NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
Can't get Time Machine to work with Nighthawk
Mac OS Mojave 10.14.3
Nighthawk(R) X4S R7800
Router Firmware Version V1.0.2.62 (just updated)
I bought a new 1TB Seagate SSD external HD. I formatted it according to the instructions low...
An example of how much Netgear likes their customers. Remove the features that folks bought the router for. Don't even announce it. Just let them find it out the hard way by either reading the notes with the firmware or installing the firmware and finding out things are no longer available. What a way to NOT run a company.
I was never a fan of USB storage on a router from way back so I have had a NAS for years. Latest QNAP backs my MACbook up without issue and I have proven I can restore from it.
What I don't understand about this whole deal is 'why' prior customers had to be the ones to suffer? There surely were ways around doing this? Such as:
- 2 individual Build lines:
- For prior users before the inclusion of Armour. I also assume the features are also 'mature' and rarely needs fixing.
- One that includes Armour but not features removed to make room for Armour.
I don't know the actual process (both management thought and coding support) that made this happen. However, once they stripped out the features, I assume:
- They have the base router functions in a block of code.
- They then added in Armour, and since they probably didn't own the product, they did get a BINARY from the owner (Bitdefender). Probably need some added calles to Armour in the base router function code that could be handled easily depending on what was built or a two-pass method to build both versions at once.
- Features removed are independent from the base router functions, that is they have nothing to do with router base functions (DHCP, Wireless operation, etc.)
Assuming the above is correct, having 2 build lines would be reasonable. Also assuming that the core features they removed are stable and rarely require fixes. In that case, the build could actually have 3 parts, the base router code (with maybe of IF/THEN's to go around some calls for each part not in the base or block calls for some things not in one or the other 2nd parts to be built/included. Sure, there might be added final testing needed, but with what appears to be the ability of NG's testing of new f/w being, at best minimal, it can't be much cost/overhead to the process.
That build process would allow old users and new users the ability to include on THEIR routers what functions they wanted. It would have shown (to me at least) NG's RESPECT and COMMITMENT to ALL users of their products.
Yes, I over simplified it, but the basic method could have been done, if one wanted too.
Please stop flooding, it's absolutely real problem, if you can't tell anything about it, please don't fill thread with useless comments, real help can be only in a way if you will test what you are posting, and not in the way "look to the list of recommnded disk manufactures" and so, you sure this will help? NOT. People here already wasted hours in surfing internet trying to solve
IrvSp wrote:What I don't understand about this whole deal is 'why' prior customers had to be the ones to suffer? There surely were ways around doing this? Such as:
- 2 individual Build lines:
- For prior users before the inclusion of Armour. I also assume the features are also 'mature' and rarely needs fixing.
- One that includes Armour but not features removed to make room for Armour.
I don't know the actual process (both management thought and coding support) that made this happen. However, once they stripped out the features, I assume:
- They have the base router functions in a block of code.
- They then added in Armour, and since they probably didn't own the product, they did get a BINARY from the owner (Bitdefender). Probably need some added calles to Armour in the base router function code that could be handled easily depending on what was built or a two-pass method to build both versions at once.
- Features removed are independent from the base router functions, that is they have nothing to do with router base functions (DHCP, Wireless operation, etc.)
Assuming the above is correct, having 2 build lines would be reasonable. Also assuming that the core features they removed are stable and rarely require fixes. In that case, the build could actually have 3 parts, the base router code (with maybe of IF/THEN's to go around some calls for each part not in the base or block calls for some things not in one or the other 2nd parts to be built/included. Sure, there might be added final testing needed, but with what appears to be the ability of NG's testing of new f/w being, at best minimal, it can't be much cost/overhead to the process.
That build process would allow old users and new users the ability to include on THEIR routers what functions they wanted. It would have shown (to me at least) NG's RESPECT and COMMITMENT to ALL users of their products.
Yes, I over simplified it, but the basic method could have been done, if one wanted too.
REAL problem.