D-Link Forums
The Graveyard - Products No Longer Supported => Routers / COVR => DIR-655 => Topic started by: cc999 on April 15, 2009, 06:09:04 PM
-
I have to say that the 1.30 firmware is excellent! My A3 has been running for 24 hrs now
perfectly. No reboots, No lag, streaming video is much improved. I do NOT use any b protocol
so no loss for me. I am so happy I snagged it while it was availiable. I will not look back!
If anyone wants me to post a d/l link let me know.....
Charlie
-
I have also been using 1.30 without a hitch...knock on wood. What I'd like to get is the Shareport utility for Mac that was supposedly up for download and then wasn't.
-
Can someone post a link to that shareport utility? I will trade links.........
-
Mac Sharepoint Link can be found here:
http://www.dlink.com/products/support.asp?pid=530&sec=1#firmware
-
I have also been using 1.30 without a hitch...knock on wood. What I'd like to get is the Shareport utility for Mac that was supposedly up for download and then wasn't.
A3 as well?
-
A3 as well?
A3 as well. Still running fine. I also am N-only.
What I'm having trouble figuring out is how the heck to install the Shareport 1.01 for Mac. I unzip the file after downloading and there's no package installer or any sort of instructions. The manual for separate download is Windows only. I'm a fairly advanced Mac user but have no clue.
-
Open sharport folder and go to SHAREPORTutility > SHAREPORTutility The pkg files should be listed there.
-
Open sharport folder and go to SHAREPORTutility > SHAREPORTutility The pkg files should be listed there.
Which one should I run? Where's a ''read me'' file to at least give me some clue before just arbitrarily running something?
Who is running the shop at D-Link software development? It only takes a couple minutes to rustle up a simple text file--probably from a boilerplate template--add in one simple line: ''To install...''
In perusing the latest posts concerning this 1.30 (suddenly re-packaged as ''beta''), I can see I'm one of the ''lucky ones'' who has not had a complete fiasco with the 1.30 firmware update, however, I can understand completely the anger from D-Link DIR-655 owners who have had their routers turned into bricks. You'd think I'd be happy and/or thankful, but if anything, I'm frustrated beyond all belief. I feel like I dodged a bullet out of sheer blind luck.
I read the ''disclaimer'' about not installing if one wanted to back-install to an earlier firmware. I also read the part about wireless ''B'' no longer being supported. I was fine with all that. Nowhere did I read the words ''beta.'' That I am not fine with. If I had read this, I would have stopped cold and waited. I didn't--but I was lucky...very lucky
Honestly, you all really need to get your act together. There's a complete communication breakdown and a broken system of development--maybe more.
You all at D-Link have fumbled once too often in the last months and there's a point when even the most patient lose that virtue and then something you cannot control at all happens: word of mouth--and not good word of mouth either. I expect Tekzilla and/or GeekBrief and/or CNET's Buzz Report will soon be featuring D-Link in their commentary. I already found out that I was not the only one to email them over all this.
Suffice it to say, when my D-Link router expires at some point in the future, I can say with 100-percent certainty that I will buy anything other than D-Link, including the Brooklyn Bridge.
Lastly, I feel guilty in an earlier post I made where I compared the development team at D-Link to the Three Stooges. That was unfair. I'm sorry Moe, Larry and Curley.
Sorry to crescendo so harshly, but you guys are in desperate need of a wake-up call.
-
After looking in the Cosetup.app files, I saw that it is supposed to call SharePortUtility_10_2 or SharePortUtility_10_4. So, I ran SharePortUtility_10_4 and the install worked.
That was the good news.
The bad news is that the SharePort utility doesn't actually work for me. I had to disable my firewall (took a while to figure out that one) to see my printer in the SharePort app. Apparently, the Mac firewall blocks SharePort, but there are no warning messages (like most apps display).
Once I could see the printer, I could connect to it. For about two seconds. It would automatically disconnect with no warning or error messages to be found. If I tried to connect and immediately disconnect, I got a warning that I can't disconnect because the device was not actually connected.
The printer is a HP PSC 2410xi all-in-one, if that matters.
That's my experience... I hope it works better for others.
-
After looking in the Cosetup.app files, I saw that it is supposed to call SharePortUtility_10_2 or SharePortUtility_10_4. So, I ran SharePortUtility_10_4 and the install worked.
That was the good news.
The bad news is that the SharePort utility doesn't actually work for me. I had to disable my firewall (took a while to figure out that one) to see my printer in the SharePort app. Apparently, the Mac firewall blocks SharePort, but there are no warning messages (like most apps display).
Once I could see the printer, I could connect to it. For about two seconds. It would automatically disconnect with no warning or error messages to be found. If I tried to connect and immediately disconnect, I got a warning that I can't disconnect because the device was not actually connected.
The printer is a HP PSC 2410xi all-in-one, if that matters.
That's my experience... I hope it works better for others.
Basically took a chance and did the 10.4 install as well. Same basic problem you have. No warning messages even after I allowed the specific application unlimited access.
Again, with nothing to go on from the D-Link people, waste of time--as usual.
-
Besides the word beta. Should I upgrade it to Beta from NA? Now since you can't revert back and stuck in one way trip?
-
Which one should I run? Where's a ''read me'' file to at least give me some clue before just arbitrarily running something?
Who is running the shop at D-Link software development? It only takes a couple minutes to rustle up a simple text file--probably from a boilerplate template--add in one simple line: ''To install...''
In perusing the latest posts concerning this 1.30 (suddenly re-packaged as ''beta''), I can see I'm one of the ''lucky ones'' who has not had a complete fiasco with the 1.30 firmware update, however, I can understand completely the anger from D-Link DIR-655 owners who have had their routers turned into bricks. You'd think I'd be happy and/or thankful, but if anything, I'm frustrated beyond all belief. I feel like I dodged a bullet out of sheer blind luck.
I read the ''disclaimer'' about not installing if one wanted to back-install to an earlier firmware. I also read the part about wireless ''B'' no longer being supported. I was fine with all that. Nowhere did I read the words ''beta.'' That I am not fine with. If I had read this, I would have stopped cold and waited. I didn't--but I was lucky...very lucky
Honestly, you all really need to get your act together. There's a complete communication breakdown and a broken system of development--maybe more.
You all at D-Link have fumbled once too often in the last months and there's a point when even the most patient lose that virtue and then something you cannot control at all happens: word of mouth--and not good word of mouth either. I expect Tekzilla and/or GeekBrief and/or CNET's Buzz Report will soon be featuring D-Link in their commentary. I already found out that I was not the only one to email them over all this.
Suffice it to say, when my D-Link router expires at some point in the future, I can say with 100-percent certainty that I will buy anything other than D-Link, including the Brooklyn Bridge.
Lastly, I feel guilty in an earlier post I made where I compared the development team at D-Link to the Three Stooges. That was unfair. I'm sorry Moe, Larry and Curley.
Sorry to crescendo so harshly, but you guys are in desperate need of a wake-up call.
Lets try to regain focus.
1) it doesn't brick your router by any means.
2) There was a publishing mistake made with the firmware. We failed to make the notifications large enough to bring these changes to your attention. That being said a small failure has yeilded huge issues. We are working to correct it. To my knowledge there will be a code released that will re-add the B support for those customers that lost it and want it back. I do not have an ETA, so please don't ask. As soon as I have it and it passes basic inspection I'll make it available.
We understand your frustrations and want to correct this over sight asap. Please be pateint while we do so.
-
Besides the word beta. Should I upgrade it to Beta from NA? Now since you can't revert back and stuck in one way trip?
If you don't mind the fact that 802.11B is removed go for it.. The firmware works it just can't be downgraded and removes B. However we are pushing to put B back in 1.31 firmware.
-
Besides the word beta. Should I upgrade it to Beta from NA? Now since you can't revert back and stuck in one way trip?
It's the same firmware...
-
And it's a one way trip
-
One way >
-
meybe give us two firmwares,
One firmware for SPEED also only WPA/WPA2 and 11n/11g only etc
One standard firmware for Compatibility with WEP, WPA, WPA2, 11n/11g/11b only etc
that way people that has no 11b clients can get maximum speed and customers that still got 11b clients can use them to
i know silicon image does this, one firmware with RAID and one with no-RAID, and it can be distributed in the same .zip file ;)
-
I'll probably request that the 1.30 be left as a beta for those othat don't want the B and want the performance, however I doubt seriously if they'd let me post it in the same folder.
-
Lycan,
What's the difference between firmware that has B code, but not enabled (G&N only) and firmware that has no B capability with G&N enabled? Is there a measurable difference?
I don't use any B devices, but I would love to have it there as a "just in case". I always thought that if I just don't enable it, it would not affect my performance.
-
I'm not entirely sure, however I'm being told that radios that do not have the B signal are capable of greater speeds. I need to research this for myself.
-
I'm not entirely sure, however I'm being told that radios that do not have the B signal are capable of greater speeds. I need to research this for myself.
Yes. Without rolling out all kinds of techinaical details: the presence of wireless b, whether it is enabled or not, affects g & n capabilities. This is because g is designed to ensure interoperability with modulation schemes it shares with b. 802.11g uses an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) encoding scheme rather than FHSS or DSSS, which is used by wirless b.This is necessary since 802.11b also uses the same 2.4 band as 802.11g. When both 802.11b and 802.11g clients are connected to an 802.11g router, the performance of the 802.11g clients can suffer. In the worst case, all 802.11g clients will slow down to have the same network speed as the 802.11b clients.
Not having to deal with the b modulation requirements takes a load of. That's about as deep as I'm willing to go now :)
-
Thank you Eddie.
-
Yes, thank you. I guess I figured that if wireless-B is *disabled* in the settings, then the router can completely ignore the wireless-B devices and thus no difference than if the code was simply not there.
I don't fully understand it, but hey, sounds good to me.
:D
jB
-
In theory. Taking from that, it would mean that the DIR just ignores B clients request but still silently advertises the capability or something. I don't care for B but I would like to see a couple more features added back. As well as I stated before, that breaks there WiFi logo certification that's advertised on all there boxes which is going to have reprocusions with the alliance and perhaps civil ones too. The latter being less likely but surely taken advantage of.
-
To my knowledge the B is going to be re-added in the 1.31 for cert purposes.
As for moving forward, WiFi has a seperate logo for NON-B units.
-
I had figured something was up with that Lycan, didn't entirely think DLINK would make such a bold move, maybe less than 20% haha. I had wondered if the alliance had revised requirments not yet published, being ready to abolish their current requirments in regards to B.
-
Yes, thank you. I guess I figured that if wireless-B is *disabled* in the settings, then the router can completely ignore the wireless-B devices and thus no difference than if the code was simply not there.
I don't fully understand it, but hey, sounds good to me.
:D
jB
I'm not into this hardcore wireless coding, but having b + g using the same radio means they remain interconnected. That's the only way the compatibility and shared modulation works according to the specs.
-
Lycan,
Sounds like you have some insight into 1.31 that is being worked. Will that version allow you to go back...say to 1.21 (which is where I am now)? I have avoided 1.30 because of not being able to go back, and the associated concern that if something gets hosed, then I am screwed. 1.30 sounds like a crap shoot to me and I am not that lucky.
-
why cant we downgrade 1.30 > 1.21 etc?, make no sense, even motherboard bioses can be downgraded, so its not hard to enable downgrade :(
having the ability to downgrade is critical, for 99.99% of people, if the 1.30 just messes up with their wireless clients, your out of luck as you cant downgrade to a older firmware that worked!
-
why cant we downgrade 1.30 > 1.21 etc?, make no sense, even motherboard bioses can be downgraded, so its not hard to enable downgrade :(
Not all BIOSses can be downgraded, there are plenty of examples of non-downgradeable BIOS version.
There are some additions to the 1.30 code that impose a code lock. I'm still not sure whether not using that feature will prevent this code lock in 1.30. Waiting for an answer on that :)
-
Really, can somebody explain why firmware can't be downgraded? I know for situations where some firmware doesn't work on some hardware platform, but this is diferent situation. And newer firmware tells that can't be downgraded... If it worked before, why can't work after upgrading to newer version? Erase old version, write new, reboot and that's it. I'm working with many network devices and I never have situation like this.
-
Like I said: the code is locked due to an added feature (will not disclose which :P). Although the whole locking thing is a lot af bogus on a router, I have not yet figured out if not using the feature will make it downgradeable. You can make code lockable so even a firmware upgrade does not alter the code. Good protection though.
-
I agree, but thats decision of D-Link, nothing related to hardware.
-
I agree, but thats decision of D-Link, nothing related to hardware.
Firmware determines what hardware can and cannot do...
-
I agree (again :P), but my point is that D-Link determines from wich point is firmware non-downgradable.
-
Regarding the original track of this posting, there are still two things I would like to know:-
A3 users seem to be having no problem with the router running 1.3, but in other posts A2 users did - are D-Link addressing this problem?
What is happening with fixing the shareport problems for Mac users?
B compatability is important for some people, and the downgrade issue is naturally a matter of concern to most, but I don't see any response to these other issues up to now.
Cheers,
Sandman
-
I have an A2 that had been running the 1.3 since it was first posted and have had no issues.
-
Cool! that is good news indeed! That means the problems with 1.3 some are having may perhaps relate to other programs or the connection environment that the router is running in, not the version of router..
Can I ask, are you using a Mac or PC, and is that the only computer or other device connecting to the router?
-
Regarding the original track of this posting, there are still two things I would like to know:-
A3 users seem to be having no problem with the router running 1.3, but in other posts A2 users did - are D-Link addressing this problem?
What is happening with fixing the shareport problems for Mac users?
B compatability is important for some people, and the downgrade issue is naturally a matter of concern to most, but I don't see any response to these other issues up to now.
Cheers,
Sandman
Other issues will most probably not be addressed in 1.31. It's premature to conclude that 1.30 has an issue with the 1.3x firmware. By the looks of it there's 2 people reporting 'a' problem, which is not really a pointer towards a specific issue caused by the firmware.
And the Mac Shareport issue also cannot be defined as 'an issue' since there are also Mac user that have absolutely no problems.
So it's impossible to report about non-existing issues. Not every 'problem' on the board will qualify as an issue that needs solving by Dlink.
-
Other issues will most probably not be addressed in 1.31. It's premature to conclude that 1.30 has an issue with the 1.3x firmware. By the looks of it there's 2 people reporting 'a' problem, which is not really a pointer towards a specific issue caused by the firmware.
And the Mac Shareport issue also cannot be defined as 'an issue' since there are also Mac user that have absolutely no problems.
So it's impossible to report about non-existing issues. Not every 'problem' on the board will qualify as an issue that needs solving by Dlink.
davevt31's post certainly means 1.30 can run with A2, and I am grateful to read that. I will keep away from the term "issue" in future ;), but let me say that I have read in another D-Link Forum of most people who posted having various problems that they did not have before the upgrade. As always, happy people rarely post, so I understand that the perception of the gravity of the problem can be incorrectly magnified - then again, that seems to be the way of the world - as in when CNN describes "mass protests in Cities across country X", and if you add up the total number of protesters, it is in the low hundreds.
Regarding the Shareport issues for Mac, well it must then be the periphery devices trying to be added, so maybe we need a clarification of the capabilities of devices for them to work with Shareport - i.e. that a printer must be capable of operating in such-and-such mode, or something like that. The perception I got was that any printer or Mass storage device could be successfully plugged into the USB slot of the 655 from now on, but that is not the case.
OK, I hope that sets my thoughts out more clearly.
-
The A2 has 3 PC's connected, 1 wired and 2 wireless. Wireless: 1 laptop that is not on at this time and a desktop (DWA-552 with ANT24-0230) that is currently connected at 240 according to the wireless page on the router. Also have a network printer that is wired.
Have have run every beta that there has been with this router and it has been rock solid. I believe the A2 hardware seem to have the least amount of issues when compared to the other models.
-
Thanks for this - good to hear the A2 version seems solid, as it is the one I have! :)
Cheers,
Sandman
-
Discussions about Shareport revealed that the printerdriver is an important factor in working/not working with SharePort. And some manufacturers really are creative with those ;)
-
Hey d-link guys let me just remind you of something. People have NINTENDO DS, which is 802.11b. By the way the portable with most users worldwide. Will you forget us?
-
Have a look in the posts. keyword: 1.31.