Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[CrunchyDoodle]

So far, I see no issues with the 1.20 firmware and my DIR-655 with A3 hardware. What I do see is that the wireless speeds reported in the wireless status seem to have been calculated by an engineer and not a marketing person. No more of that fake 270Mbps to my two DAP-1555 boxes. With no real change in performance, the wireless speeds are reported at like 39Mbps or 45Mbps. This is more realistic with the transfer rates I see. I think now I might try to improve the antenna placement. So much for that silly 300Mbps stuff.     

Bye.     

[Lycan]

Crunchy,
The fact that you're seeing 39Mbps is not good. The router should still report the connection speed not the transfer rates.
What 802.11 mode are you running?

[EddieZ]

Must say that the same difference between 1.11 (and beta) and 1.20 is noticable. From the router's point of view the reported connection speeds are less (worse) than in 1.11 while nothing else has changed (not an inch). Connecting in N with a Centrino laptop (so max. 130 Mbps)

[Lycan]

That seems to be the trend here, thing is we're not able to get it to happen in house.
Truth is I've got some beta (no i cna't hand this one out) that has a 40channel width only mode. This will FORCE 300 MBPS. Then we'll see whats up. BOOYAH!!!!!11!!1.

[CrunchyDoodle]

Wireless Radio : Enabled

802.11 Mode : Mixed 802.11n and 802.11g

Channel Width : 20MHz

Channel : 1

WISH : Active

Wi-Fi Protected Setup : Enabled/Configured

I don't remember if it was reported quite like this in 1.11 beta. I did a system save, then loaded it after the firmware update.

SSID MAC Address IP Address Mode Rate (Mbps) Signal (%)
OwlNet2 00075C50E3C5 192.168.0.199 802.11g 11 40
OwlNet2 001CF06F29B9 192.168.0.197 802.11n (2.4GHz) 78 68
OwlNet2 001CF06F2912 192.168.0.195 802.11n (2.4GHz) 26 50

Here is the speed report. The first client is a digital picture frame, and the other two are DAP-1555 units. One is about 15 feet through a bedroom wall, and the other is twice that far down a half a level through two walls.

Bye.     

Crunchy,
The fact that you're seeing 39Mbps is not good. The router should still report the connection speed not the transfer rates.
What 802.11 mode are you running?

[bspvette86]

That seems to be the trend here, thing is we're not able to get it to happen in house.
Truth is I've got some beta (no i cna't hand this one out) that has a 40channel width only mode. This will FORCE 300 MBPS. Then we'll see whats up. BOOYAH!!!!!11!!1.

<Sarcasm>
WOW!  I can't wait for 300 MBps!!!  That is much better than the 300 Mbps that is advertised on the box.
</Sarcasm>
Watch your CASE.  Some people MIGHT think THEY can REALLY get 300 MBPS instead of 300 Mbps.... ;o)

FYI, I have NEVER had a problem getting 300Mbps connection rate with my DIR-655 connecting to DWA-652 cards....  Can't say the same with other chipset cards....

Cheers!
BV

[CrunchyDoodle]

With my notebook on I get this:

Wireless Radio : Enabled

802.11 Mode : Mixed 802.11n and 802.11g

Channel Width : 40MHz

Channel : 1

Secondary Channel : 5

WISH : Active

Wi-Fi Protected Setup : Enabled/Configured

Guest Wi-Fi Protected Setup : Enabled/Not Configured

And much different speeds:

OwlNet2 00075C50E3C5 192.168.0.199 802.11g 36 38
OwlNet2 001CF06F29B9 192.168.0.197 802.11n (2.4GHz) 162 60
OwlNet2 001CF06F2912 192.168.0.195 802.11n (2.4GHz) 27 44
OwlNet2 0013E83C17F7 192.168.0.191 802.11n (2.4GHz) 78 78

It does seem realistic now. Not like it used to be with near 300 Mbps reported speed, but otherwise measured transfer rates that were much less.

Bye.     

[Tsumeone]

That seems to be the trend here, thing is we're not able to get it to happen in house.
Truth is I've got some beta (no i cna't hand this one out) that has a 40channel width only mode. This will FORCE 300 MBPS. Then we'll see whats up. BOOYAH!!!!!11!!1.

I think one problem here is the overreaching "good neighbor" feature.

For example, if my neighbor were using any one of the three faultily-designed DI-624 routers I owned, it would reboot for no reason every 30 seconds to 5 minutes.  Since that's a "booting up AP" my 40MHz would never EVER activate just because of his defective product.

[EddieZ]

That seems to be the trend here, thing is we're not able to get it to happen in house.
Truth is I've got some beta (no i cna't hand this one out) that has a 40channel width only mode. This will FORCE 300 MBPS. Then we'll see whats up. BOOYAH!!!!!11!!1.

Wouldn't be much use with the limited Intel Wireless N  I have 

Perhaps the issue does not appear in lab circumstances. Router upstairs, laptop downstairs: Right now the router reports 72% and 117 Mbps, the laptop signal monitor has 98% and 130 Mbps. Perhaps there is a discreprency between the strengths that are measured at both devices. If the newer firmware measures something else (receive or send) then it did in 1.11 that would explain a lot

[Alemaker]

LAN printing is WAY slower with v 1.20-had o go back to 1.11- printing to a network printer on my LAN with all Vista machines is painful with v 1.20

[Geraner]

LAN printing is WAY slower with v 1.20-had o go back to 1.11- printing to a network printer on my LAN with all Vista machines is painful with v 1.20

I had exactly the same problem. When back to 1.11 and everything was fine.

[EddieZ]

I had exactly the same problem. When back to 1.11 and everything was fine.

Quite strange and curious as I am: I flashed back and forth a couple of times to see if this would happen with the new beta firmware but I don't seem able to  reproduce this behaviour.
Would be a good thing to specify some more details on your network configs?

[rmmeli]

I tried to install this firmware version. I am currently on 1.04. I did not realise how far back I was. I had the same problem other people have reported, that the e-mail updates do not work. Anyway, I saved my configuration before upgrading (I am hardware A1/A2 as reported in the dlink console). I upgraded and it seemed to lose all mu configuration settings. I then tried to upload my saved configuration file but it just kept giving me a message saying it was busy. So I was stuck with a router with all default setting and could not get it to my settings without manually doing it. I reloaded 1.04 and my saved config file and got back to where I was before I started.
My question - should 1.20 completely lose my settings and why cannot it read my old configuration file?

[viperware]

I have a similar issue. The .gws file I saved from FW 1.10 will not load on 1.20. In fact, it won't load on 1.10 or 1.11 either. I have a slough of complicated settings. So the idea would be to save a file with these settings that you could reload when you upgrade the firmware. I saved the file assuming I would be able to restore the settings it saved, (if at least on the same firmware I saved it on). The file is corrupted. I saved a different file with minimal settings and it worked fine. This defeats the purpose. If you have minimal settings you can go through and change it back manually with ease. I have complicated settings which I cannot change back manually with ease and I cant load the darn gatweay settings. I even tried a .gws file I saved 3 months ago and it comes up with the same errors. Basically, the DIR-655 saves a corrupted .gws file if you have too many custom parameters! I need to somehow send my .gws file to dlink so on the next firmware revision, I can restore my settings. Or give me a way to somehow decrypt my .gws file so I can get my settings. Dangerous to supply a backup feature that does not work! Be careful when upgrading! Write down your settings if they are complicated, it is likely your .gws file will be corrupted! Boooo!
-viperware-

[rmmeli]

It does seem ridiculous that a backup utility doesn't actually work and there is no warning. Luckily in my case I still had firmware 1.04 on my machine so I could go back to that. Thanks D-Link...duh!