Windows/Driver bugged on purpose so you must buy expensive routers.

Microsoft Windows and it's network drivers fail on a regular basis.

Connecting two computers with a simple cable very often FAILS.

The IP assignement FAILS. PINGS FAIL.

This is very clear evidence of a conspiracy to force you to buy expensive IP routers !

Let there be no doubts !

YOU CAN FOOL 99.9% of the idiots on this planet.

BUT YOU CANNOT FOOL ME !

I have seen to many delibrate bugs from Microsoft Windows already !

Bye, Skybuck.

Reply to
skybuck2000
Loading thread data ...

Just use inexpensive switches, better than direct connections anyway.

--
 Thanks, 
    - Win
Reply to
Winfield Hill

MS doesn't write the drivers. The board vendors write the drivers.

If you don't have a router that provides DHCP services and have the ethernet cards set to either static IP addresses (or to fall back to

169.254.xxx.xxx), both machines will have usable addresses. I do that fairly often for testing. You also need at least one of the two ethernet cards setup for Auto MDI-X (automagic crossover) so that the transmitters are connected to the receivers at both ends (and NOT tx to tx and rx to rx). It's not a big deal because this is the default configuration that literally all ethernet devices and drivers are shipped.

Try: IPCONFIG /ALL If you don't see IP addresses, *YOU* probably screwed with the settings and broke the default ethernet setup.

If you're too clueless to read or understand the instructions, you can reset the ethernet interface with one klunk of your mouse: "How to Reset Your Entire Network in Windows 10 and Start From Scratch"

I just paid $32 for a very nice wireless router:

For those who believe, there is never any doubt. For those who don't bother to read or understand the instructions, there is nothing but FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt).

So, if one is not an idiot, they cannot be fooled? Please adjust your logic so that it makes sense.

No, but you're doing a great job of fooling yourself.

It wouldn't be a conspiracy unless everything is done deliberately. Accidental conspiracies and bugs are so boring.

One can only hope.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

There is no hope when people keep replying to that idiot.

Reply to
Rob

+1
Reply to
Rheilly Phoull

Is there hope when people don't reply to that idiot?

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

It makes the killfile just that little bit more effective. However, in practice (there'll always be a few tempted into posting replies), you also need to supplement that annoyance suppression tactic by killing the resultant threads (in Pan, that means setting an ignore flag on each thread).

skybuck2000 isn't the worst troll (or best - I've seen some really clever trolls who manage to get a rise out seemingly intelligent usenet posters which have proved quite entertaining in the reactions produced), he's merely the one dumbest enough to show just how dumb he really is.

There's lots to get worked up about Microsoft's operations (they are a corporation after all) but the stuff skybuck2000 goes on about is more about his own ignorance and more a distraction to what's *really* bad about Microsoft's product.

Perhaps he's sponsored by Microsoft as a distraction to all the other Microsoft shit that's happening (after all, most of the responses are virtually in defence of, what skybuck2000 in all his apparent ignorance claims is wrong with, Microsoft systems). :-)

--
Johnny B Good
Reply to
Johnny B Good

Yes. When facts, logic, common sense, etiquette, netiquette, tact, diplomacy, experience, and good intentions fail, whatever is left, no matter how futile, just might work, and that would be hope.

Since I've apparently been accused of having committed a grievous act of tolerance by replying to Skybuck, I believe that entitles me to explain my actions.

I've been on Usenet since Bnews 2.11 supported only 13 newsgroups. When everything moved using UUCP through inhp4, seismo, and uunet at

19.2Kbits/sec. When everyone was amazingly polite and non-commercial for fear of losing their login or Usenet feed. I may also have accidentally helped invent spam long before Canter and Siegel. I moderated newsgroups without going insane. Let's just say I know a few things about how Usenet works.

Trolls and idiots have been around since the beginning. The recommended method of dealing with them is to ignore them. I've found that this doesn't work. If they don't get the attention they seek, they'll just change their nym (name) or writing style, and try again. Even if they get no attention, they'll invent a mythical "silent majority" that read every one of their rants. There's plenty of evidence that the Skybucks of Usenet keep coming back for more even if ignored. Ignoring them just doesn't work.

My method is to answer any questions, with as much technical detail as I have time to inscribe. The OP (original poster) may be a troll, but since I don't pass judgement on the OP, I believe that even a troll deserves an answer. The idea is to demonstrate to the troll that he's not dealing with an idiot operating at his level, but rather with someone that probably knows what he's talking about. Any further discussion will inevitably make the OP look like he's seriously lacking in experience, knowledge, logic, or sanity. That's not what the troll wants, so he does NOT continue and engage in a conversation. The result is one reply, and then nothing. I've used it on Skybuck in the past several times, and it mostly works.

The method even works on me. My Usenet rants are mostly answers, not questions. If I have a question or problem, I know how to do the necessary research to get an answer. Overall, I probably ask one question per year. A few months ago, I posted a question in sci.electronics.repair on the shelf life of adhesives. I received suggestions on how to refrigerate the glues, to look for a non-existent expiration date, and the benefits of someone's favorite adhesive. I got everything except what people were using and what was the approximate shelf life. Frustrated, I didn't bother to reply or even thank anyone.

Unfortunately, it only works if everyone who replies to a troll follows my methods. When further replies are at the intelligence level of the idiot, such as the typical brilliant one line replies, the troll will simply reply to those, and ignore any detailed technical reply that might make him look bad.

Marginally related Usenet drivel in biblical style:

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Intelligent usenet posters...??? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Do you think? Duh!

MS is just a company. The real evil is done by the government...

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

You seem to think "troll" is a person. Troll is a way of thinking. Those who reply to trolls are also trolls for they are simply exercising their ego by thinking they can have some impact on the other trolls.

There is a guy in the Forth language group who is like that. He posts absurdly stupid stuff regardless of whether anyone responds. But notice the key word there is "regardless". Responding produces no improvement in his posting rate, so why respond?

I see no evidence this works with Skybuck or anyone else.

Are you trolling?

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

Wireless routers can be found on Craigs list and at the Goodwill and Salvation Army for about $10. I am using a net gear gigabit router that was bought thru craigs list for about $10. I do not remember what I paid.

Dan

Dan

Reply to
dcaster

$27 now. I see "anywhere in the room" and "throughout the home" but I need at least 200 feet. Do you think the range, outdoors with clear line-of-sight, might be 200+ feet?

Reply to
Cows Are Nice

Perhaps because the network hardware wasn't originally conceived to work this way. While modern hardware can often figure it out and work regardless, the reliable way to connect two computers directly together is to use a cross-over cable. Such a cable is not that much use for anything else, though.

Sylvia

Reply to
Sylvia Else

Yep. I bought one (RT-AC1200) that was "certified" instead of "recertified" (refurbished) for $30. It works as expected, but there's a problem. I thought it had a Broadcom chipset. Instead, it uses MediaTek (formerly Ralink) which does not work with alternative Asus firemware such as Merlin, AsusWRT, etc. It also only has 10/100Mbit/sec ethernet ports. I haven't tested it to death for connection reliability, but it did manage to survive about 2 hrs running iperf3 in both directions without dropping the connection, so there's hope.

No. The antennas are not removable and the chipset is rather low power. I won't say anything nice about MediaTek chips. Pick something else: or one from this list:

High speed, long range, cheap. Pick two.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Unless you're linking vintage PCs, MDI/MDX does away with the need of crossover cables. I think MDI/MDX has been a feature of LAN ports for fifteen or more years now.

--
Johnny B Good
Reply to
Johnny B Good

I believe it came with gigabit because it uses all four pairs so needed it anyways to be compatible with old cables

Reply to
Lasse Langwadt Christensen

Thanks for this tip Sylvia ! You're hypothesis may have some merit.

The winfast socket 939 motherboard of my DreamPC2006 has two ethernet ports .

One is gigabite for sure, the other one could be a 100 megabit only, pretty sure it's 100 megabit only.

This may explain why the operation was so bad last time I tried it. Perhaps the 100 megabit indeed needs a cross over cable.

Perhaps the time before that when I used a normal UTP cable I may have conn ected it to the gigabit port, and then maybe 100 megabit to cable modem, bu t then again this is what unlikely.

What I tried was:

Connect laptop to dreampc. Connect dreampc to internet/cable modem.

Share internet via windows internet connection sharing.

First time I did only laptop dreampc and that worked ok. Second time did the internet connection sharing, worked ok.

Last time I failed for unknown reasons.

Cannot remember clearly if I used cross over cable first two times. I am pr etty sure I did not, but I may be wrong, perhaps I replaced cables, but I d on't think so... those cables were just hanging there.

I have a little bit of time so I will consult winfast motherboard manual no w.

According to motherboard manual it's dual gigabit lan so I was a little bit wrong about that. However they are driven by two different chips.

One ethernet port can function as 100 megabit as well, so it can detect the connection, this port is currently and has been for quite a while misbehav ing and workling badly, sometimes it works sometimes not.

The gigabit port has always worked flawlessly. It's the top on on my mother board. Perhaps I was mistaken and it was the asus board that once had this strange chipset setup. Currently it's a winfast motherboard.

Anyway the manual is skimpy on details when it comes to chips involved. I t hink one is an nvidia one and the other one a marval or broadcom or somethi ng may have too look into that further, for now take it with a grain of sal t.

To bad motherboard does not contain a description of the chips involved, bu t I can understand that a little bit for competitor reasons or maybe too mu ch info.

Another hypothesis could be that the port is slightly damaged because of el ectro statistic discharges or wear and tear of motherboard in general.

It could also be that ethernet works somewhat unreliable because of send an d receive at the same time, but it shouldn't be this bad which results in t otal failure from one side to the other side. Perhaps a receive or send par t of the chip is damaged.

Gigabit does not need utp cross over cables so it says on the internet.

I am not sure if the laptop has a gigabit port or a 100 megabit port.

If it's the later than maybe the first two times was just luck that it work ed.

I kinda hate this "luck or no luck" tech but ok, so far my internet has wor ked pretty much flawlessly, except for the occasional maintance.

Maybe next time I should touch the power plug of laptop to heating first. I predicted that there would be a spark when I plugged it into the power box and there was a spark. I think it is because of different voltage levels. When the cable is unplugged for a long time it will take a different voltag e.

I am not going to keep the laptop plugged in because that may cause the bat tery from getting recharged and then it may explode. This laptop was not mi ne so I am unsure how it has been handled and I don't like laptops in gener al, but this once kinda nice to have as backup even though it's in awfull g erman ! haha ! Can't make sense of 90% of the menu items, thankfully most are in the same spot.

Weirdly enough it's impossible to access UBEE cable modem 320b (wired) via

192.168.1.1.

I tried a lot. I am have to use a network scanner to see what is going on. Pinging the device seems to work.

HTTP to 192.168.1.1 does not seem to work, connection reset.

Either browsers have become so advanced that the cable modem no longer can handle it. Or I somehow misconfigured it so I can't get back in, already tr ied a 15 sec reset, nada. I also think it could be possible that UBEE locke d all there modems, or perhaps some hacker got in and somehow damaged it/lo cked it.

Quite strange. Perhaps the cable modem is slightly damaged or so and the ht tp part is not working anymore, besides form that everything seems to work fine.

Scanning the network with a network scanning is a little bit interesting. T hese cable modems seem to be accessable from the internet, but finding the public IP will be a bit more challenging ;)

What it's so hard I don't know. Weirdly enough nmap seemed to be able to fi nd it, when I pinged that IP there was no reaction I believe, or the IP was wrong which would be a bit strange.

When I ping it or tracert it, it does not show the first hop.

The first hop shows * * * which is kinda strange.

Like it's trying to hide itself from detection.

Thanks for caring :), Bye for now, Skybuck.

Reply to
skybuck2000

30dB gain implies either a 5GHz system or about a 5ft diameter dish which is not cheap. Because of the dongle, I suspect you built a 2.4GHz system, where the common dish antenna is 24dBi gain and about 3ft diameter. Could you clarify if this is on 2.4 or 5GHz? 1500ft of thick foliage is usually a problem. I'm surprised that you were able to drill through it. I live in a dense redwood forest. Wi-Fi will go through the leaves easily enough, but the tree trunks are impenetrable. It also changes with the seasons. When the leaves are full of water (spring), they block RF. When the leaves dry out or fall out (fall), the foliage attenuation is much less.

If you want to run the numbers on this link, this might help with the foliage attenuation calculations: If you want me to run the numbers, email some system details.

Here's my version of that using a salad bowl: Just shove the USB dongle into the PVC pipe, adjust the position for maximum gain, and hope for the best. The salad bowl is not a perfect parabola, but close enough.

That's better than my method. At the time when I threw together the salad bowl antenna, USB Wi-Fi dongles with SMA antenna connectors were not available.

Vertical collinear antenna. I have no problem with those up to about

8dBi gain (about 2ft long at 2.4GHz). The problem with higher gain antennas is that the vertical radiation angle becomes too small to be usable except maybe on flat ground. There's also a problem with end fed collinear antennas where the vertical radiation pattern will "uptilt" slightly, making it a great antenna to talking to airplanes and birds, but not for people on the ground. When the vertical radiation pattern gets down to a few degrees, keeping the antenna structure and antenna vertical becomes tricky. At high gains, I prefer to use several sector antennas and either multiple radios or a power divider, like this: For point to point, which is what you're doing, a pair of panel, patch, or dish antennas are best.

Much of my business in that past 20 odd years was designing and setting up wireless links. You'll find some of my comments under alt.internet.wireless.

After some bad experience with marginal equipment and design, I've settled on Ubiquiti hardware for most of my wireless links. Mostly I use Bullet M2 and M5 radios behind panel or dish antennas, or Nanostation Loco M2 and M5 radios, which have built in patch antennas and routers. The radios are $40 to $100 each, which would probably be considered expensive to the OP. There are plenty of things that I could complain about these, but they work, don't fail too often, and fairly easy to setup and install. They're certainly better than using USB dongles and commodity home wireless routers for wireless links.

I should have said "reliable long range".

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

I'm confused, first you say wi-fi penetrates leaves "easily enough", then y ou say they block RF. I don't expect leaves to block RF when they fall to the ground.

My WISP provider uses Ubiquiti equipment. I used to have the flat panel ab out the size of a small paving block. It didn't have enough gain (I want t o say around 8 dBi) for my location. Eventually (got tired of my complaini ng I guess) he swapped it out for a 17 element yagi at 16 dBi. He also per formed upgrades to his network and it is almost like having cable now. The airmax stats are still pretty poor at 33% but I don't see a problem at thi s end most of the time. When I run a check on the air link it seems to be the same as my speed tests over the web.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. The leaves do not block RF. The water in the leaves is what blocks the RF. If the leaves are full of water, as they are during the spring growing season, attenuation will be higher. During the fall, the leaves dry out (or fall out), with little water in them to act as an attenuator. Branches and tree trunks also work in the same way. The percentage of water in the wood is high, as measured by my wood moisture meter: RF attenuation will be rather high. The moisture range is 5 to 50% water. I've found that at 30% and up, an oak log is a great RF absorber. It's easy to measure the attenuation. I setup a Wi-Fi transmitter and receiver (smartphone running Wi-Fi Analyzer software) that straddle my wood pile, and record the signal level. Then I do the same measurement without the wood pile. The difference is the attenuation.

The local forest is dense enough for the trees to act as a polarization screen. Vertical polarization works better than horizontal polarization.

Incidentally, for a point to point link, the antenna heights above the ground can cause problems when the ground is inside the Fresnel Zone. For a 1500 ft path at 2.4GHz, both antennas need to be at least 12 ft off the ground:

How big is a paving block in cubits? What's a paving block anyway? Is that like a cobblestone? In the left coast, we pave our roads with asphalt and concrete, not blocks.

An 8dBi flat panel would have 4 patch antennas inside, like this: On patch is about 3dBi gain. Every time you double the number of antennas, you add 3dB of gain. Therefore, two antennas would be 6dBi gain and 4 antennas 9dBi. However, there's some loss in the combining networks and PCB, so take off 1dB (or more) to get 8dBi.

More like 15dBi, but I won't complain about 1 dBi. I would have installed a barbeque grill dish antenna for 24dBi gain. ($64 but they can be found cheaper).

I'm beginning to think the "upgrades" and "unplanned repairs" are now synonymous.

Well, if your wi-fi link shows the same speed as your internet, then either your computah or your wireless is the slowest link in the chain.

Try running continuous pings to your ISP's gateway IP and see if your wireless is dropping any packets. If you're running Windoze and can't easily see lost pings, try using hrping instead: If you see missing sequence numbers or the latency suddenly double or quadruple, you've dropped some packets. The increased latency is from retransmissions. If you want to monitor your connection, any of the SNMP tools will work.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.