What happened to Wireless?

Alright, so we know Vista is all cool and stuff, with a shiny interface and a
ton of features and mysterious pathways of configuration that can befuddle
even the most adept computer operator or designer, but there has been one
problem that has annoyed me persistently since I got my new laptop: Wireless
connectivity.

Alright, maybe its more than just one problem, its a ton of problems all in
one package. It's like one of those strange TV advertisements that offers
something relatively useless, and then adds "But wait, there's more!" to an
extent that you wonder what the marketing people of these free products were
thinking.

Anyway, off of my rambling, the first problem I have with wireless has to do
with standby / hibernate. How come everyone and their old grandmother who has
vista and laptops and stuff get wireless connectivity issues if they standby
and come out of it? For instance, I go to school and frequently standby my
laptop when moving between classes and hotzones. If I close my laptop to
suspend it, and come back to it, I'd expect wireless to be working, but its
not. For some odd reason, windows seems to disregard the connectivity of the
wireless network you are near, but will very happily show you the signal
strength to said unconnectable points. What do I have to do to get my laptop
to reconnect? Reboot it? Restart the adapter? The price tag for Vista over XP
suggests something better to come of the system, and this seems like such a
widespread bug that I'd expect nothing less than Microsoft giving another KB
article to this problem and a lovely patch, if they haven't already.

The second problem I have, and this is by far the worst, is automatic
connections to wireless access points. Remember way back to Windows XP, where
you had the option to "Automatically connect to non-preferred networks"?
Yeah, what happened to that? Honestly, if I'm hopping hotspots a lot, I
really don't want to create a million profiles for every access point I need
to connect to, in fact I don't even care which one Windows connects me to. I
just want an access point that will give me internet.

Security the people say? I say the internet's not secure as it is, and if I
want some kind of mediocre security, I'll use Hamachi or another VPN over
internet solution to encrypt my traffic.

What happened to the days when you could go on the bus with a nice cup of
coffee, driving through metro downdown and just surf the web? Did access
point owners complain that people were connecting to their unprotected access
points and stealing their bandwidth or something? I would really enjoy the
ability to just have Windows connect to whatever it sees. I don't really care
what it finds, just connect to it!

In short of this rant, there's two specific features that I particularly
find to be very important, and those are 1) automatic reconnection to access
points after standby/hibernate, and 2) automatically connect to non-preferred
networks. The Vista pricetag is expensive enough, and I have to give credit
to Microsoft for actually putting some effort forth into making a good OS
thats stable, but fix the bugs, and sometimes the tradeoff between security
and user-features really needs to favor the user... I don't like being
controlled by my machine, I like telling my machine what to do instead.

Well said, and it needed to be said. I'm looking forward to SP1. Perhaps SP1
will fix some of the wireless problems with Vista.

"Silverion" <Silverion@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2CC2DA4B-3419-4CD8-9C38-41EBD6CCCDD9@microsoft.com...
> Alright, so we know Vista is all cool and stuff, with a shiny interface
> and a
> ton of features and mysterious pathways of configuration that can befuddle
> even the most adept computer operator or designer, but there has been one
> problem that has annoyed me persistently since I got my new laptop:
> Wireless
> connectivity.
>
> Alright, maybe its more than just one problem, its a ton of problems all
> in
> one package. It's like one of those strange TV advertisements that offers
> something relatively useless, and then adds "But wait, there's more!" to
> an
> extent that you wonder what the marketing people of these free products
> were
> thinking.
>
> Anyway, off of my rambling, the first problem I have with wireless has to
> do
> with standby / hibernate. How come everyone and their old grandmother who
> has
> vista and laptops and stuff get wireless connectivity issues if they
> standby
> and come out of it? For instance, I go to school and frequently standby my
> laptop when moving between classes and hotzones. If I close my laptop to
> suspend it, and come back to it, I'd expect wireless to be working, but
> its
> not. For some odd reason, windows seems to disregard the connectivity of
> the
> wireless network you are near, but will very happily show you the signal
> strength to said unconnectable points. What do I have to do to get my
> laptop
> to reconnect? Reboot it? Restart the adapter? The price tag for Vista over
> XP
> suggests something better to come of the system, and this seems like such
> a
> widespread bug that I'd expect nothing less than Microsoft giving another
> KB
> article to this problem and a lovely patch, if they haven't already.
>
> The second problem I have, and this is by far the worst, is automatic
> connections to wireless access points. Remember way back to Windows XP,
> where
> you had the option to "Automatically connect to non-preferred networks"?
> Yeah, what happened to that? Honestly, if I'm hopping hotspots a lot, I
> really don't want to create a million profiles for every access point I
> need
> to connect to, in fact I don't even care which one Windows connects me to.
> I
> just want an access point that will give me internet.
>
> Security the people say? I say the internet's not secure as it is, and if
> I
> want some kind of mediocre security, I'll use Hamachi or another VPN over
> internet solution to encrypt my traffic.
>
> What happened to the days when you could go on the bus with a nice cup of
> coffee, driving through metro downdown and just surf the web? Did access
> point owners complain that people were connecting to their unprotected
> access
> points and stealing their bandwidth or something? I would really enjoy the
> ability to just have Windows connect to whatever it sees. I don't really
> care
> what it finds, just connect to it!
>
> In short of this rant, there's two specific features that I particularly
> find to be very important, and those are 1) automatic reconnection to
> access
> points after standby/hibernate, and 2) automatically connect to
> non-preferred
> networks. The Vista pricetag is expensive enough, and I have to give
> credit
> to Microsoft for actually putting some effort forth into making a good OS
> thats stable, but fix the bugs, and sometimes the tradeoff between
> security
> and user-features really needs to favor the user... I don't like being
> controlled by my machine, I like telling my machine what to do instead.

Minor clarification of my last line, I don't want my machine giving me rules
and regulations with which I must conform to, I would much rather tell my
laptop to just ignore all the security rules, where I'd have complete control
over my system to the point it will automatically assume any available
connection without user intervention.

how about reposting the technical issue with info such as wireless
NIC brand/card/chipset and hardware rev as well as driver version?
32 bit or 64 bit? And do you have this issue with all access points
or one in particular? if one, what brand/model/firmware rev?



On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:13:00 -0700, Silverion
<Silverion@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Minor clarification of my last line, I don't want my machine giving me rules
>and regulations with which I must conform to, I would much rather tell my
>laptop to just ignore all the security rules, where I'd have complete control
>over my system to the point it will automatically assume any available
>connection without user intervention.
--

Barb Bowman
MS Windows-MVP
Expert Zone & Vista Community Columnist
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...ts/bowman.mspx
http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/

Yup, a little hard information would be useful.

I'm using Vista with a number of widely varied wireless system, and NOT ONE
of them has a problem reconnecting automatically after resuming from sleep or
hibernate. I strongly suspect this to be a driver issue. There certainly are
a LOT of driver issues out there, but that can't really be laid at
Microsoft's door. The handwriting has been on the wall for a long time.

As for connecting automatically to non-preferred networks -- I never noticed
whether the capability was there or not. I know I spent a H*** of a lot of
time in WinXP trying to be damned sure that it DIDN'T happen. I prefer
KNOWING what I'm connected to.

To each his own.

"Barb Bowman" wrote:

> how about reposting the technical issue with info such as wireless
> NIC brand/card/chipset and hardware rev as well as driver version?
> 32 bit or 64 bit? And do you have this issue with all access points
> or one in particular? if one, what brand/model/firmware rev?
>
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:13:00 -0700, Silverion
> <Silverion@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >Minor clarification of my last line, I don't want my machine giving me rules
> >and regulations with which I must conform to, I would much rather tell my
> >laptop to just ignore all the security rules, where I'd have complete control
> >over my system to the point it will automatically assume any available
> >connection without user intervention.
> --
>
> Barb Bowman
> MS Windows-MVP
> Expert Zone & Vista Community Columnist
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...ts/bowman.mspx
> http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
>

"jimmuh" <jimmuh@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9A77B41B-C896-45D8-8A58-47E21B594ADB@microsoft.com...
> Yup, a little hard information would be useful.
>
> I'm using Vista with a number of widely varied wireless system, and NOT
> ONE
> of them has a problem reconnecting automatically after resuming from sleep
> or
> hibernate. I strongly suspect this to be a driver issue. There certainly
> are
> a LOT of driver issues out there, but that can't really be laid at
> Microsoft's door.

Why not? At this late date, Microsoft could have set up the new code for
Vista so that popular drivers for fairly new devices that worked for XP
would also work for Vista. They certainly employ programmers who are capable
of accomplishing that task. Why must users be forced to start from scratch
every time a new OS comes along? It shouldn't be that way. I recently went
to Ubuntu (a new Linux OS) for one of my home network computers. Result?
Installation, email setup, and wireless connection to the internet through
my home network took about an hour. Nothing failed to work, and it looks
like a very capable OS.

I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. Let me explain. One of the primary problems
with the Windows XP kernel mode driver model was that bad drivers brought the
entire operating system down. This has been revised in Vista so that the vast
majority of drivers (good, bad, or indifferent) don't stand a chance of doing
that. That's a huge improvement. The hardware manufacturers have known about
this for over a year. They have had the final format in which they needed to
provide drivers for months. They have no excuse for having failed their users
in this way. But they know that most users will just blame Microsoft. I've
been subscribed to the hardware and WHQL newsletters throughout the beta
testing and RCs for Vista. This is simply NOT Microsoft's fault. And, yes,
the hardware manufacturers DO have to rewrite for new operating systems if
they want their hardware to work under those operating systems. That is the
name of the game. It has always been the name of the game.

Not to say that I envy them. Making the decision as to which old hardware
can be (or should be) supported under a new OS is tough. But it is their
responsibility to do it, or to inform their users that they will have to get
new hardware.

"Papa" wrote:

>
> "jimmuh" <jimmuh@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9A77B41B-C896-45D8-8A58-47E21B594ADB@microsoft.com...
> > Yup, a little hard information would be useful.
> >
> > I'm using Vista with a number of widely varied wireless system, and NOT
> > ONE
> > of them has a problem reconnecting automatically after resuming from sleep
> > or
> > hibernate. I strongly suspect this to be a driver issue. There certainly
> > are
> > a LOT of driver issues out there, but that can't really be laid at
> > Microsoft's door.
>
> Why not? At this late date, Microsoft could have set up the new code for
> Vista so that popular drivers for fairly new devices that worked for XP
> would also work for Vista. They certainly employ programmers who are capable
> of accomplishing that task. Why must users be forced to start from scratch
> every time a new OS comes along? It shouldn't be that way. I recently went
> to Ubuntu (a new Linux OS) for one of my home network computers. Result?
> Installation, email setup, and wireless connection to the internet through
> my home network took about an hour. Nothing failed to work, and it looks
> like a very capable OS.
>
>
>

I agree with you. However, if Microsoft expects users to accept Vista at
this point in time, especially companies with large IT departments, then
they had better release an OS that will allow existing computers to continue
to be used, and which will become fully operational without any significant
delays after the initial Vista installations. If not, such companies would
be reckless and irresponsible to their shareholders by taking on Vista now.
Lengthy shutdowns (due to software upgrades or for any other reason) can put
a company out of business.

"jimmuh" <jimmuh@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:631FFCAE-12FE-447C-9346-6289638C9368@microsoft.com...
> I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. Let me explain. One of the primary
> problems
> with the Windows XP kernel mode driver model was that bad drivers brought
> the
> entire operating system down. This has been revised in Vista so that the
> vast
> majority of drivers (good, bad, or indifferent) don't stand a chance of
> doing
> that. That's a huge improvement. The hardware manufacturers have known
> about
> this for over a year. They have had the final format in which they needed
> to
> provide drivers for months. They have no excuse for having failed their
> users
> in this way. But they know that most users will just blame Microsoft. I've
> been subscribed to the hardware and WHQL newsletters throughout the beta
> testing and RCs for Vista. This is simply NOT Microsoft's fault. And, yes,
> the hardware manufacturers DO have to rewrite for new operating systems if
> they want their hardware to work under those operating systems. That is
> the
> name of the game. It has always been the name of the game.
>
> Not to say that I envy them. Making the decision as to which old hardware
> can be (or should be) supported under a new OS is tough. But it is their
> responsibility to do it, or to inform their users that they will have to
> get
> new hardware.
>
> "Papa" wrote:
>
>>
>> "jimmuh" <jimmuh@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:9A77B41B-C896-45D8-8A58-47E21B594ADB@microsoft.com...
>> > Yup, a little hard information would be useful.
>> >
>> > I'm using Vista with a number of widely varied wireless system, and NOT
>> > ONE
>> > of them has a problem reconnecting automatically after resuming from
>> > sleep
>> > or
>> > hibernate. I strongly suspect this to be a driver issue. There
>> > certainly
>> > are
>> > a LOT of driver issues out there, but that can't really be laid at
>> > Microsoft's door.
>>
>> Why not? At this late date, Microsoft could have set up the new code for
>> Vista so that popular drivers for fairly new devices that worked for XP
>> would also work for Vista. They certainly employ programmers who are
>> capable
>> of accomplishing that task. Why must users be forced to start from
>> scratch
>> every time a new OS comes along? It shouldn't be that way. I recently
>> went
>> to Ubuntu (a new Linux OS) for one of my home network computers. Result?
>> Installation, email setup, and wireless connection to the internet
>> through
>> my home network took about an hour. Nothing failed to work, and it looks
>> like a very capable OS.
>>
>>
>>

Alright, well this machine came preinstalled with vista, so I'd hope there
wouldn't be that many driver problems. Anyway, here's a PC Wizard dump with
as much info as possible, along with some other stuff:

These problems occur with all access points, of all brands. The lack of the
auto-connect option in Vista is a lack in programming features, not a bug as
far as I know.

<<< Network >>>

> Network : Yes

>> General Information
Connection Type : LAN
User : Owner
Computer Name : STEVE
WorkGroup : BEVERLY

>> Net parameters
Host : Steve
NodeType : Hybrid
IP Routing : No
DNS NetBios : No
WINS Proxy : No
DNS servers : 68.87.71.226
DNS servers : 68.87.73.242

>> Adaptator Information #2
Description : Intel(R) PRO/Wireless 3945ABG Network Connection
MAC Address : 00-19-D2-72-00-8F
IP Address : 192.168.1.101
Sub net masks : 255.255.255.0
Gateway : 192.168.1.1
DHCP : Yes
WINS : No
DHCP server : 192.168.1.1
Speed : 54 000 000 bps
MTU : 1500 bytes
Connected : Yes

> Network Connection : Wireless Network Connection

>> Connexion Information
Device : Intel(R) PRO/Wireless 3945ABG Network Connection
LAN : Yes
RAS : No
Share to LAN : No
Share to WAN : Yes
Firewall enabled : No
Shared Connexion : No
Default connexion : No

> Network Card : Intel(R) PRO/Wireless 3945ABG Network Connection

>> General Information
Speed : 54 Mbp/s
MAC Address : 00-19-D2-72-00-8F
Connected : Yes

>> Drivers
C:\Windows\system32\DRIVERS\NETw3v32.sys
Driver Provider: Intel
Driver Date: 10/30/2006
Driver Version: 10.6.0.29
Digital Signer: microsoft windows hardware compatibility publisher

"Barb Bowman" wrote:

> how about reposting the technical issue with info such as wireless
> NIC brand/card/chipset and hardware rev as well as driver version?
> 32 bit or 64 bit? And do you have this issue with all access points
> or one in particular? if one, what brand/model/firmware rev?
>
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:13:00 -0700, Silverion
> <Silverion@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >Minor clarification of my last line, I don't want my machine giving me rules
> >and regulations with which I must conform to, I would much rather tell my
> >laptop to just ignore all the security rules, where I'd have complete control
> >over my system to the point it will automatically assume any available
> >connection without user intervention.
> --
>
> Barb Bowman
> MS Windows-MVP
> Expert Zone & Vista Community Columnist
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...ts/bowman.mspx
> http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
>

Unfortunately, no easy compromises there. We're going to have to have it one
way or another. No one HAS to upgrade to VISTA. The companies (and people)
with unsupported hardware have to stick with WinXP. Those who have the
hardware that supports it can go to Vista. Pretenders need not apply.

WinXP, used carefully, is no slouch. Configured carefully and controlled in
a solidly administered domain, it's really not a pushover. For those who
require Vista, the choice has to be clear. Ante up or fold. If you don't have
the hardware (and drivers), you fold.

I know lthis annoys a lot of personal users. But the fact is that it's about
damned time! The people who needed a more solid platform have waited too long
for Microsoft to bite the bullet and do this. Frankly, I don't think they
went far enough, but I'll take what I can get for now. As it is, Microsoft
has made quite a few compromises (more than I would want) to allow the
installation of unsigned drivers and software. For someone in my particular
situation, I would love an OS that PROMISED me a certain behvavior IF (and
only if) I supplied the REQUIRED hardware. I used to have that on the AIX
platform. I'd give just about ANYTHING to have it under Windows.

"Papa" wrote:

> I agree with you. However, if Microsoft expects users to accept Vista at
> this point in time, especially companies with large IT departments, then
> they had better release an OS that will allow existing computers to continue
> to be used, and which will become fully operational without any significant
> delays after the initial Vista installations. If not, such companies would
> be reckless and irresponsible to their shareholders by taking on Vista now.
> Lengthy shutdowns (due to software upgrades or for any other reason) can put
> a company out of business.
>
> "jimmuh" <jimmuh@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:631FFCAE-12FE-447C-9346-6289638C9368@microsoft.com...
> > I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. Let me explain. One of the primary
> > problems
> > with the Windows XP kernel mode driver model was that bad drivers brought
> > the
> > entire operating system down. This has been revised in Vista so that the
> > vast
> > majority of drivers (good, bad, or indifferent) don't stand a chance of
> > doing
> > that. That's a huge improvement. The hardware manufacturers have known
> > about
> > this for over a year. They have had the final format in which they needed
> > to
> > provide drivers for months. They have no excuse for having failed their
> > users
> > in this way. But they know that most users will just blame Microsoft. I've
> > been subscribed to the hardware and WHQL newsletters throughout the beta
> > testing and RCs for Vista. This is simply NOT Microsoft's fault. And, yes,
> > the hardware manufacturers DO have to rewrite for new operating systems if
> > they want their hardware to work under those operating systems. That is
> > the
> > name of the game. It has always been the name of the game.
> >
> > Not to say that I envy them. Making the decision as to which old hardware
> > can be (or should be) supported under a new OS is tough. But it is their
> > responsibility to do it, or to inform their users that they will have to
> > get
> > new hardware.
> >
> > "Papa" wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "jimmuh" <jimmuh@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:9A77B41B-C896-45D8-8A58-47E21B594ADB@microsoft.com...
> >> > Yup, a little hard information would be useful.
> >> >
> >> > I'm using Vista with a number of widely varied wireless system, and NOT
> >> > ONE
> >> > of them has a problem reconnecting automatically after resuming from
> >> > sleep
> >> > or
> >> > hibernate. I strongly suspect this to be a driver issue. There
> >> > certainly
> >> > are
> >> > a LOT of driver issues out there, but that can't really be laid at
> >> > Microsoft's door.
> >>
> >> Why not? At this late date, Microsoft could have set up the new code for
> >> Vista so that popular drivers for fairly new devices that worked for XP
> >> would also work for Vista. They certainly employ programmers who are
> >> capable
> >> of accomplishing that task. Why must users be forced to start from
> >> scratch
> >> every time a new OS comes along? It shouldn't be that way. I recently
> >> went
> >> to Ubuntu (a new Linux OS) for one of my home network computers. Result?
> >> Installation, email setup, and wireless connection to the internet
> >> through
> >> my home network took about an hour. Nothing failed to work, and it looks
> >> like a very capable OS.
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>