access violation at address 004075e5 module WUSB54G4.exe of address 00000368

I have 2 new Dell PC's in a remote building, I have a WAP54g there. I installed the 1st WUSB54g and got that pc on line ,no problem, however ,When I installed the second one I started getting "access violation at address 004075e5 module WUSB54G4.exe of address 00000368.

The first one was up and running for several days, no problem. However when I added the second one this started on both computers, Dell PC's. Also I need to share a printer between these 2 PC's and that won't work..2nd pc does'nt see the shared printer..However I can see the shared printer from my office pc in the other building..

Worked with Linksys support, they told me the driver was corrupted..I don't think so..

Thanks Ted O.

Reply to
Houndog
Loading thread data ...

And why not? The driver is just a program executable and it could have been laid down on the computer incorrectly. A DLL that it laid down and is using could not have been registered correctly. It's obvious by the message above, there is some kind of program issue with WUSB54G4.exe.

Have you uninstall ed are reinstalled the driver?

Duane :)

Reply to
Duane Arnold

Yes, D/L driver from linksys, reinstalled etc.. If one pc is shutdown/off and reboot the other no accesse voil. etc,, and if that one is shutdown the other boots just fine ,no access voilations,, its just when both computers are up, both get access violations..

Reply to
Houndog

Are these NT based O/S(s)?

Duane :)

Reply to
Duane Arnold

"Houndog" hath wroth:

I'll assume Windoze XP Home.

Looks like you're not the only one with the problem: |

formatting link
|
formatting link
|
formatting link
few suggestions but no resolution.

One of the above points to this article: |

formatting link
a try, I guess...

Only when both PC's are running? Are you sure? Very odd. If so, it sorta kinda maybe smells like a bogus error message caused by a MAC address conflict. Run: ipconfig /all | find "Physical" on both machines and compare the MAC addresses. If they're both the same, we have a problem. Kinda unlikely but you never know until you test.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

MAC addys are different.. Thanks, Ted O.

Reply to
Houndog

Wonder what the odds are on two MACs from the same vendor to the same customer matching like that (not saying it isn't worth checking as you say). Am I more likely to win the $300 Million Powerball Wednesday or Houndog having to matching MACs (my odds are about 1 in 155 Million)?

fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.

Reply to
Rico

rico snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Rico) hath wroth:

I never bet on anything less than a sure thing.

Once upon a time, I had to deliver 22 Windoze ME workstations to a customer. No problem. I would just setup one station, clone the hard disk, and do the necessary tweaks. Everything worked just fine until I plugged more than one workstation in the the test network. Unstable would be an understatement. 4 hours of blood, sweat, and RTFM, but networking was still non-functional. Even NETBEUI didn't work.

Then, I noticed that: ARP -a would show only one MAC and IP address, no matter how many machines I had plugged in. Hmmmm... Eventually, I discovered that the original workstation NIC driver imbedded the MAC address of the NIC card in the registry. Windoze would use the registry value instead of the MAC address directly from the card.

Incidentally, I ocassionally see a few creative MAC addresses on no-name imported NIC cards of all types from vendors too cheap to register their products with the IEEE.

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

How did you resolve the problem ? I'm still dead in the water.

Reply to
Houndog

"Houndog" hath wroth:

The duplicated MAC address problem had nothing to do with your error message. It was in answer to the comment that MAC address duplication is rather improbable. I solved it by finding the line in the Windoze registry with the MAC address and deleted it. Windoze then defaulted to the real MAC address.

Did you try the link from Microsoft in my first posting? What happened?

There was a suggestion that you try using Windoze Wireless Zero Config in the 3 articles from DSLReports I listed. Did you try that? If so, what happened?

Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Yes ,I downloaded latest driver, reinstalled,, no difference..I am using WZC.. Thanks again for the replys.. Ted O.

Reply to
Houndog

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.