A3438B-994A-4CAE-B037-F008D59DB65C@xxxxxx> > >
> > > to be more specific, by compatibility I am talking about function 1
> > for a
> > > camera. that would be the ability to see things with it at all. let
> > alone
> > > the
> > > other functions like controlling it or motion detection. all of those
> > > things
> > > do work with XP or windows 2000, but not Vista. Not at all.
> > >
> > > "Bob F." wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > > >> "Randy" <Randy@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > >> news:684AE7C1-F677-43E3-9DCA-F1E7C5D43E26@xxxxxx
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Another thought. We need a better word then "compatible". This word
> > > >> could
> > > >> mean it will reside in the same space as your item (system) and not
> > > >> misbehave or interfere with it, or it could mean it will
> > > interoperated
> > > >> with
> > > >> it, and even that might mean to different degrees. So how is such a
> > > >> reporting service set up? To what standard? Who tests this? How do
> > > >> they
> > > >> get funded? How do you get on and off the list? You see, you could
> > > >> create
> > > >> a whole industry out of this. Remember the "COS dot"?
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> BobF.
> > > >> > > > > > >
>
> Ah...here is even another view of the problem when there is no open
> standard, and the two manufacturers have to agree and keep in sync
> with each
> other. If one doesn't want to play, or keep up, the other can do
> nothing
> about it and the customer suffers.
> --
> BobF.
I verified that the DLink DCS-5300 does not work with any version of
Vista. This means the web interface will not even load, just get a page
not found error. This is curious since there is no software on the
Vista machine, it is entirely web interface. It is not a firewall
issue, as that is disabled, and all relevant ports are open.
I upgraded the firmware to the most recent version and still no luck.
I can see the web cam fine using an old XP OS on a nearby computer, but
this is unworkable since all my stuff is on Vista machines. Can I use
the B1 firmware instead of the A1 firmware, as that has a reference to
vista compatibility in it.
I am bumping this thread in the hope that somebody may have a
workaround by now. Please help if you can.


--
autostick