Superhub : Superhub Firmware Beta Test

[Phil-ntl]

looks like i'm going to be getting the R27 pre beta

.
Hi we're close to releasing R27 to the general beta testing group but we'd like to run a small scale test before we do that just to increase our confidence that the firmware doesn't have any show stoppers in it. Can you confirm that you're still happy to test R27 for us and that you'll be able to provide feedback over the next week?

Will post any thoughts & findings on it as soon as i've had chance to have a play.


Phil

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by pip08456

If you don't have a superhub then you can't really voice an opinion on it.

I have never noticed him actually voicing an opinion.

[_wtf_]

Originally Posted by Masque

I have never noticed him actually voicing an opinion.

Thank you

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by _wtf_

Perhaps a phone call was made to the CEO's Office

Does not surprise me.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by _wtf_

Thank you

That is because you are a detractor and do like want to hear other peoples opinions even when they are correct.

[_wtf_]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Does not surprise me.

It must do otherwise your previous post just makes you look silly

You know this one.

Originally Posted by Sirius

Have to agree with that logic .

How can someone who does not have a hub complain about the hub

[Welshchris]

all this talk about a new superhub coming along, if its not from Ambit or Netgear who is it from? I know its the same spec as the netgear one but what is the point of having 2 hubs of the same spec from different manufacturers?

Surely it would have just been easier to carry on Supplying the VMNG300 for a modem only option or superhub for those who didnt have a router and wanted wireless.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Welshchris

but what is the point of having 2 hubs of the same spec from different manufacturers?

It's called not putting all your eggs in one basket. By having two suppliers it means Virgin are less likely to run short at any stage due to supply chain issues

Surely it would have just been easier to carry on Supplying the VMNG300 for a modem only option or superhub for those who didnt have a router and wanted wireless

Not really.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by _wtf_

It must do otherwise your previous post just makes you look silly

Not as silly as you accusing another poster of lying about the fact he does not have a problem with gaming on his pc. Then ranting on about evidence on another forum which ultimately covers issues raised with XBOX gaming not pc.

Anyway your boring me now. There are far better threads to read and take part in.

[Welshchris]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

It's called not putting all your eggs in one basket. By having two suppliers it means Virgin are less likely to run short at any stage due to supply chain issues

Not really.

Why do u mean not really?

it would solve a lot of things.

They would have 2 suppliers Both Ambit and Netgear + it would solve the complaints about a lot of functions are missing that people use in routers that are not on the hubs.

I think its stupid to spend so much time and effort developing firmware for the VMNG300s to simply say well lets toss these aside and use hardware that has firmware problems again and put us back to square 1.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Welshchris

Why do u mean not really?

I mean not really.

it would solve a lot of things.

No it wouldn't. Producing VMNG300 modems for a small set of users would be expensive, because you wouldn't have the scale of production that Virgin previously had.

Also you would then have to have processes and codes and training from order to install to include a 'What equipment do you want' step - which again would cost

Long term you would then have to design any future products or services knowing that two seperate types of kit may be supplied to a customer - again a cost that is avoidable.

They would have 2 suppliers Both Ambit and Netgear + it would solve the complaints about a lot of functions are missing that people use in routers that are not on the hubs.

This is why the modem only mode is being introduced, so those that want to use their own kit can do so - solving the issue for good (I hope)

I think its stupid to spend so much time and effort developing firmware for the VMNG300s to simply say well lets toss these aside and use hardware that has firmware problems again and put us back to square 1.

They aren't 'tossing the hardware aside' they have just elected not to make any more of them. Just as they stopped using Motorola Surfboard or Scientific Atlanta modems, or older versions of Ambit modems

Technology moves on.

[_wtf_]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Not as silly as you accusing another poster of lying about the fact he does not have a problem with gaming on his pc. Then ranting on about evidence on another forum which ultimately covers issues raised with XBOX gaming not pc.

Anyway your boring me now. There are far better threads to read and take part in.

I thought you were gonna post stalk me

[Chrysalis]

looks like my superhub will be plugged in again soon as am also picked.

[zekeisaszekedoes]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

No it wouldn't. Producing VMNG300 modems for a small set of users would be expensive, because you wouldn't have the scale of production that Virgin previously had.

Then go back into mass production. A lot of areas aren't even 100Mb capable yet (and even when they are a majority are happy enough with 10Mb or 30Mb), so those modems will be fine for another couple of years. Case in point: I've only just retired my Ambit 250. After six years of service and several speed upgrades.

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Also you would then have to have processes and codes and training from order to install to include a 'What equipment do you want' step - which again would cost

I'm sorry - are you inferring that people previously trained in the deployment of the VMNG300 and still working for VM have spontaneously forgotten how these things work?

That aside, the beauty of the thing is it's simplicity. The web GUI is simpler than the Ambit 250/256 it replaced in part. It does what it needs to do and doesn't need rebooting all the time when on certain UBRs. Which the Super Hub can't claim to do. I mean, in my experience it doesn't even work properly as a non-DHCP switch!

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Long term you would then have to design any future products or services knowing that two seperate types of kit may be supplied to a customer - again a cost that is avoidable.

Better two types of kit in case one works and the other doesn't, than pinning all hopes to just one which works fine in some areas but not others, before even considering the possibility that there are manufacturing faults which VM have more or less admitted to by saying they're keeping the same black curve case yet having someone else manufacture the innards. If the design is changed in any way, technically that means there is a Super Hub Mk I and a Super Hub Mk II - exactly the sort of avoidable cost that you alluded to is what VM are heading towards.

Originally Posted by BenMcr

This is why the modem only mode is being introduced, so those that want to use their own kit can do so - solving the issue for good (I hope)

A feature that was available in R25 with SSH, but was then dummied out for no good reason. I still fail to see the logic of removing a feature a lot of users wanted then adding it back again months later. It stands to reason the people having significant problems with the Super Hub would be able to follow a "Enable Bridge Mode on your Super Hub" post on VM's community forum and would have headed off a lot of people moaning that it still isn't here, in the middle of May. It's VM digging themselves a deeper hole and doing things so lacking in common sense heads could explode.

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Technology moves on.

You know, I've seen this lame excuse proffered by many people suckered into the common "newer = automatically better" technology arms race. The same kind of people who would replace a perfectly good Macbook Pro with another only incrementally better, not because they need the extra power but because they've been brainwashed into the conspicuous consumption cycle which is totally at odds with the current, valid interest in minimising carbon footprints and all that pseudo-hippie stuff that actually makes a lot of sense. It's a dinosaur mentality, and those that cling to it deserve to go the same way.

(Sorry, my sense of theatricality got the better of me there. You've gotta admit though, it makes for more entertaining reading.)

[Chrysalis]

its clear the superhub has been expensive for VM, so I find it baffling the costs argument is still been pushed.