Fixed Wireless and Windows XP SP-2

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Has anyone here using fixed wireless Internet upgraded their XP systems to
SP-2? I've read that SP-2 considerably reworks the wireless settings in XP.
Additionally, my Cisco Aironet 350 LAN adapter card and drivers are somewhat
unstable with XP, esp. when upgrading drivers. Perhaps the SP-2 upgrade
will freeze my system solid. Any comments would be appreciated.

EW

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

"EW" <ewyatt_erase@excite.com> wrote in
news:2qjt26F1079u0U1@uni-berlin.de:

>
> Has anyone here using fixed wireless Internet upgraded their XP
> systems to SP-2? I've read that SP-2 considerably reworks the
> wireless settings in XP. Additionally, my Cisco Aironet 350 LAN
> adapter card and drivers are somewhat unstable with XP, esp. when
> upgrading drivers. Perhaps the SP-2 upgrade will freeze my system
> solid. Any comments would be appreciated.
>
> EW
>
>
>
>

If you're using the Wireless Zero Configuration Service, then disable it
as it makes things unstable.

You can download and install the driver and install and configure the NIC
using the Device Manager.

You should not install or use the card's utility to do anything, which
makes things unstable.

You can show signal strength by enabling *Show Network Connection* in the
NIC's LAN Properties page, which shows the signal strength by doing a
mouse over on the icon that shows in the job tray.

That made the connection stable on XP Pro using SP1 and it has stayed the
same with SP2.

Duane

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

"EW" <ewyatt_erase@excite.com> wrote in
news:2qk39lF109svgU1@uni-berlin.de:

> Duane, thanks for the reply.....
>
> Sorry, but I have to ask. What is the "Wireless Zero Configuration
> Service" and where do I find it (to see if it's disabled, or not). I
> don't understand this at all.
>
> Right now I have a stable setup, and I'm hesitant to touch anything.
> Perhaps SP-2 will not affect it. But I'm still curious about the zero
> config svs. I've looked everywhere. Please advise. Thanks.
>

Start Button/Control Panel/Perform & Maint/Admin Tools/Services and you'll
see the WZC service.

Duane

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

>> If you're using the Wireless Zero Configuration Service, then disable it
as it makes things unstable.

Duane:

Not necessarily.
I have setup several WiFi systems using WZC without any problems.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

"CZ" <CZ@no99spam.com> wrote in
news:s571d.19600$Gn2.1700@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com:

>>> If you're using the Wireless Zero Configuration Service, then
>>> disable it
> as it makes things unstable.
>
> Duane:
>
> Not necessarily.
> I have setup several WiFi systems using WZC without any problems.
>
>
>

That's you. My experience with WZC has been nothing but a PITA and caused
my setup nothing but problems as it sought out other networks in the area
and tried to connect dropping my connection. I don't need WZC in a home
environment as I am not roaming anywhere looking to connect to any other
network other than my own. Therefore, it is not enabled on any of my
machines and it will never be enabled. In addition to that, it should be
disabled on the XP machine that has no wireless connection as it can be
used to make a phone call home because of its use of NDIS UserMode I/O
Protocol and RPC Dependencies, which a user I helped was complaining about
NDIS being used by malware to make the phone call and he had no wireless
setup.

Duane

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Duane:

>> My experience with WZC has been nothing but a PITA and caused
my setup nothing but problems as it sought out other networks in the area
and tried to connect dropping my connection.

If you have a unique SSID as the only Preferred Network, that should not
happen.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

EW wrote:
> Has anyone here using fixed wireless Internet upgraded their XP
> systems to SP-2? I've read that SP-2 considerably reworks the
> wireless settings in XP. Additionally, my Cisco Aironet 350 LAN
> adapter card and drivers are somewhat unstable with XP, esp. when
> upgrading drivers. Perhaps the SP-2 upgrade will freeze my system
> solid. Any comments would be appreciated.
>
> EW

FWIW, I've done four SP2 updates, all with wireless with various cards.
Four is not a statistic, but overall, SP2 has far superior wireless
management than SP1. Connections are rock stable, restoration after
configuration changes is smooth and fast, without reboot. That being
said, the problems with SP2 in my experience are with the new network
security, and it seems to affect wireless but not ethernet. On two of
the four systems, the wireless was rock solid connected, but there was
no network or internet access. I finally tracked the problem down to
the TCP/IP of the wireless having TCP/IP filtering locked down in the
Permit None state. I believe that disabling the Windows Firewall leaves
this setting locked down in some instances.

SP2 on my two installations is significantly improved in terms of
reduced lags for opening large directories, menu drops, network and
internet (when it works). The boot and app loading optimization (i.e.,
generating Prefetch) is noticeably improved.

OTOH, the new security settings for running apps, active content, out of
page URLs and a host of others is annoying and frustrating and
unnecessary. I like SP2, but it offers a host of possibilities for
failures, much like Win95/98; working out of minor problems is annoying,
frustrating, and time consuming.

Q

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

The problem is that it does happen. I have seen this on my own machines and
co-workers and neighbors. Many times when Windows XP detects another
connection in the area, it drops your current connection. The only solution
I have found is to use the card's built-in configuration program, uncheck
the "Allow Windows to manage my wireless settings" in the wireless networks
tab, and then to disable the wireless zero configuration service.

Jeff


"CZ" <CZ@no99spam.com> wrote in message
news:Hpa1d.18945$vn.25@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> Duane:
>
>>> My experience with WZC has been nothing but a PITA and caused
> my setup nothing but problems as it sought out other networks in the area
> and tried to connect dropping my connection.
>
> If you have a unique SSID as the only Preferred Network, that should not
> happen.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

>> Many times when Windows XP detects another connection in the area, it
>> drops your current connection

Jeff:

I have never had it happen.
My setup using WZC:

Client end:
A unique SSID as the only entry in Preferred Networks.
Enable: "Access point networks only" setting.
Disable: "Automatically connect to non-preferred networks" setting

AP end:
Set channel # to an unpopular channel as determined from using NetStumbler.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Thank you, and thanks to the others, for all this great info. Lots to
digest for a rookie like me. I'm quite sure my SP-2 upgrade will go well,
but if not, I have an image of my C: drive that I can always resort back to!

EW

"Quaoar" <quaoar@tenthplanet.net> wrote in message
news:786dnRbGSaSFLNjcRVn-ig@comcast.com...
> EW wrote:
> > Has anyone here using fixed wireless Internet upgraded their XP
> > systems to SP-2? I've read that SP-2 considerably reworks the
> > wireless settings in XP. Additionally, my Cisco Aironet 350 LAN
> > adapter card and drivers are somewhat unstable with XP, esp. when
> > upgrading drivers. Perhaps the SP-2 upgrade will freeze my system
> > solid. Any comments would be appreciated.
> >
> > EW
>
> FWIW, I've done four SP2 updates, all with wireless with various cards.
> Four is not a statistic, but overall, SP2 has far superior wireless
> management than SP1. Connections are rock stable, restoration after
> configuration changes is smooth and fast, without reboot. That being
> said, the problems with SP2 in my experience are with the new network
> security, and it seems to affect wireless but not ethernet. On two of
> the four systems, the wireless was rock solid connected, but there was
> no network or internet access. I finally tracked the problem down to
> the TCP/IP of the wireless having TCP/IP filtering locked down in the
> Permit None state. I believe that disabling the Windows Firewall leaves
> this setting locked down in some instances.
>
> SP2 on my two installations is significantly improved in terms of
> reduced lags for opening large directories, menu drops, network and
> internet (when it works). The boot and app loading optimization (i.e.,
> generating Prefetch) is noticeably improved.
>
> OTOH, the new security settings for running apps, active content, out of
> page URLs and a host of others is annoying and frustrating and
> unnecessary. I like SP2, but it offers a host of possibilities for
> failures, much like Win95/98; working out of minor problems is annoying,
> frustrating, and time consuming.
>
> Q
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

EW wrote:
> Thank you, and thanks to the others, for all this great info. Lots to
> digest for a rookie like me. I'm quite sure my SP-2 upgrade will go
> well, but if not, I have an image of my C: drive that I can always
> resort back to!
>
> EW
>
> "Quaoar" <quaoar@tenthplanet.net> wrote in message
> news:786dnRbGSaSFLNjcRVn-ig@comcast.com...
>> EW wrote:
>>> Has anyone here using fixed wireless Internet upgraded their XP
>>> systems to SP-2? I've read that SP-2 considerably reworks the
>>> wireless settings in XP. Additionally, my Cisco Aironet 350 LAN
>>> adapter card and drivers are somewhat unstable with XP, esp. when
>>> upgrading drivers. Perhaps the SP-2 upgrade will freeze my system
>>> solid. Any comments would be appreciated.
>>>
>>> EW
>>
>> FWIW, I've done four SP2 updates, all with wireless with various
>> cards. Four is not a statistic, but overall, SP2 has far superior
>> wireless management than SP1. Connections are rock stable,
>> restoration after configuration changes is smooth and fast, without
>> reboot. That being said, the problems with SP2 in my experience are
>> with the new network security, and it seems to affect wireless but
>> not ethernet. On two of the four systems, the wireless was rock
>> solid connected, but there was no network or internet access. I
>> finally tracked the problem down to the TCP/IP of the wireless
>> having TCP/IP filtering locked down in the Permit None state. I
>> believe that disabling the Windows Firewall leaves this setting
>> locked down in some instances.
>>
>> SP2 on my two installations is significantly improved in terms of
>> reduced lags for opening large directories, menu drops, network and
>> internet (when it works). The boot and app loading optimization
>> (i.e., generating Prefetch) is noticeably improved.
>>
>> OTOH, the new security settings for running apps, active content,
>> out of page URLs and a host of others is annoying and frustrating and
>> unnecessary. I like SP2, but it offers a host of possibilities for
>> failures, much like Win95/98; working out of minor problems is
>> annoying, frustrating, and time consuming.
>>
>> Q

The success rate for SP2 depends strongly on having a clean starting OS
and computer. Run from a command prompt: sfc /scannow to correct any
system file errors or corruption if you need to remove SP2. Boot to
safe mode and do a complete virus scan; Spybot and Ad-ware also (though
safe mode isn't necessary). Check with all your vendors for late driver
updates. Run disk cleanup and defrag. Make sure you have sufficient
disk space (1G?). Run chkdsk /f to verify the HD. Do all these these
and your chance of failure is vastly reduced. Download the full SP2
install file and copy to CD for installation; it is much more convenient
than using Windows Update (click the Administrators Option on the WU
page for the full file)

Q

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

"CZ" <CZ@no99spam.com> wrote in
news:YOi1d.15029$QJ3.7249@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:

>>> Many times when Windows XP detects another connection in the area,
>>> it drops your current connection
>
> Jeff:
>
> I have never had it happen.
> My setup using WZC:
>
> Client end:
> A unique SSID as the only entry in Preferred Networks.
> Enable: "Access point networks only" setting.
> Disable: "Automatically connect to non-preferred networks" setting
>
> AP end:
> Set channel # to an unpopular channel as determined from using
> NetStumbler.
>
>
>
>

Yes, I have done the sophisticated SSID with it set to an off the norm
channel and WZC is disabled and it will remain that way *disabled*.

Duane

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

"CZ" <CZ@no99spam.com> wrote in message
news:s571d.19600$Gn2.1700@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
>>> If you're using the Wireless Zero Configuration Service, then disable it
> as it makes things unstable.
>
> Duane:
>
> Not necessarily.
> I have setup several WiFi systems using WZC without any problems.
>
>

Yes, I too have had no problems.