Re: Netgear WNHDE111 wireless bridges - lying toerags

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 04:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
Ric <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> If anyone's thinking of buying a Netgear WNHDE111 to give them a wired
> bridge to an 802.11n wireless network, then don't. Despite the name,
> they only bridge between 2 WNHDE111's - they won't bridge to any other
> existing wireless network. Bastards.

But you read the product overview and saw "Wireless bridge requires at
least one additional WNHDE111 unit", so you knew that before you bought
it. No?

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
Ric Harris <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On 20 Aug, 13:10, Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 04:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > Ric <infobub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If anyone's thinking of buying a Netgear WNHDE111 to give them a
> > > wired bridge to an 802.11n wireless network, then don't. *Despite
> > > the name, they only bridge between 2 WNHDE111's - they won't
> > > bridge to any other existing wireless network. *Bastards.
> >
> > But you read the product overview and saw "Wireless bridge requires
> > at least one additional WNHDE111 unit", so you knew that before you
> > bought it. *No?
>
> I take your point (and you're right, I guess) but I am irritated that
> if I pick up something claiming to be an 802.11n wireless bridge that
> their definition of this is "buy two of them"

Has 802.11n actually been ratified yet, or are they still at the "we're
all using Draft 2 so it's sort of a standard" stage?

On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:00:53 -0700 (PDT), Ric Harris <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> I take your point (and you're right, I guess) but I am irritated that
> if I pick up something claiming to be an 802.11n wireless bridge that
> their definition of this is "buy two of them"

It takes two devices to make a wireless bridge between two wired segments,
so your complaint is that you can't make a bridge from two half-bridges
bought from different suppliers - something that Netgear never implied let
alone claimed.

Is there any specification that could allow different manufacturers to
achieve more general compatibility and compliance?

Tony

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 01:12:09 -0700 (PDT), Ric Harris <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> On 21 Aug, 08:47, "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-m...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:00:53 -0700 (PDT), Ric Harris <infobub...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I take your point (and you're right, I guess) but I am irritated that
>>> if I pick up something claiming to be an 802.11n wireless bridge that
>>> their definition of this is "buy two of them"
>>
>> It takes two devices to make a wireless bridge between two wired segments,
>> so your complaint is that you can't make a bridge from two half-bridges
>> bought from different suppliers - something that Netgear never implied let
>> alone claimed.
>>
>> Is there any specification that could allow different manufacturers to
>> achieve more general compatibility and compliance?
>>
>> Tony
>
> My point is that it seems reasonable to assume that a device sold as a
> wireless bridge would allow you to wirelessly connect it to another
> wireless bridge or another wireless network, and provide a wired
> ethernet port as a result. This device does just that, *but only
> between two identical netgear devices of this type*. I repeat,
> bastards.

Just because your own misunderstanding was "reasonable to assume" does not
make someone else a bastard. Next time you had best read the specs because
you are clearly unqualified to make reliable technical assumptions.

Tony