Page 2 of 2

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 3:42 am
by Thorn
liteFun wrote:I think you mean Netstumbler graph? Actually, I have found it means a lot for me.
I took a walk on yard and found that bars droppped down to about -80dB and then Vista couldn't connect to AP any more :)
So those graphs are telling some information to me if I'm too far away from my AP, no need to wonder why that stupid Windows won't connect...

What beakmyn was trying to tell you is that the information is invalid from an Radio Frequency (RF) viewpoint. Without using a supported card, that information is pure little more than and educated guess, and is missing half the information that is valued as important by people who know and understand RF.

liteFun wrote:My point was that NetStumbler works with Windows Vista and Atheros-based wi-fi (with NDIS5.1) for me (maybe it could work for you too?), nothing more, and for that screenshot I didn't mean anything like "look my Vista how candy it is and what wonderful gadgets i have there!!!", no. I just like to see some minor things just on my screen bigger than they appear on taskbar, just for quick look on the fly...

Our point has always been that if might or might not work for Vista, but that the OS is unsupported. An unsupported OS means the information it renders is therefore suspect, and that do all sorts of odd things including die suddenly without warning.

The members here have seen this whole issue previously when WinXP was released. There were all manner of problems in getting prior versions of NetStumbler to run under XP (which had been designed for Win9x and Win2000). An ENORMOUS amount of bandwidth and forum server space was consumed in dealing with the anguished screams and sobbing of the early adopters of XP. Before the current version of NetStumbler was released, it all boiled one thing in the end: There was no way to accurately predict what combinations of the new OS and cards might or might not work.

This same thing applies to XP, and why we not going through this again.