D-Link Forums
The Graveyard - Products No Longer Supported => Routers / COVR => DIR-655 => Topic started by: arbalet on April 15, 2009, 03:38:00 PM
-
Dear Dlink,
1. It started with 1.21 firmware where you added a great new feature - SharePort, - and possibly one more as Guest Zone (can't tell if it was in previous versions).
- The SecurePoint has been very optional and most likely unnecessary to most of users, in addition to be not free.
- The most important feature, wireless, became unstable with Intel Centrino to the point of constant or/and frequent disconnects. It required disconnect and then reconnect on the client side to remedy.
- Initial SharePort Utility coudn't find network. Subsequent releases did.
2. Then after some month you released firmware 1.22. It lasted on your web site for a couple of hours.
It didn't much and for all eliminated the disconnects. And after some time disconnects started again with the same tenacity.
3. And now, again, you have 1.30 fiasco. And worse, now USB sharing is not functional, and there is no way to go back!
4. 802.11b was removed for no reason - it was one of the options available, and if somebody not need it, he could've chosen 11N or 11N and G.
5. Worse, in 1.30 you introduced some rogue Advanced DNS feature w/o help that pointed to unknown 302DirectMedia.com (see my other post), whereas, suspiciously, DirectMedia.com is a marketing company! And for your information, Advanced DNS is under Manual Network Setup and has nothing to do with SecurePoint enabled or not (mine is disabled)!
6. Now, when 1.30 is gone infamously, the residue 1.10 SharePort utility still remains on the site, and most likely it won't work with the previous firmwares. So pls put 1.14 USB sharing utility back.
7. In terms of the wireless in 1.30 - so far so good, but I'm not sure for how long.
In summary, for last 6 month we, the customers, been severely put down by you, dear DLink.
Instead of concentrating on bug fixing, performance/security improvements and adding new REALLY needed features, we've got push for third party paid software and bloatware. And worse, in the latest 1.30 you introduced DNS addresses to some rogue company, and no explanation anywhere!!!
Instead of providing network and security equipment you became bloatware and marketing threat to your customer base.
Also, there is no responsibility and commitment on your part. You officially release firmware for an hour or a day and then it disappears without any remedy! Can we all return you product immediately w/o lengthy RMA process and regardless of warranty? Can Dlink recall all DIR-655 routers because officially released software part of it is faulty and became irreversibly unsupported within 1 day?!
Dear Dlink, where is your commitment and responsibility? And please tell us , your customers, what should we do with this. The security and access to the Internet is of paramount importance to us. And for the last 6 month using your product became nightmare, and that nightmare is only getting worse!
David
Proud(?) owner of DIR-655
-
5. Worse, in 1.30 you introduced some rogue Advanced DNS feature w/o help that pointed to unknown 302DirectMedia.com (see my other post), whereas, suspiciously, DirectMedia.com is a marketing company! And for your information, Advanced DNS is under Manual Network Setup and has nothing to do with SecurePoint enabled or not (mine is disabled)!
...they're actually a privacy service. The info for the site you're referencing is below it...
Domain Name: 302DIRECTMEDIA.COM
Registrant [1737330]:
Moniker, Privacy Services 302DIRECTMEDIA.COM@domainservice.com
Moniker Privacy Services
20 SW 27th Ave.
Suite 201
Pompano Beach
FL
33069
US
Domain name: DIRECTMEDIA.COM
Administrative Contact:
infoUSA, infoUSA dnsadmin@abii.com
5711 S. 86th Cir
Omaha, NE 68127
US
-
Dear Dlink,
1. It started with 1.21 firmware where you added a great new feature - SharePort, - and possibly one more as Guest Zone (can't tell if it was in previous versions).
- The SecurePoint has been very optional and most likely unnecessary to most of users, in addition to be not free.
- The most important feature, wireless, became unstable with Intel Centrino to the point of constant or/and frequent disconnects. It required disconnect and then reconnect on the client side to remedy.
- Initial SharePort Utility coudn't find network. Subsequent releases did.
2. Then after some month you released firmware 1.22. It lasted on your web site for a couple of hours.
It didn't much and for all eliminated the disconnects. And after some time disconnects started again with the same tenacity.
3. And now, again, you have 1.30 fiasco. And worse, now USB sharing is not functional, and there is no way to go back!
4. 802.11b was removed for no reason - it was one of the options available, and if somebody not need it, he could've chosen 11N or 11N and G.
5. Worse, in 1.30 you introduced some rogue Advanced DNS feature w/o help that pointed to unknown 302DirectMedia.com (see my other post), whereas, suspiciously, DirectMedia.com is a marketing company! And for your information, Advanced DNS is under Manual Network Setup and has nothing to do with SecurePoint enabled or not (mine is disabled)!
6. Now, when 1.30 is gone infamously, the residue 1.10 SharePort utility still remains on the site, and most likely it won't work with the previous firmwares. So pls put 1.14 USB sharing utility back.
7. In terms of the wireless in 1.30 - so far so good, but I'm not sure for how long.
In summary, for last 6 month we, the customers, been severely put down by you, dear DLink.
Instead of concentrating on bug fixing, performance/security improvements and adding new REALLY needed features, we've got push for third party paid software and bloatware. And worse, in the latest 1.30 you introduced DNS addresses to some rogue company, and no explanation anywhere!!!
Instead of providing network and security equipment you became bloatware and marketing threat to your customer base.
Also, there is no responsibility and commitment on your part. You officially release firmware for an hour or a day and then it disappears without any remedy! Can we all return you product immediately w/o lengthy RMA process and regardless of warranty? Can Dlink recall all DIR-655 routers because officially released software part of it is faulty and became irreversibly unsupported within 1 day?!
Dear Dlink, where is your commitment and responsibility? And please tell us , your customers, what should we do with this. The security and access to the Internet is of paramount importance to us. And for the last 6 month using your product became nightmare, and that nightmare is only getting worse!
David
Proud(?) owner of DIR-655
Before making all kinds of acquisitions you might want to wait for some more info from Dlink ('rogue DNS').
In their defense they offer options that some users might find very useful (like Secure Spot). I personally agree with the b removal, but that's an individual qualification. Progress will come a at a cost.
You're right about the 1.30 launch, which was amateuristic, so to say (as is their release management, test management and quality management). Yes, they've made a mess of it. Again.
So just putting some nuance in there, since Dlink will need to make a statement about this screw up.
-
I seen reference to open dns. can someone who has upgraded confirm somewhere that OpenDNS is an option? um, in the DynDNS settings perhaps.
-
To eddiez:
1. on the day of the release, 04/15/09 the whois reported
PS: Here is the whois for 204.194.232.200:
OrgName: 302 Direct Media LLC
OrgID: DIREC-107
Address: 548 Market St #25810
City: San Francisco
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 94104
Country: US
NetRange: 204.194.232.0 - 204.194.239.255
CIDR: 204.194.232.0/21
NetName: 302-DIRECT-MEDIA-IPV4-1
NetHandle: NET-204-194-232-0-1
Parent: NET-204-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: NS1.302DIRECTMEDIA.COM
NameServer: NS2.302DIRECTMEDIA.COM
NameServer: NS3.302DIRECTMEDIA.COM
NameServer: NS4.302DIRECTMEDIA.COM
Comment:
RegDate: 2009-02-20
Updated: 2009-02-20
In addition, the domain has just been created this month. No info from Dlink on their site and in help about this company/domain. And seeing how Dlink srewing up who would blindly believe and trust this unknown 302 direct media entity?
So my and, in fact, anybody's concern is totally legitimate.
Thanks
-
I think that dlink was so quick to say goodbye to wifi B because they didnt impliment the standerd very well. granted I base that on my experience with a dell Pocket Pc and dont have any other Wifi b devices, the dell connects to any other router with no problem but DLink's routers take alot of patience and trial and error. I have had 3 routers a dlink dir-524 (gone), us robotics, and finally 655. and the us robotics the dell connects no probrem, the dlinks both gave me headaches but eventually got it. if I compare to G on the 655 to the us robotics no problem even with firmware 1.21 with both G devices I connect. dont get me wrong it could be partially Dells fault that they implimented some wifi aspect on 1 side of the standard and dliink the other. or maybe other routers are more forgiving
-
I think that dlink was so quick to say goodbye to wifi B because they didnt impliment the standerd very well. granted I base that on my experience with a dell Pocket Pc and dont have any other Wifi b devices, the dell connects to any other router with no problem but DLink's routers take alot of patience and trial and error. I have had 3 routers a dlink dir-524 (gone), us robotics, and finally 655. and the us robotics the dell connects no probrem, the dlinks both gave me headaches but eventually got it. if I compare to G on the 655 to the us robotics no problem even with firmware 1.21 with both G devices I connect. dont get me wrong it could be partially Dells fault that they implimented some wifi aspect on 1 side of the standard and dliink the other. or maybe other routers are more forgiving
My B pocket PC (2003) works fine with a Sandisk Wifi stick. No problems whatsoever.
On the Marketing firm part: Agreed, there is room for suspicion. But there is still room for a plausible reason.
-
The Advanced DNS option points to a privately hosted OpenDNS server.
DirectMedia is the parent company of OpenDNS.
-
The Advanced DNS option points to a privately hosted OpenDNS server.
DirectMedia is the parent company of OpenDNS.
You see...
-
The Advanced DNS option points to a privately hosted OpenDNS server.
DirectMedia is the parent company of OpenDNS.
Sorry, but you know exactly what we, customers, want.... is about updater into router...
-
Sorry, but you know exactly what we, customers, want.... is about updater into router...
What?
-
Sorry, but you know exactly what we, customers, want.... is about updater into router...
Please elaborate on that, you're not very clear
-
The Advanced DNS option points to a privately hosted OpenDNS server.
DirectMedia is the parent company of OpenDNS.
Do you have any information on this? I have been searching google and can't find any references between 302 Direct Media LLC and opendns.
-
What?
Updater running in router, like DynDNS updater... is possible? It seems I said something wrong????? Sorry for any mistake....
-
Before making all kinds of acquisitions you might want to wait for some more info from Dlink ('rogue DNS').
In their defense they offer options that some users might find very useful (like Secure Spot). I personally agree with the b removal, but that's an individual qualification. Progress will come a at a cost.
You're right about the 1.30 launch, which was amateuristic, so to say (as is their release management, test management and quality management). Yes, they've made a mess of it. Again.
So just putting some nuance in there, since Dlink will need to make a statement about this screw up.
How can you agree with the removal of a function that many people still use in an existing product? If D-link or any other router makers want to drop it from future models I say all the more power to them but pulling functionality from existing products is wrong and just plain ignorant. Not only are you inviting a possible tech support nightmare but imagine people going after D-link with lawsuits. Not to mention alienating a subset of your existing customer base.
Yeah sure eventually b will go by the way side, but it ought to be because the next generation of routers no longer offer it, not because you strip it out of the current ones.
-
I don't see what all the drama is about. Can someone explain briefly what the majir changes are apart from the dropping of b? And for those that need b - why not just stick with an earlier version of the firmware? I'm still running 1.21 and it's steady as a rock.
To the OP - no need to rant, surely? This is one of the most responsive tech forums I visit in terms of staff answering questions, so why rant at them?
-
1. 1.21 firmware introduced 2 major features - USB sharing and MAJOR wireless connection instability.
2. In 1.22 release - nothing significant in comparison w/ 1.21.
3. In 1.30 version - a fix for wireless (maybe!), and USB sharing no longer works.
4. In both 2) and 3) cases firmware was introduced OFFICIALLY and lasted no more than 1 day!
5. USB sharing initially didn't work in 1.0 and only was fixed in 1.14 - it's for firmware 1.21.
6. USB sharing in current 1.10 release for firmware 1.30 also doesn't work. It's EXACTLY the same problem as in 5).
What this illustrates is complete lack of proper QA and release management, and embarrassingly so!
And it is not just DLink face suffers, but also us, Dlink customers!
Thanks
-
1. 1.21 firmware introduced 2 major features - USB sharing and MAJOR wireless connection instability.
2. In 1.22 release - nothing significant in comparison w/ 1.21.
3. In 1.30 version - a fix for wireless (maybe!), and USB sharing no longer works.
4. In both 2) and 3) cases firmware was introduced OFFICIALLY and lasted no more than 1 day!
5. USB sharing initially didn't work in 1.0 and only was fixed in 1.14 - it's for firmware 1.21.
6. USB sharing in current 1.10 release for firmware 1.30 also doesn't work. It's EXACTLY the same problem as in 5).
What this illustrates is complete lack of proper QA and release management, and embarrassingly so!
And it is not just DLink face suffers, but also us, Dlink customers!
Thanks
Well, then you get promised that you will get a fix-all firmware that will be beyond your wildest dreams, like the following thread's post, just before the thread is locked down.
http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=5062.msg29808#msg29808 (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=5062.msg29808#msg29808)
My comments may deem this thread to have exhausted its "usefulness" and get it locked too.
Let's ask a question.
If there are such a small percentage of D-Link users to have a problem with this device, then why are you releasing firmware that is continually having problems with being released in an efficient manner?
If nobody is having problems, then why a new firmware, especially when it's clearly not tested before release?
Why even defend the fact that your release was botched if such an insignificant number of users are having problems?
I mean this is a support forum and you will only hear about the bad apples, never the praising good ones. Right?
If my comments have caused this thread to lose all "usefulness," how could that be any worse than the continued FAILs you guys call firmware "updates?"
You can lock me, call me a troll, and do whatever it takes to take the attention away from a very real pattern of behavior when it comes to the promises that you make and cannot keep.
Even if it is the insignificant percentage that actually show up to a message board that was designed for people with problems.
An explanation of why this keeps happening would be better than locking us down and ignoring us.
Oh well. When was that DD-WRT supposed to be available for the DIR-655? If only that was a reality, a firmware to get excited about.
How much money do those guys make for building those firmwares? They probably don't get any money from the sales of any of the equipment they write for, do they?
So they don't have close to the resources that D-Link has from the millions it has made, and they make firmware for free? The wireless router with the most 5/5 star/egg reviews goes to an open source variant, sold and branded as open source compatible.
You are really right though, I should have done my homework. Could have saved $100 dollars and just got a wireless G router + gigabit switch. N is too much of a hassle, and according to D-Link, nobody uses B anymore anyways.
-
Well, then you get promised that you will get a fix-all firmware that will be beyond your wildest dreams, like the following thread's post, just before the thread is locked down.
http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=5062.msg29808#msg29808 (http://forums.dlink.com/index.php?topic=5062.msg29808#msg29808)
My comments may deem this thread to have exhausted its "usefulness" and get it locked too.
Let's ask a question.
If there are such a small percentage of D-Link users to have a problem with this device, then why are you releasing firmware that is continually having problems with being released in an efficient manner?
There is no logic / relationship in you question...
If nobody is having problems, then why a new firmware, especially when it's clearly not tested before release?
New features? It seems the lab conditions do not equal the pluriformity of possible home situations. Not a good thing
Why even defend the fact that your release was botched if such an insignificant number of users are having problems?
This is 'double binding'; not giving a reply would create the same suspicion
I mean this is a support forum and you will only hear about the bad apples, never the praising good ones. Right?
Spot on
If my comments have caused this thread to lose all "usefulness," how could that be any worse than the continued FAILs you guys call firmware "updates?"
Apples and pears.... Nice technique; combining two completely different subjects in order to prove yourself right.
You can lock me, call me a troll, and do whatever it takes to take the attention away from a very real pattern of behavior when it comes to the promises that you make and cannot keep.
If you have taken a look on the board you may have noticed that you are not the only one talking about this subject. If you haven't received an invitation to become CEO of Dlink you just have to wait and see what will happen next.
Even if it is the insignificant percentage that actually show up to a message board that was designed for people with problems.
An explanation of why this keeps happening would be better than locking us down and ignoring us.
What do you expect? A visit from the CEO to calm you down? A solution within 12 hours? Free PLayboys for 10 years? If you have read all the posts you will have seen the message that they are working on a new version which will bring back 'b' (for all those horse & carriage people). But apparently there is no way around the irreversible issue. So take it as a man.
Oh well. When was that DD-WRT supposed to be available for the DIR-655? If only that was a reality, a firmware to get excited about.
Get a Linksys. If you had any knowledge about IT stuff you would know that DD-WRT is only possible on Linux-based routers. And guess what: the DIR 655 isn't one one of those.
How much money do those guys make for building those firmwares? They probably don't get any money from the sales of any of the equipment they write for, do they?
Aha, Mr. Hotshot-KnowItAllAnd, DoesItBetter, you must be the greatest performer on earth. Or are you just past graduation?
So they don't have close to the resources that D-Link has from the millions it has made, and they make firmware for free? The wireless router with the most 5/5 star/egg reviews goes to an open source variant, sold and branded as open source compatible.
DD-WRT does not make routers. It's just people extending the capabilities that others have thought of and have engineered.
Why didn't you buy that router (5 star, open source)? Seems you made a terrible mistake while shopping.
You are really right though, I should have done my homework. Could have saved $100 dollars and just got a wireless G router + gigabit switch. N is too much of a hassle, and according to D-Link, nobody uses B anymore anyways.
Stick to horse and carriage. You're not really up to playing with the big boys. Sorry.
-
Let's get back to the topic.
Not everyone is having an issue with 1.3, I am running it since it was first posted.
I don't need to use shareport so I never installed it. I use the USB port on mine to run a laptop cooler that sits underneath the router.
No one has forced anyone to change to a newer firmware and it was stated right in the release notes about "B" being gone and that you could not downgrade after the flash.
Also remember that 11N is still a draft protocol so other things may change down the road.
-
Removal of B was something Dlink could not have done with the Wi-Fi Alliance logo they had at the time. If you check the product page today you will notice that the Wi-Fi Alliance logo is missing 802.11b in it. When I bought my rev. A3 the box had the b g and draft n logo.
I guess this means they will be removing b for sure once 1.3 comes out again :'(
Looks like it is time for me to buy a Linksys WRT310N or WRT610N and flash to DD-WRT
-
I am contiplating on upgrading, only for the fact that i'm a beta nut. If I were the only one using the gateway, then yes I probably would. However, there are some handheld gaming systems in house which prevent me from upgrading at this time and there is nothing in the 1.3 release that peaks my interest to upgrade.
What I do like is their inclusion of OpenDNS, though very primitive, having the OpenDNS added to the DDNS page would be benifitial but I have a feeling it will not be a feature fully implimented because OpenDNS provides family filters etc, that would conflict with Dlinks push to have people subscribe to their own service
sorry for the run-on sentence.
-
No one has forced anyone to change to a newer firmware and it was stated right in the release notes about "B" being gone and that you could not downgrade after the flash.
Actually for mac people who need shareport feature it was must.
Anyways, i have had no problems with 1.30, but have not use shareport or any "extra" features so i can not say if theres some problems or not. For everyday light use it works ok. Lets just wait and see what we get next.
-
I am contiplating on upgrading, only for the fact that i'm a beta nut. If I were the only one using the gateway, then yes I probably would. However, there are some handheld gaming systems in house which prevent me from upgrading at this time and there is nothing in the 1.3 release that peaks my interest to upgrade.
What I do like is their inclusion of OpenDNS, though very primitive, having the OpenDNS added to the DDNS page would be benifitial but I have a feeling it will not be a feature fully implimented because OpenDNS provides family filters etc, that would conflict with Dlinks push to have people subscribe to their own service
sorry for the run-on sentence.
I haven't upgraded yet, although I'm a beta man too. I read the changelog first and found it to be too much of a risk and not "release ready", not even as a beta.
I think you're right about the OpenDNS assumption. Although I also think that OpenDNS only covers a small part of the features that SecureSpot offers. So in that respect OpenDNS is not a free miracle solution. Even with OpenDNS installed my 'honeypot PC' hits drive-by downloads and infections.
-
Wow. Ok. Enough finger pointing and name calling.
Here is the best I can offer you. It currently is what it is. We are working as quickly as possible to re-launch 1.30 with B support for all those PSP/DS users and all the old schoolers. As for the firmware not being downgradeable, you are correct. Every time there is a Kernel update in the IPoS you will not be able to downgrade.
I am endevoring to ensure that this is noted in huge red print where you download the firmware from.
Im my opinion that firmware should not have been released yet. We weren't ready for it. People still use B (I have no idea what for, but apparently it's used.)
As for open source, no the 655 is not and never will be open source. It's a Ubicom based technology and as such we follow their guidelines and procedures when making firmware.
That being said I am locking this thread. It's lost any usefulness.
-Lycan.