PDA

View Full Version : Did SD change wireless card suppliers?



Mark Lanctot
2006-03-29, 11:32
Message deleted, I went too far. Sorry to everyone involved. :-(

In fact if the thread can be deleted, please do so.

(Ever wish you could turn back time, or ever wish you could literally crawl under a rock?)

snarlydwarf
2006-03-29, 11:45
http://www.atheros.com/news/TPLINK.html

So I'd guess it's still an Atheros chipset.

It may have always been a TP-Link card, in fact. The layout seems a bit different, but that may be that TP-Link re-engineered the card.

dean
2006-03-29, 11:58
Hi,

Midway through the life of the Squeezebox2 we did switch to a new
wireless card. That new card is also used in Squeezebox v3.

Both the old and new card use an Atheros chipset, although the newer
card uses a different chip than the older card (AR5212 vs AR2413).

In theory, the drivers should be compatible and everything should
have just worked, but what we found was that there were subtle
differences that caused some new incompatibilities with the new chip.

We're working hard on resolving them. Firmware versions above 28
included a new driver (along with a significant revision to the whole
OS in Squeezebox) and some issues were resolved with versions 29 in
the nightly pre-release versions. We continue to find and fix
compatibility issues as quickly as we can.

In fact, last night's nightly releases a new firmware version, 36,
was updated that included some significant compatibility fixes.
Chris will be posting details on his preliminary testing on the beta
forum shortly with a call to folks who are still seeing compatibility
issues to download and try the new version.

Thanks for your patience on this, we're doing the best we can.

-dean

kdf
2006-03-29, 12:01
it's all in how you pose the question...
By making a point about embarassment, you actually create the emotive
suggestion that SD should somehow be embarassed by this.

Whether or not they changed anything is completely beside the point.
There are plenty of valid reasons to do so: vendor issues, cost
issues, leadtime issues just to name a few. The support and goals are
the same. The bugs will get fixed, and there is little use in creating
some kind of conspiracy theory behind it all (tho as always, you are
perfectly free to do so)

I recall mention of several chipsets over the years. I'm sure Sean
has posted at leas a couple times mentioning a change in chipset
somewhere in the SB2/3 production. However, I'll leave it to you to
decide if it is important enough to take the time to search for it.

-k

JJZolx
2006-03-29, 12:40
In fact, last night's nightly releases a new firmware version, 36,
was updated that included some significant compatibility fixes.
Chris will be posting details on his preliminary testing on the beta
forum shortly with a call to folks who are still seeing compatibility
issues to download and try the new version.

Thanks for your patience on this, we're doing the best we can.
I've said it before and I'll say it again here: Slim Devices needs a mechanism for releasing new firmware independant of SlimServer. You have many people that have no willingness to run beta versions of the server, yet if a new firmware might help them resolve connection issues I'm sure they'd be all for it.

Moreover, if the firmware is the sole reason that's keeping SlimServer 6.2.2 from being released, this is even more reason to not tie the firmware to the software. Version 6.2.2 has been languishing for the better part of two months while you slowly work out the kinks in the firmware. This makes absolutely no sense. The communication and streaming protocols should be firmly established by now (one would hope) such that the server and firmware shouldn't have to continue to be so firmly locked together. IMO, it's really hurting your overall software quality to continue this practice.

dean
2006-03-29, 12:55
On Mar 29, 2006, at 11:40 AM, JJZolx wrote:
> I've said it before and I'll say it again here: Slim Devices needs a
> mechanism for releasing new firmware independant of SlimServer. You
> have many people that have no willingness to run beta versions of the
> server, yet if a new firmware might help them resolve connection
> issues
> I'm sure they'd be all for it.
I understand your frustration, but we're going to stick to keeping
server and player software releases in sync.

While it's possible (and documented in these forums) to run one
version of slimserver with a different version of the firmware with a
little downloading and text file editing, it's not a recommended and
not a supported configuration. We don't have the resources to test
and support a matrix of firmware versions vs. server version.

mbonsack
2006-03-29, 13:06
You have many people that have no willingness to run beta versions of the server, yet if a new firmware might help them resolve connection issues I'm sure they'd be all for it.

Or, as is more likely the case currently, you have those who wish to have the benefits of 6.2.2 on the Slimserver side without the headaches of the "FW > 28" issues. I lobbied on another recent thread to just have 6.2.2 release with FW 28 and reserve 6.2.3 for whenever the new FW is ready. That would enable the general user community be able to take adavantage of the many 6.2.2 server fixes without worrying about whether the FW would introduce new issues (stuttering, etc). It would also provide reviewers who might desire or be obligated to review only production code to obtain the latest sound and functionality available, which we know has undergone significant improvement since 6.2.1.

Your proposal of separating the two makes more sense than releasing a 6.2.2 for Slim and 6.2.3 for the firmware, as it is much less confusing.

Marc Sherman
2006-03-30, 06:29
Mark Lanctot wrote:
> I've been debating posting this for about a month now because I wanted
> to avoid embarassing Slim. However, this is looking increasingly more
> evident to me...
[snip]
>
> Now my SB3 works fine with my new Linksys WRT54G router, so I'm not
> complaining, and I certainly don't want to embarrass SD, but it's just
> making more and more sense.
>
> I do not want to question Slim's decision to reduce part costs.
[snip]
>
> Given that this forum itself is operated by SD, I feel bad for saying
> this, but it explains a lot I think. If anyone from Slim feels I have
> unfairly "called them out" or unjustly accused them of cutting corners
> I will quickly delete this thread, or they may wish to do so - I won't
> be upset, all that I ask is they don't ban me.
[snip]
>
> OK, here we go, pressing "Submit New Thread", hopefully the sky doesn't
> fall down and hopefully Sean, Dean, Dan, Chris and the others won't hate
> me. :-(

You really must have a low opinion of the SD management if you think all
that stuff is necessary. Your questions about the wireless hardware are
perfectly legitimate*, and shouldn't need these disclaimers and
apologies at all.

* Though they are redundant; this has been covered before on this forum
before:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=18923#post70370

- Marc