Superhub Another Superhub release soon? - Page 2

qasdfdsaq · 18-09-2012, 23:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart

You can discuss that without changing the name.

I didn't change the name

I was proposing humorous names for the entire fiasco that led to where we are now, not the device itself.

kwikbreaks · 19-09-2012, 08:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenMcr

There would be no way to make a 3rd party version. As far as I know, any firmware code release would either compromise the security of BPI+ that is being used to prevent cloning, or barr it from the network due to lack of appropriate security credentials.

Precisely so to separate the hardware from the firmware as the "VM spokesperson" is reported to have done is misleading BS to go with the rest of the BS we get from VM about this miserable apology for a hub.

Take this for another instance...

Quote:

1 Give your signal the all-clear
Clear some space around your Super Hub to remove any obstacles between your devices. Furniture, your TV, even fish tanks can block your signal. So give your hub at least a metre of clear space for a better connection.

Now by itself it's not bad advice even though a little impractical for many - especially any epileptics who might be driven into fits by the gaudy light display - but it doesn't explain why countless people have reported a direct swap with a proper router without changing position or anything else can improve range considerably and stop all those annoying WiFi disconnections many report. On that particular front I can only assume incomptibilites as I have an IP cam operating on WiFi to my hub and that works just fine.

General Maximus · 19-09-2012, 08:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenMcr

There would be no way to make a 3rd party version. As far as I know, any firmware code release would either compromise the security of BPI+ that is being used to prevent cloning, or barr it from the network due to lack of appropriate security credentials.

Buuuuut, rather than VM do it themselves which they have proven they are incapable of doing (I am being serious), why not get the pro's in on contract from the manufacturer to write the fw for them with guidance and supervision and then they can do all the testing and make sure all the kinks have been ironed out and it works? With all the bad publicity VM have had, the time they waste on the phone with customers and the money they have spent sending shubs out like confetti, surely it would be worth the extra Â£Â£Â£ to just get it done properly from the get go with maybe one or two patches along the way and get it sorted from day 1

kwikbreaks · 19-09-2012, 09:37

I have a sneaky suspicion that it is Netgear people who do maintain the firmware on behalf of VM. That's based on snippets Mark Wilkins has posted on the VM community board when discussing firmware changes and when new versions will be released.

BenMcr · 19-09-2012, 10:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

I have a sneaky suspicion that it is Netgear people who do maintain the firmware on behalf of VM. That's based on snippets Mark Wilkins has posted on the VM community board when discussing firmware changes and when new versions will be released.

Yup, as far as I know it is.

Same as the TiVo updates are written by TiVo.

General Maximus · 19-09-2012, 14:18

That's a damn shame. You would have thought Netgear would have gone out of their to make it work 100% given that they have got a captive audience; it is an excellent marketing opportunity.

Chrysalis · 19-09-2012, 16:12

no corrupt downloads on my vmng300.

BenMcr · 19-09-2012, 16:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

no corrupt downloads on my vmng300.

No corrupt downloads on my SuperHub in router mode either

kwikbreaks · 19-09-2012, 16:35

Nor mine come to that but as VM are working on a fix we must presume it does with some set ups. I rarely use WiFi and have the SPI firewall turned off for instance both services which have caused problems in the past. I don't use UPnP either as I've had a router then went belly up with it on (VM have no monopoly on iffy firmware).

qasdfdsaq · 19-09-2012, 16:40

No corrupt downloads on my BT Home Hub 3...

Then again a router corrupting data is a pretty serious problem, probably one of the most serious I can think of. Far worse than this whole wireless shenanigans.

adduxi · 19-09-2012, 17:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

Nor mine come to that but as VM are working on a fix we must presume it does with some set ups.... .

Thay have already released R36T2 for testing to the 'corrupt downloaders' group.

I really am lost for words as to this whole debacle, I wonder what the shareholders are thinking, if they even know or care .....

kwikbreaks · 19-09-2012, 17:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by adduxi

Thay have already released R36T2 for testing to the 'corrupt downloaders' group.

Yes I'm aware of that but past experience suggests it will take several goes before they get it right... and then a few more to fix whatever new bug has been caused by the fix. So I prefer "working on" to "have issued a fix for".

---------- Post added at 17:55 ---------- Previous post was at 17:54 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

No corrupt downloads on my BT Home Hub 3...

It may be more stable but it's hardly any more advanced in the feaures department. Of course you do have the option of using a different VDSL modem/router.

AndyCalling · 19-09-2012, 20:27

I'm currently alright with my Shub, but I have no illusions. It is very clear that the Shub is superior to very few, if any, similar boxes that are currently on sale with the spec to handle 120meg broadband.

This being obviously the case (even for the most accepting Shub owners like me), it is rather misleading for us to tell people searching for help that the Shub is 'super' in any way. Not a nice thing to do to new forum visitors. Better that they don't find our posts than become misinformed.

Rather than 'Superhub', the logical and more truthful tag of 'Subhub' (or 'Sub' for short) would both sound nicer (some lovely alliteration there that I think we can all enjoy) and be a more logically accurate equivalent to the misleading 'Superhub' name that isn't really right to use. It is also not attempting to insult in any way, which 'Superfail' and the like do, it just adds honesty and accuracy to VM's own chosen naming convention. Not something VM would disagree with as a goal I'm sure. The Subhub does the job, just barely, but it is the basic 'freebe' option as VM must agree and users who need better will upgrade to something else.

It's fair enough really, so long as we are all honest and don't lead people to think the Sub is somehow better or even equivalent to other 120meg speced kit when we all know full well that it isn't. You get what you pay for, and there is no shame in admitting that.

Sephiroth · 19-09-2012, 20:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart

How about we call it Superhub? This is, after all, a help forum and if people are googling for help with the hub, they will probably use Superhub as a search term rather than SuperFail or FailHub.

There are enough people calling it Superhub for a search to find any thread on the subject. So I doubt your motive for your suggestion (sometimes a mod decision) has anything to do with Googling.

A new gateway is desperately required. I'll draw everyone's attention to this piece of disinformation from VM talking to The Register:

I can't quote it verbatim for copyright reasons but the VM spokesman said in relation to people going out to buy a router that this was a decision for those people because the problem was with the SH firmware not the hardware!

Jeez! How much more insensitive to customer misery of the current SH can VM be? And VM's statement ignores the fact that the wireless hardware is too weak to meet their advertised claims. So it is the hardware too.

Stuart · 19-09-2012, 21:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

There are enough people calling it Superhub for a search to find any thread on the subject. So I doubt your motive for your suggestion (sometimes a mod decision) has anything to do with Googling.

You can doubt my motives as much as you want. I know them, and I know what I posted was correct.

Quote:

A new gateway is desperately required. I'll draw everyone's attention to this piece of disinformation from VM talking to The Register:

I can't quote it verbatim for copyright reasons but the VM spokesman said in relation to people going out to buy a router that this was a decision for those people because the problem was with the SH firmware not the hardware!

Jeez! How much more insensitive to customer misery of the current SH can VM be? And VM's statement ignores the fact that the wireless hardware is too weak to meet their advertised claims. So it is the hardware too.

The spokesman is right. It is the customer's decision if they want to buy a router. However, that does not remove VM's obligation to ensure that this combined router/modem (that they are forcing on any customer who decides to upgrade) works. Regardless of whether the firmware or hardware is at fault.

Having said that, I'd rather have two devices that do their assigned jobs well, rather than one that does both but to a mediocre level.