need a solid wireless router...

[Rastalovich]

I hate to say it but the "average" user doesn't have a network, they just have one PC or laptop and if they have two they wouldn't network them up anyway.

Yes MS have awesome business acumen, that is why they are on top of the market

What does tunneling mean to an average home user with a new Vista laptop and an existing houseful of xp/network ? Aside from it`s now gonna take u an absolute age to transfer stuff from the laptop to/from any1, I suggest u buy some rewritable cds or some usb pens.

I`m not refering to average users m8y, I`m on about average users w/networks. If the user of Vista doesn`t have a network, IPvX is pretty irrelevant to them.

A number of years ago I would say a very small %age of people with home computers have networks. These days I would be very hesitant to say that. It hasn`t got anywhere near the stage where the average pc owner has a network - `setup` (although without knowing it, many do), but I do see the trend increasing especially with shared internet and media.

U can`t despute m$`s corporate tactics. But u can`t put forward that they are the best thing for the tech, not by a long shot imo. I`d put forward that they are, and have been, bad for the industry.

 

[nathan]

I`m not refering to average users m8y, I`m on about average users w/networks. If the user of Vista doesn`t have a network, IPvX is pretty irrelevant to them.

A number of years ago I would say a very small %age of people with home computers have networks. These days I would be very hesitant to say that. It hasn`t got anywhere near the stage where the average pc owner has a network - `setup` (although without knowing it, many do), but I do see the trend increasing especially with shared internet and media.

U can`t despute m$`s corporate tactics. But u can`t put forward that they are the best thing for the tech, not by a long shot imo. I`d put forward that they are, and have been, bad for the industry.

i disagree with what your putting forward, there's nothing out there as user friendly.

The new ip stack in vista is a completly new one, with both ipv4 and ipv6 running together instead of 2 entirely different enterties. If it does help push forward the move to ipv6, is that such a bad thing?

i'd like to see some sources for your posts though.

 

[Rastalovich]

Nothing out there as user friendly as Vista ?

Progressing to another protocol doesn`t have to come at the expense of the existing infrastructure. What happens at the moment when an windows bearing IPv6 machine (that at this point has IPv4 in it aswell), attempts/connects with an existing IPv4 network is that it sticks with IPv6 and uses methods to convert 6to4 and the reverse 4to6. This alongside the qos protocols takes a possible 20mbs connection down to 2/3mbs. 4/6mbs with some tweaking of the qos. My arguement here is why bother with the 6to4 conversion if there is no other IPv6 on the network ? IPv4 exists in Vista - use it in this case - or atleast have a simple way for the user to change.

If there exists IPv6 on the network - then knock urself out. Or if there happens to be somewhat of a mixed bag of IPv6/4 activity, ask some questions.

But don`t force urself to be the odd ball stuck at a low transfer speed for the sake of it. Why the heck it takes an overhead of some 15mbs to convert 6to4 I don`t know. I don`t think the mac has such an overhead and it does both with a tick box to allow for each.

I don`t know that the nix users on IPv6, if they are, will use a 6to4 conversion to hamper their network transfers, I`m sure they`d select one or the other. If there happens to be both the conversion I`m sure won`t lose u 15mbs.

Why would these people be any good tho, they aren`t financially at the top of the tree or as user friendly as Vista.

A source for the evidence of how slowly the "leading" software OS is moving in regards to pushing/pull tech forward, can be any person who used an OS back in the 1980s and compares with the releases through the years, some 20+ years of adapting the same ole stolen xerox code, patching it, upd8ing it, rebadging it, and selling it for $100s of dollars every couple of years. Makes u money, but doesn`t help advance the race as a whole. Should the fact that they have the most money be the driving milestone for evolving tech ? Being so advanced, if the newer Mac OS hadn`t been in developement, I don`t know what the frontend of Vista would have looked like. Probably the same if u unintegrated the shiney stuff from it and reverted to the classic theme. And on the Mac it doesn`t take a gig to do it. Not that I`m a Mac fanboi, but they are there to be admired, imo. Only for the lack of funds, they aren`t as orientated as the m$ OSs. If they adopted the same tactics, the world may be a better place. It`d certainly be more user friendly.

 

[FarFarAway]

I think your argument about Vista vs Mac OSX is fatally flawed in that Vista has to run on millions of different combinations of hardware, whereas OSX is severely limited to a number of hardware configurations and no more. Whilst the argument can kind of work for networking, for general use it just doesn't. Also, a Mac does run better when you throw RAM at it, there's no denying that.

As far as Apple's OS being far superior to Vista, it just isn't. OK I do rather like OSX, but it's not a huge leap ahead of Vista whichever way you look at it. There are indeed some rather annoying things about OSX that make me tear my hair out

Linux is very nice but again it has it's flaws and again although it supports a large hardware base it simply doesn't work well with everything. Now this is mostly due to hardware manufacturers not "doing" Linux drivers (though most are getting better), but we have to remember that Microsoft financially and technically support the companies that make drivers and stuff for Windows and get payback through license use, pretty good business model if you ask me.

I don't have a great love for Microsoft, but then again I think Apple's tactics can also be pretty snide and underhand too so the argument goes both ways. I always support open source when I can, but often the open-source solution isn't quite what I want.

Anyway, I've got XP and Vista playing nice together on a network via uPnP on my router that has a proper implementation of uPnP and get full speed transfers between the two machines

 

[outrunner]

Another vote for a 2700HGV.

My connection was on a 1750k profile with a D834GT V2, I plugged the 2700HGV in, 4 days later the profile was at 2000k, after 30 days the profile had got to 3000k with a 3456k connection speed. The router holds sync far better on a poor line than the Netgear, only resync'ing when I repowered the router after 48 days.

 

[Rastalovich]

I think your argument about Vista vs Mac OSX is fatally flawed in that Vista has to run on millions of different combinations of hardware, whereas OSX is severely limited to a number of hardware configurations and no more. Whilst the argument can kind of work for networking, for general use it just doesn't. Also, a Mac does run better when you throw RAM at it, there's no denying that.

As far as Apple's OS being far superior to Vista, it just isn't. OK I do rather like OSX, but it's not a huge leap ahead of Vista whichever way you look at it. There are indeed some rather annoying things about OSX that make me tear my hair out

Linux is very nice but again it has it's flaws and again although it supports a large hardware base it simply doesn't work well with everything. Now this is mostly due to hardware manufacturers not "doing" Linux drivers (though most are getting better), but we have to remember that Microsoft financially and technically support the companies that make drivers and stuff for Windows and get payback through license use, pretty good business model if you ask me.

I don't have a great love for Microsoft, but then again I think Apple's tactics can also be pretty snide and underhand too so the argument goes both ways. I always support open source when I can, but often the open-source solution isn't quite what I want.

Anyway, I've got XP and Vista playing nice together on a network via uPnP on my router that has a proper implementation of uPnP and get full speed transfers between the two machines

There is no MacOS vs Vista going on here, the question was merely what would Vista look like if the current Mac OS wasn`t in dev at the time. And it happens that the Mac is easier to skirt around not using IPv6.

I`m not here to put forward why peoples shouldn`t love m$, that arguement has missed a generation and is evidently too late. The OS is a tool, if u have ur financial fingers in everything, u should be producing a better tool than u r atm. That is if ur goal is not primarily cash related. It`s a bad situation.

I`d put forward also that Apple are absolute saints in comparison to the tactics of m$ over the decades. And I do confirm Apple aren`t squeaky clean.

Afaic upnp won`t effect IPv6 vs 4 - unless I`m missing something here. Upnp is not involved in tunneling, just the detection of what is plugged into what. I`d be verying interested if ur getting 20mbs transfering from XP to Vista.

 

[Youngie1337]

I have not read other posts sorry, but I have found that my Linksys (no matter what model) has been a great asset.

ZyXel have some good range of routers too, but a MUST not get is an old Residential Gateway 11MBPS router.

Got it for free but something tells me I'm not getting my 20MBPS lol.