Why is it so difficult to connect wirelessly with a Vista PC?

On 26 Feb, 05:40, Another me <Anothe...@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:

> DHCP (that was my answer) I recently bought a laptop with Vista. I
> originally was able to connect directly, via ethernet. I took it out to the
> bookstore and connected wireless, but when I returned home, I could not get
> back on to the internet. SO, after a run-around with tech support and
> searching help files I decided to get a wireless router thinking that it
> simply got hung up with the wireless connection. THEN, during setup, I was
> furious to be asked for a network connection in order to set up the router.
> Well, I remembered one tech suggesting to find the DHCP setup. I found the
> help page, found the setting, changed it to obtain IP automatically, and was
> back in business. Hope this helps. Good luck.
>
> "Papa" wrote:

> > I am talking about the difficulty in establishing wireless connections with
> > Vista-based computers. I have 2 new laptops that use the Vista Home Premium
> > operating system, and have gone round and round with each of them in
> > attempting to get them to connect wirelessly with my home network.

>

> > I finally muddled through with one of the laptops and got it to connect -
> > after an entire day of trying a multitude of procedures. Don't ask me what I
> > did to finally get it to work - just way too many steps to remember. Now I'm
> > trying to get the other one connected wirelessly.

>

> > What a bear of a task! For example, why can't I turn on "network discovery"?
> > The procedure outlined in HELP just doesn't work, and it refuses to turn on.

>

> > My home network router is WEP encrypted using 128 bits and connects to other
> > PCs wirelessly just fine. However, those other PCs are using Windows XP.

>

> > I thought the task would be easy because both laptops immediately recognized
> > the network (they display the correct network name), but they just won't
> > connect. The signal strength to each laptop is excellent.

>

> > Sorry for the rant. This is so FRUSTRATING !!

Yes, I agree. This is extremely frustrating and silly. But we forge
ahead.

It seems that some wireless routers work with Vista, others do not.
Check out this response:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/mic...64af986b987dc4

Also, search in the same group by other posts by that same author and
you will find other threads about this issue. Thanks for the info,
Bill. I did not want to try to edit the registry so I tried other
things. Here are some new details from my experience this weekend.

I am in the UK so some models may be different from the US or
elsewhere.

I tried a "Net-Lynx Wireless ADSL 2+ Router (WAR25TC)". Connecting to
the wired ports, it works fine with DHCP. Connecting via wireless
from my linux laptop, it works fine with DHCP (I tried with and
without WEP). Connecting from a new Dell Inspiron 640m running Vista
Home Premium (OEM), the wireless network is seen but connection is for
local only. Vista does not seem to get any IP or DNS info. Also,
even though it says it is connected locally, going to the router setup
page via http://10.0.0.2 is not possible. Usually, if you cannot get
beyond the router you can at least see you LAN. It does not seem to be
the case.

I also have a new Linksys Broadband Router (WRT54GL). I plugged its
input to an open wired port on the Net-Lynx router. The Linksys
automatically configured itself via DHCP and was then broadcasting the
second wireless network in my room. Vista could see that and
connected to it successfully, web and all, via DHCP.

So it looks like there is some difference between the DHCP of the Net-
Lynx and the Linksys. I realize this is a different behavior from the
previous post. Perhaps, 'Another Me' has a good (Linksys or other)
router.

I assume that the Net-Lynx is acting as a modem and that any ADSL
modem would work and, therefore, the Linksys router would work with
Vista. Next, we may try a new modem to make sure of this.

I did get Vista to recognize the Net-Lynx router by using a static
IP. I turned off DHCP from the router setup page (http://10.0.0.2,
even though the documentation refers to 192.168.1.x; you can bring up
a command (DOS) prompt in Vista/Windows and type "ipconfig /all" to
see all of your connection info from a properly connected machine.
Fortunately, I had a desktop connected via cable to the router so I
could do all of this while monkeying with Vista on the laptop).

Anyway, I disabled DHCP from the router, which means on each wireless
client (i.e., the Vista laptop) you have to manually configure a
static IP address and DNS (domain name server). I chose 10.0.0.10 as
the address, since my desktop's IP was 10.0.0.4. Presumably, any
number at 10.0.0.5 and above would work. Netmask is 255.0.0.0,
gateway and DNS are 10.0.0.2 (the IP of the router itself).

This worked. I was using WEP but I think that makes no difference.

Upshot again: DHCP is different on some routers, static IP seems to
work. This is great at home, since once you have it working, it just
works. But the idea of a laptop and a wireless router is
convenience. If you set your laptop for static and then go to an
internet cafe or public network, you will mostly find DHCP access and
will need to change your Vista machine to DHCP and then change it back
to static at home. Also, if anyone else comes to your house and wants
to use their laptop with your wireless router, they will have to
change their setup to static. Both of these are annoyances so I think
the best idea is to get a router that Vista recognizes the DHCP. It
saves grief in the end. If you buy from a local shop, ask them this
point-blank and then ask if you can return the router if the DHCP is
not seen by Vista.

Apologies for the wordiness. I was doing the above for my in-laws.
Is this issue something that would be fixed via a Vista update in the
near-future that would be a simple web-click doable by non-experts (my
in-laws)? I am not familiar with Windows and their updates (I use
Linux).

Good luck, all.

Obviously Vista has flaws. I'm going to just stick with XP for a couple of
years, and postpone buying anything new until then. It makes no sense to pay
big bucks for new hardware and then be an unpaid Beta tester.