50M Superhub is nowhere near as bad as people say! - Page 30

Ignitionnet · 24-05-2011, 09:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masque

We are still helpful as our posts show just people feel that we should not say that our equipment works.

No, the problem is that you are saying that you feel people should not say that your equipment doesn't work and rounding on them when they do.

They are as entitled to their opinion, ignorant and misguided as it may be, as you are. Constantly repeating that your own equipment is working perfectly as some kind of counter to someone else saying that theirs isn't working perfectly doesn't work.

My Superhub sucks when it's asked to do anything interesting and its wireless fails. It may have a manufacturing defect in addition to the well noted firmware issues, who knows.

Either way devices without significant issues don't get emergency firmware updates with hours of testing and don't get firmware updates anyway at the rate the Superhub has had them. There are, clearly, issues affecting sufficient amounts of people that firmware updates have had to be rushed to fix them.

Why can't you just accept that rather than constantly referring back to how your Superhub is fine?

kwikbreaks · 24-05-2011, 09:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masque

If you are having issues then call in and you will either be sent a replacement or a technician to replace it.

Thanks. I'll raise it on the VM community forum.

As a VM staffer is saying it must be faulty that lends some weight to my complaint and I'll be sure to mention that and link back here as most WiFi complaints I've seen seem to be brushed off with suggestions of channel changing and the like.

Peter_ · 24-05-2011, 09:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

No, the problem is that you are saying that you feel people should not say that your equipment doesn't work and rounding on them when they do.

They are as entitled to their opinion, ignorant and misguided as it may be, as you are. Constantly repeating that your own equipment is working perfectly as some kind of counter to someone else saying that theirs isn't working perfectly doesn't work.

My Superhub sucks when it's asked to do anything interesting and its wireless fails. It may have a manufacturing defect in addition to the well noted firmware issues, who knows.

Either way devices without significant issues don't get emergency firmware updates with hours of testing and don't get firmware updates anyway at the rate the Superhub has had them. There are, clearly, issues affecting sufficient amounts of people that firmware updates have had to be rushed to fix them.

Why can't you just accept that rather than constantly referring back to how your Superhub is fine?

See Kwikbreaks post above as he is following my advice.

kwikbreaks · 24-05-2011, 09:24

I've posted this over on the VM community board....

Quote:

Superhub WiFi problems
Options

on 24-05-2011 10:22

Since I got my SuperHub back in January I have had quite a fe WiFi problems despite my limited use of WiFi.

Issues encountered...

Unable to connect. Power cycle hub and it works again.

On one occasion unable to connect to main SSID but guest SSID still working. Power cycle hub and problem is fixed.

Frequently find my phone has locked onto my outdoor antenna for anothe AP I run despite it normally being a weak signal indoors - it seems as if the hub somehow "dozes off".

I had put these down to dodgy firmware however a VM staffer on cableforum says that his own hub works perfectly at all times and has suggested I contact VM for a replacement hub as mine must be faulty.

Chrysalis · 24-05-2011, 09:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

Who is being rude to customers? Any staff post here personally and can offer support and help where needed. It is in no way official.

Also it doesn't help that some people constantly put down the superhub and all we are doing is counteracting that with some facts that not everyone finds it terrible.

The point is why do you feel the need to counter it, in the past VM staff would just ignore such posts if they disagreed with them. Its as if you under pressure to get the message out the 'device' is great.

All igni's points as far as I am concerned are very valid and correct.

Posting 100s of thousands of people as having no issues is also not fact. I wonder if I am the only one scratching head as to how jb66 has such a different experience to you guys. He works out in the field. So something is wrong with VM's internal procedures if they can misread a situation so bad.

kwikbreaks · 24-05-2011, 09:37

There certainly don't seem to be any complaints from the testers using the R26 bridge mode. Onl problem reported looks like a connection issue.

I was unable to participate in that test as I need to do some work to back out from using the hub as a router and it wasn't convenient at the time they proposed for a change that they alone controlled.

As an aside I suspect that they have just hidden the SSH port away and have simply used the command sequence which was suggested by someone months ago which they blocked with R25. Was a new firmware with the same release number installed or did they just remotely turn off the routing?

Peter_ · 24-05-2011, 09:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Posting 100s of thousands of people as having no issues is also not fact. I wonder if I am the only one scratching head as to how jb66 has such a different experience to you guys. He works out in the field. So something is wrong with VM's internal procedures if they can misread a situation so bad.

No idea as he is in Scotland so it may be to do with the setup up there, I only reboot mine to get the new firmware and we do not tend to get many hub calls from this area.

Chrysalis · 24-05-2011, 09:45

I reckon they have used that command sequence, my superhub gui is exactly the same layout as that person got when they ran the commands, the fact its activated in R26 shows bridge mode was already integrated and possible before hand but just needed activating.

I have the same ip as when using the vmng300 which suggests the superhub is passing on the router MAC properly as the end point device so to me it looks like a 100% proper bridge mode and is working fine.

However I can forsee a few issues, I think some customers have misunderstood what bridge mode is as they expecting wireless etc. to just carry on working so this will need explaining when R27 gets released.

sshd is still running but the port is closed of with the fw.

**Hugh** · 24-05-2011, 09:49

Why can't we all just accept that some people have problems (which have been recognised by VM, and that is why they are putting out fixes), some people don't, and that this endless repetition of the same points (on both sides) over and over again, is just getting extremely boring (imho).

There is only anecdotal evidence on both sides, so neither view can be fully proved/disproved, which is why we seem to be stuck in a loop of "yes it is/no it isn't", and childish language and/or jibes on either side of the discussion doesn't help, either.

Let's give it a rest, eh?

(btw, please note this post is not in bold, so is my personal opinion).

Peter_ · 24-05-2011, 09:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I have the same ip as when using the vmng300 which suggests the superhub is passing on the router MAC properly as the end point device so to me it looks like a 100% proper bridge mode and is working fine.

Now that is strange as both pieces of kit will have different MAC addresses so you should not get the same public ip address.

**Maggy** · 24-05-2011, 10:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenK

Amazing. In less than an hour, this has gone from a comment on VMs marketing name for a routine piece of kit, to a t&cs discussion of whether I'm allowed to call it names or not. For the record, I haven't invented any other name for it, just questioned VM's choice.

I thought this was a discussion forum but it seems I'm wrong - it appears to be Paul M's playground, and I don't understand the rules, so I'm outta here.

Just as well because arguing a moderators decision in public is an infractable offence.

Chrysalis · 24-05-2011, 10:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masque

Now that is strange as both pieces of kit will have different MAC addresses so you should not get the same public ip address.

no its what I expected as the router MAC is used for DHCP purposes. Or the pc MAC if the modem is connected direct to a pc.

Peter_ · 24-05-2011, 10:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

no its what I expected as the router MAC is used for DHCP purposes. Or the pc MAC if the modem is connected direct to a pc.

The hubs use their own MAC's and the VMNG300 uses your computers MAC so you should get completely different ip addresses.

Chrysalis · 24-05-2011, 10:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masque

The hubs use their own MAC's and the VMNG300 uses your computers MAC so you should get completely different ip addresses.

not really.

When the modem is a dumb modem (vmng300 or vmng480 in bridge mode) then the device which runs the DHCP client passes its MAC on which in my case is my dir615 router. As I was also using the dir615 with the vmng300 I get the same ip.

The vmng300 or any standalone modme will only use a pc mac if directly connected to the pc with no router or if the MAC is spoofed.

kwikbreaks · 24-05-2011, 10:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

sshd is still running but the port is closed of with the fw.

What I wondered was whether the port was closed (so they had to send a new firmware to you) or simply hidden away on WAN side (so VM can remote control) as some arbitrary high port which somebody is going to take the trouble to find and maybe hack a userid/pw assuming that is changed too.

They certainly panicked when they realised SSH was available LAN side.[COLOR="Silver"]