50M : Superhub is nowhere near as bad as people say!

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Those two statements appear to be inherently contradictory, as the only holistic source of data could be the VM faults system, which you appear to be stating you would not accept?

correct. in addition I dont trust data from nopanic. This is the guy who claimed upstream utilisation issues are like a needle in a haystack and that VM is perfect for gaming.

---------- Post added at 13:23 ---------- Previous post was at 13:22 ----------


do you consider VM's own forums, data that is in the public limelight not a valid source of data?

[adduxi]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Looking in from the outside on this thread all i can see on both sides of the coin are so called intelligent adults acting like a bunch of kids in a school yard. One groups says "i am right and nothing you say will change it" The other group is saying "i am right and nothing you say will change it". One day you will all grow up.

LOL, this made my day. I wholeheartly agree.
No matter what the VM staff say, there must be some issues with the S'Hub. Otherwise why go to the bother of setting up a Beta Test Group and issue out firmware updates on a regular basis?
As far as my own experience with the S'Hub, all I can confirm is;
1 - The wireless is poor, when compaired to my Linksys Router.
2 - The upload speed is poor, when compaired to my old 256 Ambit modem
That's all I'm going to say on this argument.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by adduxi

LOL, this made my day. I wholeheartly agree.
No matter what the VM staff say, there must be some issues with the S'Hub. Otherwise why go to the bother of setting up a Beta Test Group and issue out firmware updates on a regular basis?
As far as my own experience with the S'Hub, all I can confirm is;
1 - The wireless is poor, when compaired to my Linksys Router.
2 - The upload speed is poor, when compaired to my old 256 Ambit modem
That's all I'm going to say on this argument.

BTW i work for VM

However i refuse to get drawn into the petty childish arguments that are being continued in this thread by some on BOTH sides.

[jb66]

It's not childish, 3 superhubs I have had consistently reboot/drop wifi. My regular hub doesn't at all. There is a flaw in the superhub design. Folk on here are hailing it a success when it's obvious it's been a flop

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by jb66

It's not childish, 3 superhubs I have had consistently reboot/drop wifi. My regular hub doesn't at all. There is a flaw in the superhub design. Folk on here are hailing it a success when it's obvious it's been a flop

That's not my point, My point is the way people are talking to each other in this thread. Far as i am concerned there is or there is not a problem. In the end we will know the truth however we could at least act like adults in this thread instead of the way some are acting .

[Chrysalis]

Sirius you are right, I get frustrated tho when someone claims everything is perfect and tells me I am talking rubbish out of thin air. Ultimately I want the superhub to be better hence me signing up to be a beta tester, inconveniancing myself to plug it back in to test the firmware as well. I dont want it or VM to fail believe it or not.

I dont claim its a complete failure either, its clear on my line that the vmng300 is a bit problematic, I get bursts of packetloss and lag every now and then which is frustrating me, the superhub doesnt get these bursts but of course has its own issues which makes overall on the bigger picture the vmng300 the better device as its issues tend to be for short bursts only whilst superhub issues tend to be ongoing for me. I have a history of pushing companies to strive for better service for all customers, if companies arent pushed by their customers then they will make the mistake of sitting back and thinking everyone is happy.

I have gave an honest opinion and even told people if their usage is basic the superhub will be adequate, it tends to fail when used for things that are perhaps not default behaviour, but of course with VM enforcing this as the router for customer's to use they then have a duty to make sure it works for non default behaviour, a bridge mode would perhaps relieve them of that duty but it still isnt implemented 5 months after release.

So things like the denial pictures are to add a bit of humour to a frustrating situation.

Nopanic has a disclaimer stating what he posts is by no means official but wants what he says regarding feedback to be treated as such, I wont accept that but everyone else is welcome to accept it or not for themselves. I will continue to try and help people with their superhub issues on here unless of course forum staff tell me I am doing something wrong at which point I will stop.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Sirius you are right, I get frustrated tho when someone claims everything is perfect and tells me I am talking rubbish out of thin air. Ultimately I want the superhub to be better hence me signing up to be a beta tester, inconveniancing myself to plug it back in to test the firmware as well. I dont want it or VM to fail believe it or not.

I dont claim its a complete failure either, its clear on my line that the vmng300 is a bit problematic, I get bursts of packetloss and lag every now and then which is frustrating me, the superhub doesnt get these bursts but of course has its own issues which makes overall on the bigger picture the vmng300 the better device as its issues tend to be for short bursts only whilst superhub issues tend to be ongoing for me. I have a history of pushing companies to strive for better service for all customers, if companies arent pushed by their customers then they will make the mistake of sitting back and thinking everyone is happy.

I have gave an honest opinion and even told people if their usage is basic the superhub will be adequate, it tends to fail when used for things that are perhaps not default behaviour, but of course with VM enforcing this as the router for customer's to use they then have a duty to make sure it works for non default behaviour, a bridge mode would perhaps relieve them of that duty but it still isnt implemented 5 months after release.

So things like the denial pictures are to add a bit of humour to a frustrating situation.

Nopanic has a disclaimer stating what he posts is by no means official but wants what he says regarding feedback to be treated as such, I wont accept that but everyone else is welcome to accept it or not for themselves. I will continue to try and help people with their superhub issues on here unless of course forum staff tell me I am doing something wrong at which point I will stop.

My hope is that the bridge mode is introduced sooner rather than later. It will at least give an option to those who wish to use there own router and that includes me as i use a Linux based router.

Can I just state for the record, that I have never stated that the SuperHub has no problems - what I get concerned at is what appears to a problem with a minority of customers (albeit a reasonable number of them) is inflated into the proposition that the SuperHub is not fit for purpose for the majority of customers; and any disagreement with this proposition gets one bracketed with a "denial squad" - it's not black/white, it's fuzzy.

I decry the inflation of the problem, but do not deny that there are problems.

btw, some people don't help their case with the repeated use childish names like "pooperhub" and "superdud" - this reflects more on their level of emotional intelligence and maturity than anything else, imho.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I dont claim its a complete failure either, its clear on my line that the vmng300 is a bit problematic, I get bursts of packetloss and lag every now and then which is frustrating me, the superhub doesnt get these bursts but of course has its own issues which makes overall on the bigger picture the vmng300 the better device as its issues tend to be for short bursts only whilst superhub issues tend to be ongoing for me.

Little point is championing a device that is no longer issued by a company because it has been superseded by another device as it gets a bit like comparing vinyl to a cd.

[jb66]

I refuse to call it a superhub as it's not super, far from it

[Helix]

They should have found a better name for it really, V Hub or something. BT call their equivalent Home Hub, they don't try to make out its something its not - Super.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Helix

They should have found a better name for it really, V Hub or something. BT call their equivalent Home Hub, they don't try to make out its something its not - Super.

They also allow you to use your own on Infinity without theirs being in the equasion!

BT's flagship Infinity supplied with HH3-Modem.

VM's Flagship 100Mb plooperhub.

From another post here.

Originally Posted by IvIaXiIvIuS

Just got off the phone with Virgin,new superhub in the post.According to the guy on the phone its a common issue and they are getting through hubs hand over fist.

Thanks for the help,will probably post again in a few weeks when the new one gives up the ghost too

Either that or support are lieing through their teeth again! Or the poster is telling porkies!

[Skie]

I think one of the major issues with the hub that people can't deny is the woeful wireless. If you have all N devices or have the hub near the kit then you should be fine, but for those of us who are used to having their dedicated router be able to reach everywhere (and then some) then you will be in for a shock at how poor the range is.

I was lucky to have wifi in the kitchen (with the hub in the loft). But my old, and now my new routers are both capable of giving great speeds throughout the house, garden and most of the way down the street. This area dosent have a lot of nearby networks according to inSSIDer (1 other half decent one and 4 that barely register half of the time).

Even installers have complained about the wireless.

[Chrysalis]

how many wireless N routers on the market have no external antennaes?

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

how many wireless N routers on the market have no external antennaes?

Oddly enough many Netgear models do.