NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
Update V1.9.1.12 Netgear officially announcing 'Improvement in wireless connection Stability'
Just downloaded the latest release V1.9.1.12 and noticed in the official release notes from Netgear it states as fix 'Continious Improvement in wireless connection stability'..Dosent spefically makre...
Pete,
Thank You.
I stand corrected. I only learned of ASUS Hive in the past week. You are correct. It has been renamed Lyra. Thank You.
You are also correct that the release date has been moved to Q3. Something "Maybe" Orbi should have done.
But, what you shared with me tonight, only made me smile (with sadness) that the websites/forums with those talking about Lyra, are also talking about Orbi and how it will compare. But one common topic I JUST READ was people who chose Orbi because they didn't want to wait for Lyra, is how many problems they are having with Orbi. Seems Orbi's problems are not limited to this Netgear thread.
However, I must disagree with you concerning your comments about "not accepting Orbi as it was designed". Contrary to your comments, I FULLY accept Orbi as it was designed. Steering and ALL! But, I think I am not alone, not just with Orbi, but with ANY product I purchase that it should WORK AS DESIGNED.
I am not asking Netgear for a re-design. Only that they:
1. Accept that Orbi has severe problems which MAY (I believe) be related to Steering.
2. Accept that Auto Updates may not CURRENTLY be the best option for Orbi given Netgear's poor track record for quality updates.
3. Allow users to disable some of these features that clearly are not compatible with all customers.
Imagine if your Car OEM forced your AC to be locked at 75 degrees. WHY? Because they feel that all thier customers should fit within their perceived opinion. And they based this decision on countless months of research. And, for the most part, they are correct. Most are happy. But then there are those who want 70, or 80 degrees. But they have no option. And to add salt to that pain, the AC is malfunctioning and sometimes doesn't work, and sometimes it feels colder or warmer than it should, etc, etc.
Are you saying that I should accept the vehicle as designed because I knew it was locked at 75 degrees, even though the AC does not properly maintain that temp?
Are you saying I am asking too much for the OEM to unlock the temp control and allow me to set a desired temp for my needs, at least until they FIX the AC problem?
If this is what you are saying, then my reply would be, "Please give me a refund". WHY? Because I did accept your 75 degree lock-in (even if I didn't agree with it), but it doesn't work as you promised (designed it to). And now you are telling me that must tolerate your malfunctioning AC for MONTHS until you fix your mistake(s), rather than unlocking the temp control and allowing me to find what works for me.
Hard work, or not, by the Dev team. Doesn't matter. I have 20 years of I.T. Background with engineering and architecture. If something I designed and implemented was causing massive Helpdesk calls. My bosses would be all over me. And if I told them, Deal with it, until I fix it...And this went on for MONTHS. Ummm...I don't think I would have my job much longer.
The better response would have been for me to say, "Yes, something isn't working right. Please allow me time to find and fix the problem. But, in the mean time, here is a workaround that will allow users to adjust settings to thier needs allow for less Helpdesk calls".
Most companies I have worked with would accept my answer. Not yours...
Hi Flash008,
to to address your three points:
1. This is obviously accepted as they both have written in the forums that they are working on it, as well is providing multiple beta firmwares working with customers to try to deeply resolve all underlying issues (such a complex set of different behaviors usually have more than one root cause, as I'm sure you have experienced with your long track record of working with "IT")
2. This may already be addressed by not rolling out the current beta half baked, it seems they are trying to be very careful to get it right this time. Another good approach is staged rollouts which I hope they already employ as it is a best practice for any large scale rollout of software.
3. They do support that for things where it makes sense, like beam forming and similar settings. But as pointed out, steering is kind of a fundamental property for a wifi system with this kind of topology and even though it may well be the problem, I'd rather see the engineering team analyze the root causes properly and then make an assessment of what is needed to fix it fundamentally.
I also have have a long history of architecting and developing large scale software systems for over 25 years and the behavior I see here more closely correlates to that the issue was not properly escalated until fairly recently and that proper engineering resources only recently was assigned to work on and resolve this properly. Likely due to finishing of the new line of smaller devices. Thus, I assist in the troubleshooting actively and give them the benefit of the doubt for one-two more firmware releases as I think they now finally are working on it actively and seriously. (I have reasons to believe a significant improvement will happen with the next public update, at least for my environment)
If it is not resolved after that though, I'd look at options, but I am very hopeful now actually.