Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
Umm you've clearly not been paying attention to this thread, the last two or three pages have been confirming the Ambit 300 does 8 downstreams. VM are just too cheap to enable it.
|
I have been paying attention and as far as I can see, a few people have weighed in with different opinions but nobody's actually got anything concrete either way.
It is a strange one though, why would Virgin seemingly go out of their way to disable 4 channels? It wouldn't be anything daft like having to re-jig the web interface to show all 8, would it? I'm not disagreeing here, I'm just saying that it's odd for them to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
The primary purpose of the Superhub at time of release, and what it was designed for, was not as a modem, it was as a combined wireless router. For the record I've managed to get over 230Mbps over wireless on my test Superhubs, but under standard 2.4Ghz operation I'd expect it to top out about 100.
|
I can't disagree with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
It's no more able than the VMNG300 either.
|
See the main issue I have with this argument is that really you need to say it's no more able than the VMNG300
potentially is because right now it can only do 4 DS channels, no matter what it actually is capable of. I could also say that the Superhub is
potentially able to be a decent piece of equipment if you replace the wireless chip inside it but that would just be silly. As it stands today, side by side, the Superhub is more capable than the Ambit 300 - not as a router, but as a modem. Actually technically it's more capable as a router as well, albeit a poor one. It's not completely broken, just really terrible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
But again, the majority of people don't have the SH1 in modem mode, and nor was it intended to be used that way by most people. And again, in just modem mode, it's no better a modem than the VMNG300 (on paper). Admittedly practice is different, there are certain performance characteristics which are improved, of the sort you don't see on the spec sheet.
|
Yeah, I agree with this as well. It's funny, because I remember when the SHUB first appeared and I had people on the phone literally screaming at me to get one because they were stick of having to deal with 2 separate boxes. I was more than happy to send them one, it was what they deserved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
No it doesn't. Because 8 DS verses 8 DS is exactly the same.
|
I think we can probably put a lid on this one for now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
See above, when it gets installed by VM it's not "just a modem". It's set up as a wireless router; only certain more knowledgeable customers use it in modem mode. The average joe does not. But even as a modem it's capabilities on paper are identical to the VMNG300 before it and the SH2 after it. If the SH1 is "future proof" as a modem, so is the VMNG300 (which defeats the point of its existence as a "future proof" replacement for the VMNG300...)
|
As much as we all hate the superhub and lament it's wireless (in)capabilities, the awkward truth is that there are quite a lot of people out there who are happy enough with it. Anecdotally, out of all my friends using it, it's probably about a 50/50 split of people who have issues and people who are happy enough. That includes technical people as well who aren't even bothered to put it into modem mode. I've had quite a few conversations whereby I've spotted the superhub in a corner somewhere and gone "Oh...you have a superhub..." and they go "Yeah, I've never had any problems with it". I don't believe them, but they're happy one way or another.
For those people, the superhub is about as future proof as you can get right now. That's not saying the SH2 wasn't a necessary or welcome replacement, but there'll be superhubs around for years yet which to me says it must be future proof to a degree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
It wasn't - the triallists have specifically addressed this question before - special dedicated modems were used, modems that haven't been seen or heard from on VM's network since.
|
See, this brings em back to my original point - why would they use a completely different modem if their existing one was capable of it? Why not put a stock firmware on an ambit 300 if it's capable of the 8 channels? Surely it's more expensive to use a separate modem entirely?
Of course, you have to factor in "Virgin Logic".
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
Well, yes, but then it used to be that 100Mbit over 3 channels was viable, until congestion got out of hand, but now it's improving again it's not entirely impractical. Ignition was of the impression 400Mbit service over 8 channels could actually be practical with correct network management.
|
Well I guess that rules Virgin out
---------- Post added at 10:47 ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
How good is the SH2? Most useful router functions are slugged out (just as well) and it's nothing but a get you going device as a router. VM could be bold and promote it on versatility providing a modem mode for those requiring advanced features (!) offered by third party routers.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenMcr
I believe it's very good in regards to performance. Obviously if you want some of the additional router features it doesn't offer at present, then that would sway your decision.
|
How good is BT's hub? As far as I'm aware, it's even more locked down and featureless than the SH2 is.
Join CF
You are here: 
