Superhub R36 Firmware Beta Test (was R35) - Page 7

babis3g · 30-05-2012, 14:54

do you think they pull out the trial due to supposed routing issues or is strange both take time the same time???
i am just saying my thought and i don't mean bad way

Sirius · 30-05-2012, 15:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

What great publicity this is for Netgear.

I would not have a netgear router even if you paid me to use it. I have still got modem mode selected on my shub and therefor its working great.

thenry · 30-05-2012, 16:13

look you all need to calm down. cost cutting has caused this and as a result theres only 1 chimp working on this...

qasdfdsaq · 30-05-2012, 16:17

At least he has two displays, don't forget 2 monitors increases productivity by 30-40%

General Maximus · 30-05-2012, 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

Strange that they made a call for triallists before they'd finished their internal testing

I think that sums up VM's handling of the shub from day 1

Chrysalis · 30-05-2012, 18:46

this is what seperates them from proper HW vendors.

a HW vendor would have gone ahead with the test but just listed the known bugs before hand to the testers,

Beta testing does not need bug free release's its why its called a beta test.

thenry · 30-05-2012, 18:50

^ this ^

unless its incredibly unstable and/or posses security risks ?

jb66 · 30-05-2012, 18:59

If they just went to Cisco none of these updates would have been necessary, what is the cost to all the firmware updates? tech visits to change the speed from 300 to 145, superhubs repeatedly being sent out and they are just as bad, buzzing psus?

In the long run it must be cheaper to get a proper piece of kit from a decent manufacture

thenry · 30-05-2012, 19:05

VM heads know that they should have gone with Cisco. I've been told that directly! Why they then opt for someone else in the boardroom is beyond me. have people lost the power of speech when in a meeting and instead looks purely at figures and not reality, consequences?! like i said before, COWBOYS!!!

jb66 · 30-05-2012, 19:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

I guess pulling the plug is better than releasing stuff known to be dodgy which would be pointless. Strange that they made a call for triallists before they'd finished their internal testing though as pulling it like this just invites criticism.

But they released the current firmware? It's dodgy and pointless

kwikbreaks · 30-05-2012, 23:58

They made a general release of the one with the streaming bug despite being told about it by a number of people in the testing forum. That was because they felt they had to shut down telnet and ssh access and didn't care about the consequences. I thought this latest fiasco suggested they may have at least learned some lessons although as Chrysalis said they could have published the known bugs alongside the test release.

Mad Max · 31-05-2012, 00:19

This is a total shambles from VM, absolute joke....

thenry · 31-05-2012, 00:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

They made a general release of the one with the streaming bug despite being told about it by a number of people in the testing forum. That was because they felt they had to shut down telnet and ssh access and didn't care about the consequences. I thought this latest fiasco suggested they may have at least learned some lessons although as Chrysalis said they could have published the known bugs alongside the test release.

why didn't they just send out a firmware updating telnet, shh, the security flaws and then got their heads down working on the other bugs. you'd of thought things would get jumped on ASAP, its its 1 by 1 so be it. at least with babysteps you don't run the risk of a proper buggy overhaul plus longing the whole process out leaving said security flaws or whatever in place.

could someone please explain the firmware. not whats in it but who codes/builds it? is each firmware costing them or it is part of the deal for the SH with Netgear? is the deal so crappy that 1 lone monkey is working on it or is a team supporting the Netgear SuperHub? Whats VMs take on it, position? this is too shoddy to be true, somethings not right here.

boroboi · 31-05-2012, 02:17

Virgin go through NetGear, who then go through whoever else who's hardware (such as wireless card etc, modem) which makes up the unit, to hazard a guess. Whoever puts the firmware together, i don't know, perhaps netgear themselves.

RB2004 · 31-05-2012, 05:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirius

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

What great publicity this is for Netgear.

I would not have a netgear router even if you paid me to use it. I have still got modem mode selected on my shub and therefor its working great.

I think it depends on price,, what ya pay for is what you get, I've got their business grade products which usually cost upwards of £150 each mostly and it's pretty reliable and good quality kit, especially their wireless access points which are wall mounted and the smart switches.. All have lifetime prosafe warranties

People here are quick to assume netgear is completely at fault here,

But it could be entirely possible the original netgear base firmware in fact didn't have many bugs and was tested properly... But that it is vm stripping bits out, adding bits in, tweaking it here and there to suit their requirements that has made it unstable in some ways.. Ok the wireless range isn't great, and it's a cheap bit of hardware... But again it was not cha choice of vanity that brought about the shape... Netgears stock product looks completely different.. And without an original to compare aide by side, it could well be vm grinding down the price which has also led to cheaper components being used, and rubbish cheapie internal aerials etc