really annoying wireless NIC problem

[myfathersson]

Am having really annoying time with my Asus M70V. When I got it, the
wireless NIC was totally non-functional. I tried everything, updating
the OS, updating the Atheros 928 driver on the Azureware card,
rebooting uninstalling reinstalling booting again and every
conceivable permutation of the same

Finally after diagnosing a dead card, I put a linux CD into it and
restarted and let it configured everything. Suddenly the Azureware
card sprang to life and has worked (in Vista) ever since.

Over the last week or so, the card has gradually lost all sensitivity
and wont work unless I am right next to the router. Vista reports
between one and two bars, wont connect, wont keep a connection,
started reporting that the WEP key was incorrect (which is to me an
indication that it isn't transmitting something to the network control
centre) and if I do manage to connect, (it does connect for a few
minutes here and there at random) drops it within a minute or so. If
I dare to go to youtube, it just spins the wheel endlessly after a
minute or so of playing.

Yes, I have updated all drivers to the newest manufacturer's ones,
updated the OS etc etc etc. (Asus doesn't seem to support their
computers, even with updates, once they are a year old.)

So I bunged a newly burned Linux Mint DVD and restarted.

Suddenly, Hey Presto a perfectly working card and a perfect connection
with immediately filling pages, - something Vista never managed. I
have never seen anything so fast, one would almost think I had a dual
core processor in there!

Does anyone have any idea what is going on please? Are windows
updates screwing up the devices faster than the manufacturers can
update their drivers?

 

[pjp]

Am having really annoying time with my Asus M70V. When I got it, the
wireless NIC was totally non-functional. I tried everything, updating
the OS, updating the Atheros 928 driver on the Azureware card,
rebooting uninstalling reinstalling booting again and every
conceivable permutation of the same

Finally after diagnosing a dead card, I put a linux CD into it and
restarted and let it configured everything. Suddenly the Azureware
card sprang to life and has worked (in Vista) ever since.

Over the last week or so, the card has gradually lost all sensitivity
and wont work unless I am right next to the router. Vista reports
between one and two bars, wont connect, wont keep a connection,
started reporting that the WEP key was incorrect (which is to me an
indication that it isn't transmitting something to the network control
centre) and if I do manage to connect, (it does connect for a few
minutes here and there at random) drops it within a minute or so. If
I dare to go to youtube, it just spins the wheel endlessly after a
minute or so of playing.

Yes, I have updated all drivers to the newest manufacturer's ones,
updated the OS etc etc etc. (Asus doesn't seem to support their
computers, even with updates, once they are a year old.)

So I bunged a newly burned Linux Mint DVD and restarted.

Suddenly, Hey Presto a perfectly working card and a perfect connection
with immediately filling pages, - something Vista never managed. I
have never seen anything so fast, one would almost think I had a dual
core processor in there!

Does anyone have any idea what is going on please? Are windows
updates screwing up the devices faster than the manufacturers can
update their drivers?

For that kinda problem it's often simply more cost effective to just replace
the damn thing, put it in storage and maybe it might work better in another
machine/os someday.

 

[myfathersson]

For that kinda problem it's often simply more cost effective to just replace
the damn thing, put it in storage and maybe it might work better in another
machine/os someday.

It already works better (properly) with Linux!! I was just wondering
whether there was any possibility of getting it to work on Vista and
was hoping that some MVP recognised this problem. Or is that just
being too hopeful with Vista?

 

[Ken Springer]

It already works better (properly) with Linux!! I was just wondering
whether there was any possibility of getting it to work on Vista and
was hoping that some MVP recognised this problem. Or is that just
being too hopeful with Vista?

Have you considered reinstalling Vista from scratch?

I'm no tech, but over the years I've seen people resist doing that
because "it takes so long to reinstall everything". Yet, they spend as
much or more time, spread out over a few days, trying to solve the
problem. It just baffles me.

And you never know, it might just make something else work better.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 8.0.1
Thunderbird 8.0
LibreOffice 3.3.4

 

[myfathersson]

On 12/16/11 3:01 PM, myfathersson wrote:

 > It already works better (properly) with Linux!! I was just wondering
 > whether there was any possibility of getting it to work on Vista and
 > was hoping that some MVP recognised this problem. Or is that just
 > being too hopeful with Vista?

Have you considered reinstalling Vista from scratch?

I'm no tech, but over the years I've seen people resist doing that
because "it takes so long to reinstall everything".  Yet, they spend as
much or more time, spread out over a few days, trying to solve the
problem.  It just baffles me.

And you never know, it might just make something else work better.  

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 8.0.1
Thunderbird 8.0
LibreOffice 3.3.4

I think your signature underlines the problem with your advice: I also
gave up on windows as a serious operating system years ago and now use
a Mac. This was an awesome computer with an amazing 17 inch display
which I use as a second computer. I am just not prepared to spend
hundreds of hours re-doing everything on a second computer when I cant
even identify what the problem is: In the hope that it might just
possibly conceivably cure this problem, whatever it is. i stopped
doing that in the mid '90s with OS/2 when IT wouldn't install
properly and i discovered that re-installing everything only cured
some installation problems and introduced hundreds more (a point you
dont seem to recognise?). What I learned was that you dont just start
stabbing around in the dark when you get a problem in the hope that
you might correct it.

I was hoping that someone could give me a definitive answer of some
thing i could try OR say "Vista is just a dud operating system": Which
certainly seems to be the case if this computer works so well on Linux
Mint and no one recognises this problem.

 

[Ken Springer]

I think your signature underlines the problem with your advice: I also
gave up on windows as a serious operating system years ago and now use
a Mac. This was an awesome computer with an amazing 17 inch display
which I use as a second computer.

Then you started with Mac's loooooooong before I did. I switched just
under three years ago, but still have XP Pro and Vista Ultimate
installed in two places, a total of four installs. And, I refurbish
castoffs into decently working XP computers to be given away through a
couple local social agencies.

I am just not prepared to spend
hundreds of hours re-doing everything on a second computer when I cant
even identify what the problem is: In the hope that it might just
possibly conceivably cure this problem, whatever it is.

I'll be honest, I've never understood the hundreds of hours perspective.
I'm usually done in about two days, including software install. And I
start from scratch, sometimes using XP Home SP1. Think how old that is?
And I don't slipstream any disks.

The mantra I follow is best explained here:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc700813.aspx

I figure MS tech support engineers know considerably more than I do.

i stopped
doing that in the mid '90s with OS/2 when IT wouldn't install
properly and i discovered that re-installing everything only cured
some installation problems and introduced hundreds more (a point you
dont seem to recognise?).

Just to be a devil's advocate, this isn't the mid-90's nor OS/2. The
last major problem I had that *wasn't* due to something stupid I did was
a shutdown problem on an old Gateway 2000. MS Tech Support worked for a
week on the problem, finally gave up. Me, being dumb, stupid, and by
some accounts computer stupid, just sat back, observed and thought about
the problem, and fixed it! All I did was swap out the network card to a
different card.

Possibly, I could have fixed the issue with the original card, but I
couldn't locate the software for it. I'm sure it was just a setting on
the card that needed changing.

What I learned was that you dont just start
stabbing around in the dark when you get a problem in the hope that
you might correct it.

:chuckling: Isn't that what you're doing now? Yea, you can spend hours
trying to find any number of software issues, or combination of issues,
that's causing your problem(s). And there could be some hardware issues
also. <g> IMO, it's a crap shoot either way, but if you reinstall
everything, who knows what else you may fix.

But to me, it does sound like software issues, since it works with Linux.

I was hoping that someone could give me a definitive answer of some
thing i could try OR say "Vista is just a dud operating system": Which
certainly seems to be the case if this computer works so well on Linux
Mint and no one recognises this problem.

Both my Vista installs talk fine to the internet, and one of them is a
virtual machine install on this Mac. All I'm saying here is, while
Vista may not have been the best thing MS ever did (how about Windows ME
or even older, Bob?), I don't think a blanket "blame Vista" is the answer.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 8.0.1
Thunderbird 8.0
LibreOffice 3.3.4

 

[myfathersson]

Then you started with Mac's loooooooong before I did.  I switched just
under three years ago, but still have XP Pro and Vista Ultimate
installed in two places, a total of four installs.  And, I refurbish
castoffs into decently working XP computers to be given away through a
couple local social agencies.


I'll be honest, I've never understood the hundreds of hours perspective.
  I'm usually done in about two days, including software install.  And I
start from scratch, sometimes using XP Home SP1.  Think how old that is?
  And I don't slipstream any disks.

The mantra I follow is best explained here:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc700813.aspx

I figure MS tech support engineers know considerably more than I do.  


Just to be a devil's advocate, this isn't the mid-90's nor OS/2.  The
last major problem I had that *wasn't* due to something stupid I did was
a shutdown problem on an old Gateway 2000.  MS Tech Support worked for a
week on the problem, finally gave up.  Me, being dumb, stupid, and by
some accounts computer stupid, just sat back, observed and thought about
the problem, and fixed it!  All I did was swap out the network card to a
different card.

Possibly, I could have fixed the issue with the original card, but I
couldn't locate the software for it.  I'm sure it was just a setting on
the card that needed changing.


:chuckling:  Isn't that what you're doing now?  Yea, you can spend hours
trying to find any number of software issues, or combination of issues,
that's causing your problem(s).  And there could be some hardware issues
also. <g>  IMO, it's a crap shoot either way, but if you reinstall
everything, who knows what else you may fix.

But to me, it does sound like software issues, since it works with Linux.


Both my Vista installs talk fine to the internet, and one of them is a
virtual machine install on this Mac.  All I'm saying here is, while
Vista may not have been the best thing MS ever did (how about Windows ME
or even older, Bob?), I don't think a blanket "blame Vista" is the answer..

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 8.0.1
Thunderbird 8.0
LibreOffice 3.3.4

Actually it had occurred to me that the problem might be cured by
swapping the wireless card but as it works perfectly well in Linux, i
had dismissed the idea. For the moment my conception of not wasting
time on this problem involved asking around to see if anyone else has
had this problem or (as I say) seeing whether some MVP was prepared to
give it a stab; and using Linux to see what the disadvantages there
are. I had tried doing this before and discovered that everything
needs obscure command-line terminal instructions, even installing
software or updating anything whatsoever. Now amazingly, Linux Mint
seems to do everything automatically!!! Even updating the OS!

I also do computer refurbishment for local charitable organisations:
How on earth do you get away with installing XP without having to go
through interminable time-consuming consecutive OS updates and
interminable supposed malware checks which in reality only seem to be
checking that you have a valid key? I DO use slipstreamed SP2 install
discs and still take days to do this? After this experience, I
wouldnt dream of doing it with Vista, which is the only Windows
install I don't dare bother to put in a VM!

 

[Ken Springer]

On 12/20/11 8:34 AM, myfathersson wrote:

Actually it had occurred to me that the problem might be cured by
swapping the wireless card but as it works perfectly well in Linux, i
had dismissed the idea. For the moment my conception of not wasting
time on this problem involved asking around to see if anyone else has
had this problem or (as I say) seeing whether some MVP was prepared to
give it a stab; and using Linux to see what the disadvantages there
are.

But this assumes there would be just one problem that would cause the
issues you see, when IMO, it's possible there could be multiple problems
with the Vista install. And maybe, it's not Vista at all.

I had tried doing this before and discovered that everything
needs obscure command-line terminal instructions, even installing
software or updating anything whatsoever. Now amazingly, Linux Mint
seems to do everything automatically!!! Even updating the OS!

Literally everything is moving towards a user friendly interface, as it
should be IMO.

I think most command line things are rapidly becoming a thing of the
past. But I do admit there are some tasks that can be accomplished much
faster using a command line interface. Batch renaming of files, comes
to mind.

I also do computer refurbishment for local charitable organisations:
How on earth do you get away with installing XP without having to go
through interminable time-consuming consecutive OS updates and
interminable supposed malware checks which in reality only seem to be
checking that you have a valid key?

Carefully, of course! LOL

Of course, there are various factors that affect it, such as CPU speed,
connection speed, what you are installing, etc.

That being said, in general this is my procedure:

1. If the computer came from an individual, and I'm simply fixing it
for that individual, depending on what I see the computer doing, I *may*
pull the hard drive, and do some investigating as to how many pieces of
malware has been installed, check the drive for errors, etc.
2. Format the hard drive, deleting the partition information first. I
create a new partition for C:\, the size depending the individual
situation, but never more than 30 GB. Later, after XP is installed and
updated, I take the unallocated space and create a new partition for
*all* data. I'm old school, from the days when hard drives were small,
expensive, and considered somewhat unreliable. I tell users to never,
ever, store data on C:\, only on the other partition or somewhere else.
3. Install a legal copy of XP. Meaning, I have to have a COA sticker,
or it's a no go.
4. Install only legal software. That means, if I don't have the
install disks for a program w/ license keys, the software does not go
on. In that case, I install open source or free home versions of
commercial software.

The only time when it took me a long time was when I was on dial up or
slow satellite connection.

I DO use slipstreamed SP2 install
discs and still take days to do this? After this experience, I
wouldnt dream of doing it with Vista, which is the only Windows
install I don't dare bother to put in a VM!

I wish I had a retail copy of XP w/ SP2. I do have one with SP3, but
it's not a guarantee it will work. I've just finished an old Gateway
2000, with a COA sticker on the side. When I used that CD to install
XP, it said the number on the COA sticker was invalid. Now, how does
that happen. :-( I dunno, but it didn't make me happy with MS!

I went looking online, and found a torrent download of a non-hacked
retail copy of XP Home with SP1. And man, is that old! <grin> But
the COA number worked! XP is validated by MS, and updates install fine.
I did have to manually install SP2 and SP3 so I could access the MS
Update page, but that's OK. I've got those here on the hard drive, and
it's faster than downloading anyway.

I prefer not to do things like slipstreaming a CD. That makes me
responsible for getting it right, and as I have zero faith that MS will
never make changes, I prefer not to go that route. I install *all* high
priority updates before starting with the optional. And when selecting
Custom for finding updates, if any high priority updates pop up, and
they always do, I do those before I do any more optional updates. I
usually do 99% of those updates. Those I don't do, I usually go to the
manufacturers web pages for those updates.

As for AV software, if I'm going to install a 3rd party free AV program,
I put it on after the initial install of XP from the CD before any
updates. If I plan on using MS Security Essentials, I wait for the
system to offer it. Then do a complete scan before proceeding.

Based *only* on your post, it sounds to me like you do far more malware
checks during the XP install than I do. Knock on wood, I've not been
burned yet.

I'm sure some of my speedy installs is I'm only dealing with a 30GB
partition to start with. There are those that will take issue with that
perspective, but none have provided enough support for their perspective
to convince me. Since I'm just a long time computer user, from the old
8 bit days, I'm not laboring from having been told "this is the way it's
done" by some instructor at a college course, or other IT individual
with lots of degrees. I'm not saying they are wrong, just saying I
think outside the box and have learned a lot of things from experience
that I doubt many of the younger computer techs have never heard of.
Such as the idea of partitioning and storing your data somewhere other
than the boot drive/partition.

I haven't done any Vista installs except my own, and I have to redo the
install that's on my "gen-you-wine" Windows computer. It's a multiboot
computer, XP Pro and V Ultimate, an d ever since I ran a trusted
registry cleaner cleaner on the XP partition, neither OS has been as
fast as before. Just been too lazy to get it done, as I don't use that
computer often, and many times when I want a Windows answer, I just use
the Virtual Machine on this Mac.

So, I have to redo that computer with both OS's someday.

And before I forget, when a long time is needed to install some of those
updates, I go off and do something else, I'm not sitting there watch the
progress bar that sometimes works. <grin>


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 8.0.1
Thunderbird 8.0
LibreOffice 3.3.4

 

[myfathersson]

On 12/20/11 8:34 AM, myfathersson wrote:


But this assumes there would be just one problem that would cause the
issues you see, when IMO, it's possible there could be multiple problems
with the Vista install.  And maybe, it's not Vista at all.


Literally everything is moving towards a user friendly interface, as it
should be IMO.

I think most command line things are rapidly becoming a thing of the
past.  But I do admit there are some tasks that can be accomplished much
faster using a command line interface.  Batch renaming of files, comes
to mind.


Carefully, of course!   LOL

Of course, there are various factors that affect it, such as CPU speed,
connection speed, what you are installing, etc.

That being said, in general this is my procedure:

        1.  If the computer came from an individual, and I'm simply fixing it
for that individual, depending on what I see the computer doing, I *may*
pull the hard drive, and do some investigating as to how many pieces of
malware has been installed, check the drive for errors, etc.
        2.  Format the hard drive, deleting the partition information first.  I
create a new partition for C:\, the size depending the individual
situation, but never more than 30 GB.  Later, after XP is installed and
updated, I take the unallocated space and create a new partition for
*all* data.  I'm old school, from the days when hard drives were small,
expensive, and considered somewhat unreliable.  I tell users to never,
ever, store data on C:\, only on the other partition or somewhere else.
        3.  Install a legal copy of XP.  Meaning, I have to have a COA sticker,
or it's a no go.
        4.  Install only legal software.  That means, if I don't have the
install disks for a program w/ license keys, the software does not go
on.  In that case, I install open source or free home versions of
commercial software.

The only time when it took me a long time was when I was on dial up or
slow satellite connection.


I wish I had a retail copy of XP w/ SP2.  I do have one with SP3, but
it's not a guarantee it will work.  I've just finished an old Gateway
2000, with a COA sticker on the side.  When I used that CD to install
XP,  it said the number on the COA sticker was invalid.  Now, how does
that happen.  :-(  I dunno, but it didn't make me happy with MS!

I went looking online, and found a torrent download of a non-hacked
retail copy of XP Home with SP1.  And man, is that old!   <grin>  But
the COA number worked!  XP is validated by MS, and updates install fine..
  I did have to manually install SP2 and SP3 so I could access the MS
Update page, but that's OK.  I've got those here on the hard drive, and
it's faster than downloading anyway.

I prefer not to do things like slipstreaming a CD.  That makes me
responsible for getting it right, and as I have zero faith that MS will
never make changes, I prefer not to go that route.  I install *all* high
priority updates before starting with the optional.  And when selecting
Custom for finding updates, if any high priority updates pop up, and
they always do, I do those before I do any more optional updates.  I
usually do 99% of those updates.  Those I don't do, I usually go to the
manufacturers web pages for those updates.

As for AV software, if I'm going to install a 3rd party free AV program,
I put it on after the initial install of XP from the CD before any
updates.  If I plan on using MS Security Essentials, I wait for the
system to offer it.  Then do a complete scan before proceeding.

Based *only* on your post, it sounds to me like you do far more malware
checks during the XP install than I do.  Knock on wood, I've not been
burned yet.

I'm sure some of my speedy installs is I'm only dealing with a 30GB
partition to start with.  There are those that will take issue with that
perspective, but none have provided enough support for their perspective
to convince me.  Since I'm just a long time computer user, from the old
8 bit days, I'm not laboring from having been told "this is the way it's
done" by some instructor at a college course, or other IT individual
with lots of degrees.  I'm not saying they are wrong, just saying I
think outside the box and have learned a lot of things from experience
that I doubt many of the younger computer techs have never heard of.
Such as the idea of partitioning and storing your data somewhere other
than the boot drive/partition.

I haven't done any Vista installs except my own, and I have to redo the
install that's on my "gen-you-wine" Windows computer.  It's a multiboot
computer, XP Pro and V Ultimate, an d ever since I ran a trusted
registry cleaner cleaner on the XP partition, neither OS has been as
fast as before.  Just been too lazy to get it done, as I don't use that
computer often, and many times when I want a Windows answer, I just use
the Virtual Machine on this Mac.

So, I have to redo that computer with both OS's someday.

And before I forget, when a long time is needed to install some of those
updates, I go off and do something else, I'm not sitting there watch the
progress bar that sometimes works.   <grin>

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 8.0.1
Thunderbird 8.0
LibreOffice 3.3.4

I think your last para says it all but I still find that if I do the
updates that MS says are necessary, it does take an age and whatever
you say, the separate updates are interminable!! Even if you do SP3 on
XP (which I always do overnight), there are still interminable
updates. Incidentally I have found that slipstreamed installs let me
use the COA on the side of a computer and TEND not to complain too
strongly about versions provided you dont try to interchange home with
professional. Not sure why but it may be something to do with MS not
caring any more about having to employ people to ensure that you arent
running pirated verions of their slightly elderly software.

No, my malware-check installs have NEVER found anything which is why I
characterised them as probably endless product key checks. Actually it
never occurred to me that they were actually checking for malware?

 

[Ken Springer]

I think your last para says it all but I still find that if I do the
updates that MS says are necessary, it does take an age and whatever
you say, the separate updates are interminable!! Even if you do SP3 on
XP (which I always do overnight), there are still interminable
updates.

You're always going to have updates after SP3 is installed. And
probably will have for many years after official support for XP is
suspended. I know it was that way for Win 98.

I don't have anything that takes overnight. Not even SP3. I've never
actually time it, since there are too many variables, but tit's huge and
gut memory says usually about an hour, running from the file on the hard
drive. I wish we were close enough on the planet so I could actually
see your updates working.

If you don't put those updates on the computers you're rebuilding,
aren't you taking a chance on giving someone a computer that's open to
or has some type of vulnerability or outdated XXXXXXXXXX?

Incidentally I have found that slipstreamed installs let me
use the COA on the side of a computer and TEND not to complain too
strongly about versions provided you dont try to interchange home with
professional. Not sure why but it may be something to do with MS not
caring any more about having to employ people to ensure that you arent
running pirated verions of their slightly elderly software.

I suspect it's due to the different operating environments that one
version is intended for, compared to the other. I can't say I've ever
seen the pirated type message often in XP, unless you are using a really
good hack like XP Black.

No, my malware-check installs have NEVER found anything which is why I
characterised them as probably endless product key checks. Actually it
never occurred to me that they were actually checking for malware?

I'm never surprised the malware software finds nothing during a
reinstall. But, if I run the software on the hard drive (HD removed and
connected to a different computer), I almost always find something.

Depending on what you\re using for the malware check, I don't know. MS
Security Essentials has real time checking, so once it's installed it
does everything it's designed to do, assuming you have enabled real time
checking. And (can't remember if I mentioned this), various free
versions do different things.\

With the caveat that no one program finds everything, my personal free
trust list is MSE, Avira (based recommendations of some IT admins I know
online), Avast, and Malwarebytes.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 8.0.1
Thunderbird 8.0
LibreOffice 3.3.4