XP Zero Configuration Utility

[RajunCajun]

Read many pages on the net that suggested disabling this and using the PC card's driver utility to work with wireless.

Needed an opinion here as I don't really know which is better. My current laptop has always had both running, but I've also had intermittent disconnect and reconnects.

Opinions/experience and pros/cons appreciated.

Thanks,
Dennis

 

[spidey07]

I usually recommend the adapter client. More flexible, more info, more powerful.

But for the casual user the zero config works fine.

 

[JackMDS]

Let assume that your system works well with either.

If your Wireless Client is most of the time in the same location and connects to the same Wireless source there is no big benefit of using Windows Zero Configuration and what Spidey stated above prevails.

However if you are on the road and need to switch between Wireless Networks it is much more comfortable to unload the original Utility and use WZC.

:sun:

 

[nweaver]

I disagree (respectfully) with Jack. I work with wireless (a lot!) and I can tell you that most utilities offer more flexibilty and support for features then WZC. The all also will connect to other networks with ease while you are on the road. As a disclaimer, all of my work is in a controlled enviroment with ccxv2 or v3 cards and utilities, so they have a certain level of features required by Cisco. I've not used home products much.

 

[cmetz]

RajunCajun, if you want to use WPA, you pretty much have to use Windows's WZC. Few vendors' utilities have a WPA supplicant that works.

WZC is awful. It's stupid, stupid, stupid, it tries very hard to go attaching to networks it shouldn't, to forget your keying information, and to otherwise automatically change a working configuration to a non-working one. Why Microsoft hasn't put a lot more effort into this part of Windows, I don't understand.

Vendors' utilities vary wildly. I've seen good ones and I've seen awful ones. All that said, it's always good to have more options.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: nweaver
I disagree (respectfully) with Jack. I work with wireless (a lot!) and I can tell you that most utilities offer more flexibilty and support for features then WZC. The all also will connect to other networks with ease while you are on the road. As a disclaimer, all of my work is in a controlled enviroment with ccxv2 or v3 cards and utilities, so they have a certain level of features required by Cisco. I've not used home products much.

Word.

In professional installations you just about CAN'T use zero config due to the security requirements.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: cmetz
RajunCajun, if you want to use WPA, you pretty much have to use Windows's WZC. Few vendors' utilities have a WPA supplicant that works.

WZC is awful. It's stupid, stupid, stupid, it tries very hard to go attaching to networks it shouldn't, to forget your keying information, and to otherwise automatically change a working configuration to a non-working one. Why Microsoft hasn't put a lot more effort into this part of Windows, I don't understand.

Vendors' utilities vary wildly. I've seen good ones and I've seen awful ones. All that said, it's always good to have more options.

again, my experience is as a CCX cert engineer, so I see more "enterprise" level cards most likely. That being said, to be CCXV2 compatible (the older standard, long in the tooth now) you HAVE to support WPA in the utility. WPA2 came into being in ccxV3. The big 3 wireless makers comprise most of my testing, certifing a laptop with a card/driver/os combo. Intel, Broadcom, and Atheros are the big three. I also see some Texas Instruments, one Ralink (wasn't 2.0), had one netgear a long time ago, and a few connextent (although usually it's a connextent radio with custom f/w and driver for embedded devices)

We don't touch WZC with a ten foot pole.

 

[JackMDS]

Originally posted by: RajunCajunMy current laptop has always had both running, but I've also had intermittent disconnect and reconnects.
Dennis

Using Both at the same time is a Known No No.

In addition as mentioned above the situation varies from one brand to another.

I have Buffalo Tech. and it works well with either Buffalo?s Util or WZC.

Some of the Linksys models work better with WZC.

Some D-Link Models seems to work better with the D-Link Util.

Entry Level Wireless is one of the biggest ?Botched? Hardware/Software sector of the Computer Industry. I started (many years ago) as an EE for military Navigation and communication equipment, it did not take long to realizing that the Wireless World in general is totally different from the Wired. It seems that the Entry Level Wireless Network's Hardware Industry are lacking the understanding and manpower to design and deal correctly with Wireless.

Lucky for Entry Level Consumers it is so inexpensive that it is not the end of the world if here and there you got a ?Dud?.

:sun: