Re: Problem with Vista & multiple wireless network ports
Slugging my way through this, I managed to fully remove the other WAPs by
editing the registry. (Why weren't the registry entries removed when I
deleted the devices via the "Manage Wireless..." interface?)
Originally, on boot-up the connection would read "Connected to:
WAPnameA(WAPnameB)". Now, what I get on boot-up is a connection to
Network(WPname), and the icon in the Network Connections interface shows
"PC -> NETWORK -> Internet". Under this configuration, some devices such
as a wireless printer associated with that WAP don't work (indicated as
If I disconnect and then reconnect to the WP, it is reads "Connected to:
WPname", all is well.
Any idea of how I get it to boot properly so that the user of this
notebook doesn't have to go through all that?
Recently, Neil Gould <firstname.lastname@example.org> posted:
> I have more than one wireless access point (WP) in our network.
> Initially, I set up Vista to use them presuming that like previous OS
> versions, Vista would default to the last used connection.
> Apparently, this is not happening, and after realizing that we had no
> control over which WP it uses on boot-up, I "removed" all but one of
> the WPs from Vista's list of network connections. At least, I thought
> I did. For some reason Vista reconnects to a "removed" WP whenever it
> * If I disconnect from "removed" WPs after boot-up, Vista will not
> re-connect to it, as expected, since it is "removed".
> * On boot-up, it reconnects to the "removed" WP. This screws up
> several other operations that are specific to one or more of the WPs.
> * When an "automatic update" is performed, Vista reconnects the
> "removed" WP.
> How can I permanently delete WPs from Vista to stop this behavior?
> I haven't seen anything like this "background reconfiguration of
> removed services or devices" since Windows ME, which I tolerated for
> a whole week before permanently scrapping it. Unfortunately, I'm
> stuck with Vista on the notebook it came with. Any insights and/or
> pointers are appreciated.