Mailing List os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com Archived Message #1792

From: "Andy Willis" <os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com> Full Headers
Undecoded message
Subject: Re: [OS2Wireless]Re: GenMAC 1.6 resp 1.7 / was Getting worse performance with new GenMAC 2.0
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 19:27:51 -0700
To: OS/2 Wireless Users Mailing List <os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com>

The one use for discussing 1.6 or 1.7 is for regressions.  If it worked with those but not with 2.0 then reporting the regression is useful as then they know that a change occurred vs. not ever having worked.
Andy
SYNass i-lists wrote:
Hi OS2-WL-Users, Very important hint, according to Marc Dodel & CLA:

There is NO GenMAC 1.6 resp. 1.7 !!!
GenMAC is only public as V 1.00 and, currently now, V 2.00 !!

Please stop the discussion with these irregular versions and concentrate on the supported ones & do read the NETlabs webpages !

TIA, best regards & success, I also need it to overcome my WL problems
;-)
svobi



  



 
os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com on 19.11.2006 04:17:48
Please respond to os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com
To: os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com
cc: Subject: [OS2Wireless]Re: Getting worse performance with new GenMAC 2.0

Hi Isaac,

    You know you have to unlock the files before you can load different versions "over" the files don't you ? Otherwise you could end up with the v 1.6 helper exe and version 2.0 of the driver (the helper exe didn't change between v 1.6 and 1.7 I think).

Cheers/2

Ed.

Isaac Leung wrote:
Well, I'm not so concerned about the actual numbers. But they do seem
to correlate with perceived performance. Even when I do have
connection, it seems noticeably slower than with 1.6 no matter where
or when I'm surfing the web.

I could kind of live with that, but not with it crapping out or
failing to acquire.

This particular laptop just had a fresh (2 weeks old!) install on
which I put on a clean GenMAC 1.6 install. I then installed right over
with 2.0 a few days ago and saw the same problems as I did with 1.7 on
a previous installation. I installed right over again with 1.6 and it
is very happy now.....mysterious....


Isaac

On 11/18/06, Andy Willis <os2-wireless_users@2rosenthals.com> wrote:
Isaac Leung wrote:
Is anyone else seeing the same issue?

I have a Thinkpad T40p with the built-in wireless (It is Atheros
chipset).
Using GenMAC 1.6 with XWLAN 2.14, it has been pretty much flawless.
(Warp 4.52 with FP5)

I tried GenMAC 1.7 a while ago, it was worse so I switched back. I
recently upgraded to GenMAC 2.0 with XWLAN 3.0 and it shows the
same
behaviour. MUCH worse!


Here's the symptoms:
- The reception shows typically 5-10% weaker signal, for whatever
reason. (I'm in a small apartment, so it's easy to be repeatable
to be
in the same physical location).
- It takes MUCH longer to acquire IP address, sometimes it fails to
ever acquire unless I ask to "scan for connection" again.
- Connection fails after some time. i.e. I can surf and connect to
all
the web sites for about the first 10-15min.  or whatever, but then
it
"dies". XWLAN shows green and connected, but I cannot even ping my
own
router or any other web site.


Any tips or suggestions?
I've reverted back to 1.6 for now since the newer editions are
essentially unuseable for me.



Thanks,
Isaac
I had no problems connecting to either of my AP's (home and work)
with
any 1.x.  It did seem to take quite a while to acquire an IP but I
couldn't say it was out of the norm as it has been so long since I
connected windows via wireless I don't recall how long it took.  2.0
seems to take about as long via a WEP connection but WPA seems to get
an IP much faster (there are some variables I need check before I can
say that definitively).
I have noticed that with genmac 2.0 (whether with wlan 2.14 or 3.0)
it
does show to have a weaker signal.  What I have not determined as yet
is whether the signal is actually weaker or if the guage is more
sensitive/accurate.  I have also seen stronger signal than I have
ever
gotten as well - such as right now I am seeing 100% which the
strongest I had ever seen from this AP is 88% and my T42 is/has been
literally 3ft directly above the AP.  I have been watching the signal
strenght and it has dropped to 86% (which is what it used to mostly
sit at) but has mostly been 90 - 100%.  I don't know why it has so
much variance which it used to not have but with the range involved
90+% seems more reasonable than 86-88% but the more constant numbers
seem more plausible so that one is a hard call.
Andy


Subscribe: Feed, Digest, Index.
Unsubscribe
Mail to ListMaster