Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> hath wroth:
>
>>Do you seriously think Consumer Reports would have much of a
>>readership if, for example, when reporting on say a Ford car they said
>>all Fords suck?
>
> Actually, Consumer Reports did something worse to me once. I was
> working for a marine radio manufacturer at the time. Consumer Reports
> reviewed a collection of comparable marine radios. One particular
> model from one vendor was praised with a glowing report. Our model
> was treated little better than garbage. There was just one problem.
> Behind the cosmetic plastic escusion, decals, stickers, and package,
> both radios came from the same Japanese manufacturer and were
> internally identical. The high command couldn't believe it either, so
> they bought the competitors radio, and I bench tested it as close to
> what Consumer Reports did with their tests. Absolutely identical
> performance. I've had my doubts about Consumer Reports ever since
> then.
>
I'll agree. IIRC they were the idiots behind the FTC's audio amplifier
power rating rulings (measure the power at almost the highest
dissipation point for a class B amp).
I take their ratings with some very large grains of salt, their
methodology is many times overly simplistic.
They also are "rubber room" proponents, to the almost total exclusion
of common sense. My attitude is if someone is stupid enough to stick
their fingers under a rotary lawnmower they deserve whatever happens.
Perhaps a bad sample or test setup error? Although casual inspection
should have shown the units were well nigh identical.
flamestar <agnifire@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jerry Peters wrote:
>> flamestar <agnifire@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> If you know how to fix it, then why are you whining here? Just go and
>> >> fix it!
>> >>
>> >> Jerry
>> >
>> > Why are you here is all you want to do is put down peple who warn
>> > others about bad products.
>> >
>> > Jim
>> >
>> Here's your original post:
>> I bought a linksys wireless adopet fromn Compusa. It scredew up mu log
>> in screen. Lyksys is nothing but a rip off and COMPUSA sells nothing
>> but ripoffs.
>>
>> What product? You don't mention a product number, you just bitch about
>> Linksys and CompUSA, and your problem description leaves alot to be
>> desired. Do you seriously think Consumer Reports would have much of a
>> readership if, for example, when reporting on say a Ford car they said
>> all Fords suck?
>>
>> Fow all the time you've spent whining you could have fixed the problem
>> already.
>>
>> Jerry
>
> Like you think I am Consumer Reports. There never was any confusion as
> to which product I was having a problem with. When I said the Linksys
> Wireless Adaptor screwed up my log in screen everyone knew what I was
> talking about. People somehow guessed right away that the problem was
> with WUSB54GC and miracle of miracles they were right. It turns out
> that this is well known problem involving their compact wireless
> adapters.
>
> Even though people knew what product I was talking about I was still
> the first one to post the correct answer here.
>
>
> I had several goals when I started the discussion.
>
>
>
> 1. I wanted the question to provoke a discussion. Bad spelling and an
> incoherent message really attracts attention. (I do both naturally but
> sometimes I do it to provoke a response.)
>
> 2. I wanted people to know that Linksys was wrong not to warn people
> that the software for the WUSB54GC caused problems for a person's
> computer.
>
> 3. I wanted people to know how poor a job Linksys did in warning people
> about the problem.
>
> 4. I wanted people to know to know that Linksys never provided an
> answer for the problem but instead it was the people on the forums that
> had to figure out the answer on their own.
>
> 5. I wanted people to look at complaints about the whole Linksys line
> of products. I am not saying they are all bad but no product line seems
> to have generated as many different complaints. Most other products
> seem to have trouble being installed but Linksys software seems buggy.
>
> 6. I wanted to deal with the heckling of people who ask for help. I am
> grateful that there are people who are willing to help but for every 1
> person who actually tries to help there are about 4 who make fun of
> people for asking for help.
>
> By the way I first learned programming in 1962 and I bought my first
> computer in 1983 and I have fond memories of DOS.
>
So, would it have hurt to put in the model number? Also complaints
tend to be taken more seriously if you calmly state the problem. I
know ranting _feels_ good, but usually does little or nothing to
actually solve the problem.
Don't think I like Linsys -- made the mistake of buying a LNE100tx (?)
100BaseT ethernet card once (at least it was cheap). Getting iut
working was a pain, there are at least 5 different variations with
mostly different chipsets, it never did work right. I finally replaced
it with a 3Com 3c905 which worked immediately. I've avoided Linksys
ever since then.
>Don't think I like Linsys -- made the mistake of buying a LNE100tx (?)
>100BaseT ethernet card once (at least it was cheap). Getting iut
>working was a pain, there are at least 5 different variations with
>mostly different chipsets, it never did work right. I finally replaced
>it with a 3Com 3c905 which worked immediately. I've avoided Linksys
>ever since then.
Chuckles. I've used about quite a large number of both LNE100TX and
3C905 cards in various SCO Unix boxes over the years. The first
versions of the LNE100TX used a DEC Tulip chip, which I consider to be
the best ethernet PAD (packet assembler/disassembler) chips of its
day. It used the fewest CPU cycles, least latency, and was quite
reliable. For Unix and later Linux, the drivers were bulletproof. I
even went out of my way to find boards using the Tulip chip.
The 3C905 was mixed bag. The original version (no suffix) was a total
dog. As I vaguely recall, it had a tendency to hang erratically
requiring a power cycle (a reboot wouldn't work). I think the 3C905A
did the same with the added non-benefit of having NWAY negotiation
settle on the wrong protocol. The 3C905B fixed the hangs, but left
the NWAY negotiation problem. In a Windows box, it would end up with
the wrong ethernet protocol so often, that I would have to go into the
advanced properties and pre-set the desired protocol. The 3C905C
apparently fixed the problem, but I was so paranoid by that point that
I tended to avoid them.
I had a recent experience at a local ISP. The owner just loved 3C905
cards for some unknown reason. Yet, when I arrived, where were
numerous weird connectivity problems which seemed to point to the
ethernet card. Instead of using a different card, I just replaced all
the 3C905, 3C905A, and 3C905B cards with 3C905C cards. Unfortunately,
I didn't have enough, so I exchanged some of the 3C905C cards from
desktops and management stations with those from the server farm. End
of problems in the servers, but the problems moved to the desktops.
That was eventually fixed by using other cards in the desktops.
I've ranted on the subject many times in the past. For example:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.sco.misc/msg/446af1612a47ff8c>
It's interesting to see how such conclusions are generated. Reading
between the lines, my guess is that you had bad luck with exactly one
card and you don't know the exact 3C905 suffix. Is that correct? For
what it's worth, I've only dealt with perhaps 50 assorted 3C905 cards.
So, on the basis of one card, that didn't work for you (probably
because of NWAY failure), you categorically condemn 3Com. Meanwhile,
on the basis of my experience with about 50 3Com cards, I was merrily
installing a box of about 40ea 3CR990-TX-95 3DES encrypting cards in
assorted servers without problems (except for a few that hung on boot
when using PXE and required a flash firmware update).
The difference is that I didn't condemn the company. I condemned the
product or in the case of 3com, the specific product version. Can you
see the difference?
Drivel: This is weird. The more "feel good" pills, antihistamines,
and analgesics I take, the better my spelling becomes. My head feels
like it's stuffed with cotton and my brain is on strike, but my
spelling is much better.
In article <kitqq2huucr3uf13mimav8s15am65avi67@4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>Drivel: This is weird. The more "feel good" pills, antihistamines,
>and analgesics I take, the better my spelling becomes. My head feels
>like it's stuffed with cotton and my brain is on strike, but my
>spelling is much better.
>
>
<M.A.S.H.>
" Is is my imagination, or is your english improving?"
" Nah... eet must bee da whiskeeey"
</M.A.S.H.>
>I'll agree. IIRC they were the idiots behind the FTC's audio amplifier
>power rating rulings (measure the power at almost the highest
>dissipation point for a class B amp).
Don't get me started on what I think of peak music power an it's
variations:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_power>
This is one case where the numbers are next to worthless.
However, I don't recall what inspired the FTC to apply guidelines. It
was in the early 1970's and hi-fi was just becoming a consumer
phenomenon. The problem was that so were Japanese imports. At the
time, I was working for Sony Superscope, so I was in the middle of the
mess. However, I was not doing hi-fi, and also not paying attention.
Oh well. I suspect the rules were established to make the imports
look bad in comparison to domestic manufacturers. I would have a
difficult time proving that today.
>I take their ratings with some very large grains of salt, their
>methodology is many times overly simplistic.
I Consumer Reports defense, they have a difficult problem. One one
side, they have techy types like me that want lots of numbers and
rigorous testing. On the other side, they have Joe Sixpack, who just
wants to know if it works. It's very difficult to write a report that
satisfys both these extremes (and everyone in between). I was
pleasantly suprised to read a recent review on $500 digital cameras
that was amazingly accurate and quite useful without burying me in
technobabble. There is hope for Consumer Reports, but I still have my
doubts.
>They also are "rubber room" proponents, to the almost total exclusion
>of common sense. My attitude is if someone is stupid enough to stick
>their fingers under a rotary lawnmower they deserve whatever happens.
I subscribe to a rather unfashionable theory that safety devices
actually cause accidents. Details on request as we're getting way of
topic.
>Perhaps a bad sample or test setup error? Although casual inspection
>should have shown the units were well nigh identical.
I wasn't directly involved in the yelling and screaming after the
report was published. I do know that the Consumer Report reviewers
were not allowed to tear apart the products unless they failed in some
way, and then only to complete their test report. None of the boxes
were opened. One clue is that the tests were performed by 3 different
people, and the final report was written by a 4th. There's a real
possibility of miscommunications, but no evidence. We were able to
recover the test unit (through subtrifuge) and found it to perform
normally. I really don't know what went wrong, and don't want to
speculate. Strangely, the dismal review had absolutely no effect on
sales, but was a constant source of irritation at Boat Shows and
conferences.
In article <5k3qq29ciqf231q5knuj9nfevoqao7vmcb@4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>rico_001@hotmail.com (Rico) hath wroth:
>
>>In one of his posts there is mention of a file GTGINA.DLL (my caps). Is
>>linksys suppling an alternate GINA to msgina.dll?
>
>Yes, I think that's what's happening. Linksys decided that in order
>to impliment LEAP authentication, it needed to replace the MSGINA
>(Microsoft Graphical Identification and Authentication):
><http://linksys.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/...adp.php?p_faqi
>d=3536>
>
>Replacing MSGINA is supported by Microsoft, so Linksys didn't do
>anything evil or devious. MS even supplies instructions on how to do
>it:
Oh yes, I've a friend in the biometric biz and their product replaces the
default Gina. But they really are providing an alternate 'login' proceedure
and thus the need. I just can't beleive this is being done for USB wireless
gizmo. Truthfully I can't say that I blame consumers who are shall we say
less then pleased when this happens to them without at least an on screen
warning ahead of time. I sure would never expect such. Say with a biometric
device such a change is at least implied if not stated up front, but with
this??
BTW I'm told it is not all that hard to code a replacement GINA, the trick
is getting a good install which seems to be what is biting linksys with
some customers. No idea why it is 'not easy' to get things installed right,
but this is what I've been told.
><http://support.microsoft.com/kb/810756>
><http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...ntain/security
>/msgina.mspx>
><http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa378750.aspx>
>However, LEAP is not used or worth the effort for most users. Having
>a major component replaced for a feature rarely used is rather a lousy
>idea. In addition, there are other applications that replace MSGINA,
>such as PcAnywhere, Novell Client, various kerberos clients, some VPN
>clients, single signon systems, fingerprint ID systems, just about all
>remote control software, etc. I'll leave what happens to the Linksys
>install if you have one of these already installed an open question.
>
>Note that the solution to the problem is apparently to replace
>GTGINA.DLL with the original MSGINA.DLL as recommened in the above URL
>under "Recovering From a GINA-related System Failure". I haven't
>tried it.
Why would replacement be the default in the first place, makes no sense to
me. Sure maybe if you know you want LEAP, but as you note most consumers
will not.
>
>>This would of course
>>explain why people have problems logging in, but why would a vendor or
>>wireless products need to alter Windows authentication? Why would they want
>>to?
>
>The vague Linksys "answer id=3536" noted above says that it was to
>impliment LEAP authentication. I have my doubts if it was necessary
>or desireable to replace the existing authentication module. It just
>might be, but I are not a programmist.
I am so in agreement with you here.
>
>As for spending Sunday feeding the trools, I've been under house
>arrest since Weds with various maladies and am having problems
>concentrating. Fortunately, posting usenet answers does not require
>much effort and provides a suitable alternative to TV.
Yeah, I picked up on that in other threads, HOPE YOU ARE SPEEDILY
RECOVERING now. Ouch... (Townsend/Daltry may have been right "Hope I die
before I get old': but not really <wink />)
>
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> hath wroth:
>
>>I'll agree. IIRC they were the idiots behind the FTC's audio amplifier
>>power rating rulings (measure the power at almost the highest
>>dissipation point for a class B amp).
>
> Don't get me started on what I think of peak music power an it's
> variations:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_power>
> This is one case where the numbers are next to worthless.
>
> However, I don't recall what inspired the FTC to apply guidelines. It
> was in the early 1970's and hi-fi was just becoming a consumer
> phenomenon. The problem was that so were Japanese imports. At the
> time, I was working for Sony Superscope, so I was in the middle of the
> mess. However, I was not doing hi-fi, and also not paying attention.
> Oh well. I suspect the rules were established to make the imports
> look bad in comparison to domestic manufacturers. I would have a
> difficult time proving that today.
Story I once heard, I forget where, was that some FTC staffers picked
the continuous at 80% of max rated power because it seemed
appropriate. I assume that they were liberal arts types, not
engineers.
>
>>I take their ratings with some very large grains of salt, their
>>methodology is many times overly simplistic.
>
> I Consumer Reports defense, they have a difficult problem. One one
> side, they have techy types like me that want lots of numbers and
> rigorous testing. On the other side, they have Joe Sixpack, who just
> wants to know if it works. It's very difficult to write a report that
> satisfys both these extremes (and everyone in between). I was
> pleasantly suprised to read a recent review on $500 digital cameras
> that was amazingly accurate and quite useful without burying me in
> technobabble. There is hope for Consumer Reports, but I still have my
> doubts.
>
>>They also are "rubber room" proponents, to the almost total exclusion
>>of common sense. My attitude is if someone is stupid enough to stick
>>their fingers under a rotary lawnmower they deserve whatever happens.
>
> I subscribe to a rather unfashionable theory that safety devices
> actually cause accidents. Details on request as we're getting way of
> topic.
>
Of course, it (whatever _it_ is) has all these safety features so I
really don't need to pay any attention to safety issues.
>>Perhaps a bad sample or test setup error? Although casual inspection
>>should have shown the units were well nigh identical.
>
> I wasn't directly involved in the yelling and screaming after the
> report was published. I do know that the Consumer Report reviewers
> were not allowed to tear apart the products unless they failed in some
> way, and then only to complete their test report. None of the boxes
> were opened. One clue is that the tests were performed by 3 different
> people, and the final report was written by a 4th. There's a real
> possibility of miscommunications, but no evidence. We were able to
> recover the test unit (through subtrifuge) and found it to perform
> normally. I really don't know what went wrong, and don't want to
> speculate. Strangely, the dismal review had absolutely no effect on
> sales, but was a constant source of irritation at Boat Shows and
> conferences.
>
How the heck can they do any valid comparison without looking at
construction? For example how well are components mounted, PC board
quality etc? I always like to take apart my new toys to see how
they're put together, and to see how much trouble I'm going to have
when they need to be fixed.
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> hath wroth:
>
>>Don't think I like Linsys -- made the mistake of buying a LNE100tx (?)
>>100BaseT ethernet card once (at least it was cheap). Getting iut
>>working was a pain, there are at least 5 different variations with
>>mostly different chipsets, it never did work right. I finally replaced
>>it with a 3Com 3c905 which worked immediately. I've avoided Linksys
>>ever since then.
>
> Chuckles. I've used about quite a large number of both LNE100TX and
> 3C905 cards in various SCO Unix boxes over the years. The first
> versions of the LNE100TX used a DEC Tulip chip, which I consider to be
> the best ethernet PAD (packet assembler/disassembler) chips of its
> day. It used the fewest CPU cycles, least latency, and was quite
> reliable. For Unix and later Linux, the drivers were bulletproof. I
> even went out of my way to find boards using the Tulip chip.
>
The Linux server used an old Tulip I rescued from a trash bin at work
-- it worked perfectly. The part that really ticked me off with
Linksys was going to their web pit to find updated drivers and finding
that there were 5 different versions of the card. I had to look at
pictures to figure out which version I had since Linksys did _not_ put
such essential information on the card itself. I could never get the
card to autonegotiate correctly and setting the interface up through
the Windows interface produced strange results. The gui would claim
I'd set the card to 100 half duplex, but the lights on the card & the
switch said 10. The 3c905 (probably rev c) just worked, using just the
Windows drivers at 100Mb with no problems. In fact it's still working
today and it's been years since I put it in that machine.
I tend to leave that machine alone, it runs Win 98SE. It's really my
only Windows machine, and I find that it works best if I do as little
as possible to it. In the next few weeks I'll be installing Taxcut on
it to do my taxes, hopefully that won't break it.
> The 3C905 was mixed bag. The original version (no suffix) was a total
> dog. As I vaguely recall, it had a tendency to hang erratically
> requiring a power cycle (a reboot wouldn't work). I think the 3C905A
> did the same with the added non-benefit of having NWAY negotiation
> settle on the wrong protocol. The 3C905B fixed the hangs, but left
> the NWAY negotiation problem. In a Windows box, it would end up with
> the wrong ethernet protocol so often, that I would have to go into the
> advanced properties and pre-set the desired protocol. The 3C905C
> apparently fixed the problem, but I was so paranoid by that point that
> I tended to avoid them.
>
> I had a recent experience at a local ISP. The owner just loved 3C905
> cards for some unknown reason. Yet, when I arrived, where were
> numerous weird connectivity problems which seemed to point to the
> ethernet card. Instead of using a different card, I just replaced all
> the 3C905, 3C905A, and 3C905B cards with 3C905C cards. Unfortunately,
> I didn't have enough, so I exchanged some of the 3C905C cards from
> desktops and management stations with those from the server farm. End
> of problems in the servers, but the problems moved to the desktops.
> That was eventually fixed by using other cards in the desktops.
>
> I've ranted on the subject many times in the past. For example:
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.sco.misc/msg/446af1612a47ff8c>
>
> It's interesting to see how such conclusions are generated. Reading
> between the lines, my guess is that you had bad luck with exactly one
> card and you don't know the exact 3C905 suffix. Is that correct? For
> what it's worth, I've only dealt with perhaps 50 assorted 3C905 cards.
>
> So, on the basis of one card, that didn't work for you (probably
> because of NWAY failure), you categorically condemn 3Com. Meanwhile,
> on the basis of my experience with about 50 3Com cards, I was merrily
> installing a box of about 40ea 3CR990-TX-95 3DES encrypting cards in
> assorted servers without problems (except for a few that hung on boot
> when using PXE and required a flash firmware update).
>
> The difference is that I didn't condemn the company. I condemned the
> product or in the case of 3com, the specific product version. Can you
> see the difference?
>
>
> Drivel: This is weird. The more "feel good" pills, antihistamines,
> and analgesics I take, the better my spelling becomes. My head feels
> like it's stuffed with cotton and my brain is on strike, but my
> spelling is much better.
>
>
> I'm sure the whole newsgroup thanks you two for being so "helpful."
> --
> Steve Cole
No offense, Steve Cole, but, dude, you are so wrong - those guys ARE
consistently VERY helpful. Those who do much research on wireless
problems will quickly see that Jeff L is, basically, the most helpful
human online today for wireless stuff. He's actually one of the more
tolerant among those who are knowledgable and answering questions. As
I follow the questions and answers, I can see how difficult it is, day
in and day out, to be helpful when people make themselves into the most
difficult part of the equation.
If you want to see what it's like to swim with the real sharks, go find
the netstumbler forum: they are knowledgable there too perhaps, but
actually seem to feed on posters. It's not pretty, but helps build an
appreciation for this group.
Anyway, yeah, you got snapped at for being yet another poster who
failed to value the help they are asking for enough to ask a clear
question. Probably you meant well enough, (what was the question?)
but the irritation factor accumulates.
But really, you are insulting the guy you want on your side. I think
that most people on this forum would agree !
My suggestion is to forget about the slight and act like you are paying
$100 an hour for Jeff's help and simply do all you can to help him
solve your problem (what is it?) and expedite the process.
Then you can move on to the next computer problem. Never ends! We
must be training for something !
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:06:40 GMT, Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid>
wrote:
>> I subscribe to a rather unfashionable theory that safety devices
>> actually cause accidents. Details on request as we're getting way of
>> topic.
>Of course, it (whatever _it_ is) has all these safety features so I
>really don't need to pay any attention to safety issues.
Yep, but there's more. I've seen some production machines in the
distant past get retrofitted with the latest safety interlocks and
gadgets, only to find that the accident rate increased. The problem
wasn't just that the workers felt safe. The problem was that the
added complexity of the safety devices prevented the worker from
actually understanding how the machine operated. Without this
knowledge, they are incapeable of understanding how much damage the
machine can do to the operator. There's also the problem of idiot
error on the part of the machine vendors. The clear acrylic "safety
shields" probably clobbered plenty of fingers because the worker could
not see the shields (because they were so clear). This is the reason
that many such shields now have brightly painted borders. I could go
on forever on the topic...
>How the heck can they do any valid comparison without looking at
>construction? For example how well are components mounted, PC board
>quality etc? I always like to take apart my new toys to see how
>they're put together, and to see how much trouble I'm going to have
>when they need to be fixed.
Yeah, I know. The problem is that Consumer Reports (Consumer Union)
allegedly pays for "expert opinions" on their products, but doesn't
appear to hire what I consider to be experts. When they do, they
don't let them do what all experts enjoy most.... tearing into the
product. However, the test are not performed by experts. They're
performed by competent technicians.
Not much online:
How We Test:
<http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/aboutus/test/index.htm>
I've had the displeasure of trying to specify a repeatable and valid
test for various consumer devices. That certainly does take an
expert. However, the actual tests can be performed by any competent
technician, who may not necessarily be qualifies to pass judgement on
the results. When I was running a small R&D group, I had to
constantly remind the techs *NOT* to pass judgement on data. I
certainly did not want them "modifying" the units under test in the
process. Methinks Consumer Reports is doing the right thing and keep
the itchy fingers out of the electronics.
Also, I think (not sure) that they sell the units they test
afterwards, so I'm sure they don't want them trashed.
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:18:38 GMT, Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid>
wrote:
>The part that really ticked me off with
>Linksys was going to their web pit to find updated drivers and finding
>that there were 5 different versions of the card.
I couldn't find the page of photographs, but I remember it well. Now,
there's a list of 11 different mutations:
<http://www.linksys.com/servlet/Satellite?c=L_Download_C2&childpagename=US%2FLayou t&cid=1115417109934&packedargs=sku%3D1115416833483 &pagename=Linksys%2FCommon%2FVisitorWrapper>
However, I think Intel and 3com both get the award for recycling model
numbers. Both have downloadable programs that identify the card
inside the machine.
>I could never get the
>card to autonegotiate correctly and setting the interface up through
>the Windows interface produced strange results. The gui would claim
>I'd set the card to 100 half duplex, but the lights on the card & the
>switch said 10.
That's the situation with NWAY negotiation failure. However, you
can't always blame the ethernet card. There were also several early
ethernet switches that would also do it badly. As I recall, Netgear
FS-108 switch was one. I've used a substantial number of Tulip chip
based ethernet devices (Compaq, DEC, etc), and don't recall any NWAY
failures attributable to the card. It's really a difficult problem to
identify because it doesn't always happen. However, if you end up
with a weird or slow ethernet connection that can only be solved by
literally removing power from the machine (not just a reboot), then it
probably was an NWAY failure. It's possible the Windoze XP, with it's
ability to reset the IP stack when disconnecting the media, might
recover without a power cycle, but XP wasn't around when I was using
3C905 cards.
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:00:17 -0500, in alt.internet.wireless , Steve
<shaman[at]kos[dot]net> wrote:
>>Oh yeah, thank you for another mindless and uninformative
>>complaint.
>
>If this how Jeff greets new people to the newsgroup,
Which part of what he said was incorrect?
Oh, and for someone claiming to work in computing, you have an
astoundingly thin skin. This is usenet, not nursery, we're big boys
and girls and we don't have to be polite to people who wander in off
the street and do nothing but complain.
>then you'll never get me to agree he's a swell guy.
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Don't get me started on what I think of peak music power an it's
> variations:
I had a tech support contract for a dance/night club. As long as the
sub-woofers could blow out a match at five feet, they were happy.
Can we say thrombotic distress
Pair of boxes with six each 18" sub-woofers with and one 1,500 amplifier
driving two speakers each. Six thousand watts of power. Total power thrown
on the dance floor was 45,000 watts.
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> Don't get me started on what I think of peak music power an it's
>> variations:
>I had a tech support contract for a dance/night club. As long as the
>sub-woofers could blow out a match at five feet, they were happy.
>
>Can we say thrombotic distress
>
>Pair of boxes with six each 18" sub-woofers with and one 1,500 amplifier
>driving two speakers each. Six thousand watts of power. Total power thrown
>on the dance floor was 45,000 watts.
Ummm... That's overkill, but I've done bigger. I was working for an
unspecified aerospace contractor on large battlefield audio systems in
the 1960's. I swept the floor, but one has to start somewhere. There
were no conventional loudspeakers. Instead, it used huge air
compressors and fluidic valves. I think it was at least 100
horsepower delivered (at 746 watts/hp). The frequency response was
awful, but it was incredibly loud. It was certainly more efficient
than the average loudspeaker.
I never actually attended or heard the full power testing, but I was
told that broken instruments, glass, fasteners, and even welds were a
constant problem. One fun test was to estimate the resonant frequency
of the human intestinal tract and induce a stampede to the bathrooms.
Anyway, measuring the delivered power in watts or horsepower was
useless. I vaguely recall that the white lab suits were using
differential air pressure in psi (assuming a flat wave front) and ergs
for delivered energy, but it a constant point of contention. The
hi-fi contingent just could not pull themselves away from watts. I
didn't stay around long enough to identify the winner.
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> decaturtxcowboy <nope_none_@nowayspam.com> hath wroth:
>
>> Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> Don't get me started on what I think of peak music power an it's
>>> variations:
>
>> I had a tech support contract for a dance/night club. As long as the
>> sub-woofers could blow out a match at five feet, they were happy.
>>
>> Can we say thrombotic distress
>>
>> Pair of boxes with six each 18" sub-woofers with and one 1,500 amplifier
>> driving two speakers each. Six thousand watts of power. Total power thrown
>> on the dance floor was 45,000 watts.
>
> Ummm... That's overkill, but I've done bigger.
Well...you know kids. Its never loud enough
> I never actually attended or heard the full power testing, but I was
> told that broken instruments, glass, fasteners, and even welds were a
Teh bar staff knew I had been in there doing audio sweep testing as all the
pineapple tins and glassware (actually plastic) were danced all over the
place. I used pink noise too, but used a fast sweep so that nothing would
go into resonance and shatter.
> One fun test was to estimate the resonant frequency
> of the human intestinal tract and induce a stampede to the bathrooms.
I read some that Tesla found a frequency that caused Edison to...umm.
Re: Another Victim of Linksys. 
Linear Mode
