Is there any way of forcing it to Acquire Network Address?

Stick around a little longer, they come and go :)
Reply to
David Taylor
Loading thread data ...
Thanks for this. The computer though already had SP2 when I bought it (it's only 6 months old) and the Wifi was working well at the beginning (and progressively got worse).
However, fingers crossed and I may have sussed the problem... interference from putting the Bluetooth toggle into a different USB port.....
Reply to
Tristán White
[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
A cheap 1st generation Bluetooth adapter can indeed interfere with Wi-Fi. If that's what you have, and you can't unplug the Bluetooth while using your Wi-Fi, get an adapter with Bluetooth 1.1, which is more Wi-Fi friendly.
formatting link
is a good source.
Reply to
John Navas
[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
That depends on how the router is being managed, not *and* in the future. A static address should be used *only* when it's been assigned by the admin of the router for that particular client.
Murphy's Law says different. You have no way of knowing how the router will work in the future.
It's OK if and only if the neighbor actually issues him a static address.
Proper troubleshooting.
Maybe. Maybe not. Even so, interference could still be an issue.
As I wrote, this could also be a router issue. Or a client configuration issue.
That assumes it's just a signal problem. It might well not be.
To what end? It's probably not a DHCP issue.
Properly troubleshoot the problem. Try other DHCP clients. Test closer to the AP. Check for other networks and for other sources of interference.
Experience teaches that quick and dirty tends to have negative consequences.
Might well be worth helping his neighbor with that.
As I recall, he did that, and it didn't solve the problem.
The plot here is the difference between real troubleshooting and throwing things against a wall to see what might stick.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Reply to
John Navas
[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
Not per se, but it could still be *related* to the DHCP problem.
I've seen several that can't.
What actually often happens is that the router goes into a kind of never-never land, where some functionality works, and some functionality doesn't.
Reply to
John Navas
[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
I've done that -- see my prior posts.
It could be a *related* problem.
Reply to
John Navas
John, sorry but you're on a pointless crusade to fix something that isn't a problem however a few things.
Like? You've offered nothing constructive thus far.
Yes it can which I suggested some time back too but he said he has 4 of the little XP bars, that's a pretty good signal any day.
I agree but you maintained that it could still be a DHCP issue yet have failed to suggest how on earth it can be when he was configured statically. Please do elabourate... :)
Each of which takes far longer than the 30 seconds to just TRY note the key word here TRY bunging in an IP address, he has done that, we moved on, it seems like it was his bluetooth dongle.
Bollocks, it would have ruled out the problem long long ago.
And would have failed to solve the problem too as it looks like.
Not at all, the original question (see thread title) was how to force an IP address. There's an answer, it's called static address. Quick to try, little chance of bad effect. We've done that now. Move on.
You want to contiue this pointless discussion? Please then do tell how *he* should have gone about fixing a DHCP service on a router he didn't own and has no direct physical access to. I'm fascinated!
On the other hand, i'm done here because I have to say, you've lost the plot on this one.
Reply to
David Taylor
[POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
I'm frankly tired of your insults, so this will be my last response to you in this thread.
I disagree.
Irrelevant, since that report might have been inaccurate, and since interference can still be an issue in any event, as I noted back in my first post to this thread. You made the mistake of taking that at face value, thus taking off on a pointless and risky tangent.
I said nothing of the kind -- I said it might be a related problem; i.e., a symptom of the basic problem (as it turned out to be).
In other words, interference, as noted back in my first post to this thread, the most likely cause of the problem. Instead you had him chasing IP assignment, an unlikely issue, with the attendant risk of getting the configuration screwed up.
It ruled out nothing. All it did was confirm that the link was unreliable, but that was already the most likely cause of the problem. You made the mistake of taking that it was a good connection at face value, thus taking off on a pointless and risky tangent.
True, but it might well have other benefits. Regardless, my advice was to (a) reboot the router to see if that solved the DHCP problem and (b) check for link problems (e.g., interference).
Actually a very real chance of a bad effect, both from cockpit error and from possible IP conflict. I would never advise a client lacking expertise to do that kind of thing because I know from painful experience that it just tends to make matters worse. Better to try things that are more likely to fix the real problem, and that are easier to boot.
Call the neighbor and ask him to restart it. Fast, easy, and effective.
In fact you painted yourself into a corner with bad advice that turned out to be a waste of time, and that you're now trying to justify that with weak arguments.
Reply to
John Navas 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.