Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Virtually Duplicates Your Wireless Card

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the engineers-having-fun dept.

Wireless Networking 222

akhomerun writes "Microsoft has released version 1.0 of its experimental new VirtualWiFi Software. The free software enables Windows users to use a single wireless card to connect to multiple wireless networks simultaneously. The current build is a very primitive release, with no support for WEP or WPA encryption."

cancel ×

222 comments

Neat (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815522)

That's a really clever idea.

Cloned version appearing as a loadable Linux kernel module in 3... 2... 1...

Not free software (4, Informative)

frp001 (227227) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815597)

This is Shared Source NOT free software.

Re:Not free software (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815633)

This is Shared Source NOT free software.

So what?
Your post has nothing to do with GP anonymous post:
Cloned version appearing as a loadable Linux kernel module in 3... 2... 1...

where he indeed makes a point, I would like to make a recount of the number of posts on /. that state that "microsoft does not inovates". This is innovation, that although it may not have been developed inside "microsoft labs", it is being released/implemented by Microsoft.

Re:Not free software (3, Interesting)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815669)

So what? As long as it's not patented, how does that prevent a clean-room implementation for Linux?

Re:Not free software (2, Interesting)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815766)

And even if it is patented, those of us in the Land Of The Free (i.e. outside America) are still free to create a clean room implementation.

is it NDIS ? (-1, Flamebait)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815525)

that would be hilarious, thanks Micro$haft for Virtual WiFi for Linux !!

Re:is it NDIS ? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815549)

Thanks for this predicatle fanboy comment.
Heaven forbid microsoft were to *gasp* use some linux technologies.
The sneering and outcry from slashdot would render me deaf!

Re:is it NDIS ? (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815652)

lol, wtf are you on about ?

Wish I knew who I was a fanboy of, it would help me be more predicatle!

moov over and let me at the fire, I'm fresian !!

Easier Wifi Man in the middle attacks? (5, Interesting)

random_culchie (759439) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815527)

You need two Wifi cards to do some man in the middle attacks..

Will this make it easier ;)

Re:Easier Wifi Man in the middle attacks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815723)

It's not hard to have two wi-fi cards though. That's a false sense of security. All it takes is money or other resources a cracker will have at his disposal.

Re:Easier Wifi Man in the middle attacks? (0, Redundant)

random_culchie (759439) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815749)

Those wifi injection attacks can only be done with two wifi cards. Or so I am led to believe.

Save buying two if this can be done..

Cool. Microsoft innovation (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815528)

MS doing what Linux and Apple have done for ages. Thanks for verifying their complete lack of innovation, great to see.

Network Bridge? (5, Interesting)

AnimeEd (670271) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815530)

Does this mean we can connect to an AP and then connect using ad-hoc using the same card to another computer? This would result in a relay

Re:Network Bridge? (1, Funny)

drewxhawaii (922388) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815665)

i would assume so, and THAT would be awesome.

Re:Network Bridge? (4, Informative)

Fortress (763470) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815778)

Does this mean we can connect to an AP and then connect using ad-hoc using the same card to another computer? This would result in a relay

Only if there is routing between the two connections, which I suspect will be optional.

Re:Network Bridge? (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815902)

And Windows has built-in routing software. Check out that "Internet Connection Sharing" thingy :D

Re:Network Bridge? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815920)

Did you mean 'on by default'?

What the crap? (4, Insightful)

wolrahnaes (632574) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815535)

This just doesn't look like typical Microsoft, and IMO that's a good thing...

Source code, a simple web site, and command line operation.....what more could I ask for?

Thanks, Microsoft (geez I still feel wierd saying that....)

Re:What the crap? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815646)

> Source code, a simple web site, and command line operation.....what more could I ask for?

I fully expect these people to either be fired or to be taken down to the dungeons in Redmond for reprogramming.

Re:What the crap? (5, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815664)

I see it's from their research division... They sometimes seem uncorrupted by their marketing machine. ;-) They have other projects going on too, like ConferenceXP [conferencexp.net] (yes indeed, source here too), and Netscan [microsoft.com] . Kind of interesting projects [microsoft.com] actually.

Re:What the crap? (5, Funny)

mattjb0010 (724744) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815678)

This just doesn't look like typical Microsof

A primitive release with security to be added later? Sure sounds like Microsoft to me.

Re:What the crap? (2, Insightful)

grazzy (56382) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815762)

Compared to what? Google GMail Beta? Firefox with its endless trail of patches? WU-FTPD? Sendmail?

They released free software that makes cool stuff, quit complaining!

Re:What the crap? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815683)

Please... tell me there's a catch. I'm not ready for the apocalypse yet.

Re:What the crap? (3, Informative)

FST777 (913657) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815843)

The Microsoft Research Shared Source license agreement (MSR-SSLA) is actually a license, made by Microsoft, which permit free use of the software and the source (if any) for non-commercial use, provided that any modification are subject to the license (in which Microsoft may make full use of the software).

As such, it is nearly Open Source... but if you make modifications, you are volutarely working for Microsoft.

not too bad though...

Re:What the crap? (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815894)

but if you make modifications, you are volutarely working for Microsoft

Surely that's a good thing, if it results in more MS software being released under more open-source friendly licences?

(It's also no different to any open source project - contribute fixes/features to red hat packages and you're voluntarily working for RH, etc)

It's not a feature, it's a bug. (1, Interesting)

twitter (104583) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815848)

I've read reports of XP home making "bridges" between networks without being asked. Sales men walking into a business would "bridge" the network with a neighbor's. Needless to say, the person who reported this was not happy they could suddenly see all of their neighbor's windoze network and vice versa. Thanks, Microsoft, indeed.

This just doesn't look like typical Microsoft, and IMO that's a good thing...Source code, a simple web site, and command line operation.....what more could I ask for?

You could ask for the ability to modify and redistribute the code. I'll believe Microsoft has changed when they embrace the GPL, quit paying people to badmouth everyone, stop pulling SCO stunts.

Re:What the crap? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815892)

WEP and 802.1X: The current version of VirtualWiFi does not support networks using WEP or 802.1X.

You can ask for the WEP and 802.1X support.

Re:What the crap? (1, Funny)

Derek Pomery (2028) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815901)

<conspiracy>
This is just the prototype. The real thing will be a DRM'd, patented, closed source win-modem like thing that will encourage Windows only HW.
</conspiracy>

Great Idea (2, Interesting)

pinkocommie (696223) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815537)

I currently use dual nics to connect to my home and office network as I presume a lot of other people do, this should help reduce costs in similar scenarios. I didnt install it cause of the WEP/WPA limitations, did anyone else try it? If so does this allow bridging connections?

Re:Great Idea (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815880)

why dont you connect to the net through your home network then VPN into your workplace?

Re:Great Idea (2, Informative)

glesga_kiss (596639) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815933)

I currently use dual nics to connect to my home and office network as I presume a lot of other people do

Why? Do you need to connect to both wireless networks at the same time? All WiFi cards should have some profile management software, even if it is the basic stuff that comes with the OS.

Not SDR...? (4, Interesting)

ottffssent (18387) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815539)

The blurb makes it sound like this is essentially a way to quickly switch the hardware from one AP to another, buffering packets until the hardware is connected to the proper AP. I'm curious how efficient this process is, as there's bound to be some switching latency. For low-bandwidth non-latency-bound tasks, I assume it's virtually seamless, but I wonder how non-latency-bound you'd need a task to be before it starts becoming problematic.

Wouldn't a proper software-defined radio be the real solution, allowing connections to 2 APs simultaneously with only one antenna? Obviously Microsoft's working with what they've got, and it's certainly an interesting capability, but I'd rather see real effort on SDRs, particularly the regulatory issues therewith.

Roaming? (2, Insightful)

Tune (17738) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815938)

The blurb makes it sound like this is essentially a way to quickly switch the hardware from one AP to another, buffering packets until the hardware is connected to the proper AP.

Great idea! That would allow you to switch access points while you're on the move; similar to ordinary cellular networks. The buffering would indeed create some latency, but if both connections are already established it should hardly be noticeble.
Wouldn't a proper software-defined radio be the real solution, allowing connections to 2 APs simultaneously with only one antenna?

Yes, but if I remember correctly it is pretty complicated to actually handle parallel radio signals using 802.11b. More likely, it would come down to a form of time sharing with consequently higher latency. Guess they just choose the way of least resistance given that Wifi cards are a relatively cheap component in perspective of longhorn/vista's hardware requirements.

Anyway, being able to switch AP with low latency would considerably close the gap between wireless voip and gsm phones.

Awesome! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815543)

p0wn3d by two k1dd13z at the same time!

Re:Awesome! (2, Funny)

Zardus (464755) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815675)

Double penetration takes a whole new meaning....

Re:Awesome! (0)

frostw (739485) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815850)

Mmmmmm...Spit roast!

With Source ??? !!! (4, Interesting)

Gopal.V (532678) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815552)

Microsoft releasing tech previews with source code ? I mean, what has the world come to ?. Oh, sure it is under Shared Source license - but it raises serious questions about the way MS is dealing with the latest challenge from F/OSS. After all students are the major inflow of talent into F/OSS (starting from Linus Torvalds ...).

The only thing that scares me is that their website has an image that is 960x720 px resized using img tag height and widths - Which looks like it was done in powerpoint using 3DText. I wanted to pull the code and read it to see if it was some kind of trojan or something. All in all, it looks too unprofessional (website mainly) - at least compared to all the open source project sites I've run into.

Re:With Source ??? !!! (3, Insightful)

lisaparratt (752068) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815567)

They're probably too busy finishing their software to finish their website. Shame the same can't be said for a lot of open source projects.

Re:With Source ??? !!! (1)

be_kul (718053) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815594)

"The free software" - what does that mean? No, I can't believe it is FREE software - "free as in free speech" - only "free" as in free beer, right? Aha: shared source. Ok, done. be_kul, stay kul :-)

Re:With Source ??? !!! (3, Insightful)

wangotango (711037) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815701)

They likely created the page in about two minutes. It looks like a page which was originally created for internal employee access, functional only with no intent towards glamour.

Re:With Source ??? !!! (1)

ilitirit (873234) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815922)

Microsoft releasing tech previews with source code

Why is this such a big deal to everyone all of a sudden? Have a look at their online research lab [microsoft.com] .

There's a (relative) wealth of information on there (and yes I do know other companies provide online access to their research projects) in the form of reseach papers, technology previews, and yep, you guessed it, source code.

Link to downloads [microsoft.com]

Re:With Source ??? !!! (0, Redundant)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815927)

Maybe it's still our good ol' Microsoft.

1) Release an implementation of an interesting concept as shared source.
2) Wait for free software hackers to implement a similar solution.
3) Come up with a submarine patent on the idea and a lawsuit for the hackers who "stole the code", SCO style.
4) Profit!!!

The right hand and the left hand... (3, Funny)

AthenianGadfly (798721) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815558)

In related news, another Microsoft department is releasing a new DRM scheme that will prevent "unauthorized duplication of your wireless card, virtual or otherwise."

What is this really? (1)

Bromskloss (750445) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815561)

I saw this the other day, but I don't get it. What is it? Whould someone care to explain?

Version 1.0? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815569)

You'd think something as important as WEP would go into a 1.0 release. Maybe they should have just stuck it into "perpetual beta."

WTF (3, Funny)

0x4B494C4C (921771) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815570)

Innovation. From the beast..... I need to sit down :-)

Re:WTF (2, Informative)

cduffy (652) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815812)

Yes, but as pointed out in another post [slashdot.org] , the actual innovation [cornell.edu] happened before the fellow [cornell.edu] was hired.

Re:WTF (1)

callqcmd (868085) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815839)

On one hand I am aware that a Windows based server is no comparision to a midrange
Application Server.
But since long many OSs have been supporting Multihoming for their comms resources. Link [cotse.com]
So where is the innovation here?

Original Page... (5, Informative)

perlionex (703104) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815612)

... found using Google, at: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/people/ranveer/multinet/ software.htm [cornell.edu] And the author's page, which follows quite naturally: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/people/ranveer/ [cornell.edu] ...which, if you look at it, will explain the origins of this "Microsoft" project :) His papers on "MultiNet" date back to June 2003.

Re:Original Page... (2, Funny)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815714)

Why is it drug addicts and computer afficionados are both called users?

Stop asking silly questions and just boot up already.

KFG

nice find (1)

drewxhawaii (922388) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815718)

that does explain a lot. i'm still very suprised that a webpage looking like that is part of microsoft.com

Re:Original Page... (1)

EddyPearson (901263) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815786)

:p take a look at the differances
MultiNet Logo = Nice VirtualWiFi = Word Art!!!

No security? For Microsoft that;'s normal (-1, Troll)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815617)

The lack of any attention to security in software written by Microsoft was scarcely worth a mention.

Oh! Sources! (3, Funny)

dud83 (815304) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815626)

Microsoft released something with sources...
Quick! Someone brutally abuse their trust by ripping off the design and idea. Release a fully (and better) working Linux VirtualWiFi driver by tomorrow!

Hack evil minions! Hack hack hack!!!

Re:Oh! Sources! (0, Troll)

guruevi (827432) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815684)

Lol, if you didn't know. It is already possible with Linux and Microsoft has ripped this idea from someone else.

Re:Oh! Sources! (0)

sharkey (16670) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815965)

Hack hack hack!!!

Oh lord, now we've got ESR monkey-dancing while wearing a sweat-soaked shirt?

Association and authentication delays (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815658)

The comments on the website indicate that the code buffers traffic meant for another AP between switching networks. This of course is hindered by the time it takes to complete the 802.11 authentication and association exchange as indicated with the suggested timer values for the supported wireless cards.

Intel Centrino cards are well-known in the industry as being particularly aggressive at associating and authentication to an access point after being deauthenticated, thereby shortening the time needed to switch between different networks. It's unfortunately Centrino cards aren't on the supported list yet, they would make for an interesting evaluation target to use this kind of technology in a sort of mesh wireless network.

nothing new (-1, Redundant)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815661)

this isn't anything new, just a seperate microsoft implmentation. shared source, many strings attached. move along nothing to see here

Re:nothing new (1)

frostw (739485) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815690)

Grow up dude. It's something I've never seen before I found it interesting.

Re:nothing new (1)

Dot.Com.CEO (624226) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815729)

Care to point us to where you've seen this before?

Re:nothing new (1)

pla (258480) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815953)

Care to point us to where you've seen this before?

Sure: ifconfig eth0 alias 192.168.2.10 netmask 255.255.255.0

Thanks (5, Funny)

thedarkone64 (890959) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815680)

Thanks, Microsoft (geez I still feel wierd saying that....)

Why should you feel weird saying that? I say it all the time. Oh wait, I normally say it sarcastically.

Linux equivalent (-1, Flamebait)

dascandy (869781) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815682)

ifconfig eth0
ifconfig eth0:0

well, that is probably been like that for around... well... 30 years?

Microsoft is "Innovating" again.

Re:Linux equivalent (3, Informative)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815706)

While I'm a linux fan, if the summary is accurate, you're comment is off-base.

Layer 3 aliasing is not the same thing as multiple physical/radio connections. If anything it's more like channel bonding than aliasing.

That said, I don't know how useful this would be. I mean for a windows box it is. I could see the usefulness of this for a repeater but in such cases I'd just use linux and save the license fees.

Tom

Re:Linux equivalent (2, Insightful)

dasOp (781405) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815713)

Except that the above creates an alias, using the same connection.

The above allows you to associate to more than one wireless network using just one wireless card. Try plugging your regular nic into two switches at once and see how it goes...

Re:Linux equivalent (5, Funny)

pixr99 (560799) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815737)

Yep, at the tender age of five, Linus Torvalds conceived a method by which to clone network interfaces in the, as of yet, nonexistent Linux kernel.

Re:Linux equivalent (1)

Mind Booster Noori (772408) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815741)

If I recall well, you're only able to do that since 1998's version of net-tools' ifconfig.

I wonder... (2, Interesting)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815689)

How much use this will really get. Connecting two wireless networks may be 'cool,' but how many offices maintain two separate wireless networks? I am sure there are some, as some of you will surly point out. If you want an internal wireless network, that should already exist since you wireless network should be behind your router/firewall anyways.

Re:I wonder... (4, Informative)

svanstrom (734343) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815722)

You could use it to share a WLAN with a second computer/PDA/whatever, which can't connect directly... either because it's too far away, or isn't allowed (hasn't paid, not part of the company or simply blocked because some idiot login-requirements forcing people to use IE).

Re:I wonder... (0)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815727)

That's where a NAT, usb-powered etherenet switch and a couple cables come in handy :-)

Tom

Re:I wonder... (2, Informative)

svanstrom (734343) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815796)

"NAT, usb-powered etherenet switch and a couple cables" or software that makes it work without all that... not really something you have to think twice about, esp. not if you don't want to be forced to sit next to the WLAN-connected computer (or if you don't want everyone else to see what you're doing); besides, there's a lot of stuff out there which handles WLAN but not ethernet...

Re:I wonder... (0)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815806)

Most laptops I see have an ethernet port. I don't care about PDAs and shit.

And technically it's better to use the switch because it lowers 802.11 traffic. :-)

That said, I usually only opt for that trick at things like conventions or hotels where the net is expensive.

Tom

Re:I wonder... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815750)

Plopping two WiFi devices (or more) between some type of routing app and I have _much_ faster bittorrent/LinuxISO/whatever downloads. This way I am working over two (or more) networks so not only do I have speed I have redundancy.

The fact that you can acquire it MUCH cheaper while connected to say 4 diffrent WLANs, with only one PCMCIA card, then you can say with 3 diffrent physical PCMCIA, makes it I would say pretty popluar. (I'm not sure about you but my laptop only came with two slots.) ...or am I missing a spork in my lunchbox?

Re:I wonder... (2, Informative)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815967)

Plopping two WiFi devices (or more) between some type of routing app and I have _much_ faster bittorrent/LinuxISO/whatever downloads.

I doubt it. The two virtual WiFi devices will probably run at less than half the speed each.

Or if you're only worried about doubling the speed of the internet connection, and not the wireless, you're better off with a dedicated router hard wired to both internet connections with a single wireless network on the other end of the NAT.

All hail another version of Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815712)

Ugh, so this will be the eighth version [slashdot.org] of Vista? Or the 21st version [microsoft-watch.com] ?

Interesting... (2, Interesting)

EddyPearson (901263) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815755)

Its very strange that Microsoft would be doing this, totally out of chatacter for them which makes me think that using multiple wireless networks is something that going to play an integral part of a future product.

Watch this space.

Re:Interesting... (2, Insightful)

EddyPearson (901263) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815770)

i hate to double post but look here:
Multiple cards: The kernel implementation of VirtualWiFi supports multiple cards. However, we have not incorporated this support in the user level code of this release.

Meaning its going to be, if not already implemented in the Longhorn kernel. They're definatly aiming this at something, and since there's a user level implementation being created it means that whatever it is will probably be out before Vista has fully taken hold.

Not necessarily a good thing? (3, Insightful)

Illserve (56215) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815772)

At the moment, wireless AP's don't have to worry about frequent switching.

But if everyone and their brother started using these things, suddenly a given AP is going to have to deal with a huge amount of hookup requests.

Now admittedly I don't know much about the guts of an AP, and how limited their processing ability is (apart from bandwidth)... but this certainly isn't what they were designed for. I would be surprised if they could handle this kind of abuse from multiple users.

Or am I completely off base?

Re:Not necessarily a good thing? (2, Informative)

pla (258480) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815924)

But if everyone and their brother started using these things, suddenly a given AP is going to have to deal with a huge amount of hookup requests.

I think this would depend more on how the wNIC behaves than on the AP's abilities...

As the simplest case, why officially disconnect from AP #1 to join AP #2? Due to the flaky nature of wireless in general (not to mention sleep mode (the radio, not the PC) as part of the 802.11 standard), APs need to gracefully deal with vanishing clients all the time. This just looks like a client has gone missing for a few packets - So it would just buffer them and retransmit when it reappears.

On the wNIC side, though, you could well have some NASTY latencies, depending on how quickly the card can change its entire configuration.

Awesome (2, Funny)

Fortress (763470) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815792)

If I connect them to each other, not only can I send files, email, pictures, etc to my computer from my computer, but with this technology I can do it wirelessly.

Brute force removal by regedit...ugggh (0, Troll)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815797)

I don't like having to edit the registry to remove things, it is annoying to say the least. Isn't there a better way of doing this?

VirtualWiFi Uninstallation
Q: I am unable to uninstall VirtualWiFi. Nothing seems to work. Is there a brute force method?
A: Yes. Go to the Windows registry using Start->Run->"regedit". Note that you will be modifying the registry at your own risk. It is always better to save a copy of the registry before modifying it. From the registry, look for all entries having VirtualWiFi, and delete them. This is better done in safe mode. Also run "VirtualWiFiSvc.exe -remove" to remove the service.

Re:Brute force removal by regedit...ugggh (3, Insightful)

Bandman (86149) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815875)

come on, this software isn't even anywhere near actual release. Give the guy a break. It doesn't come with a gui and the ability to check mail yet either.

Re:Brute force removal by regedit...ugggh (1)

glesga_kiss (596639) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815950)

I don't like having to edit the registry to remove things, it is annoying to say the least.

Did you read what you posted? "Is there a brute force method?" is asked by someone for whom the regular uninstall isn't working. They offer the registry instructions to help people do a complete manual clean-out should things go wrong. Fairly standard stuff, especially for pre-release stuff.

Bonding? (4, Funny)

Fortress (763470) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815803)

I'm really only interested if I can bond the two connections together and stea^H^H^H^H borrow twice as much bandwidth.

Innovation from Microsoft? About time! (1)

Kranfer (620510) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815826)

Well this is the first good piece of innovative software I have seen come out of Microsoft in awhile. Being able to connect to numerous Access POints at once not only creates an Aux connection but may also allow for relaying of wireless signals over larger areas. Is this going to create the ability for large scale wireless networks for places like... The middle of no where, which is where I am from so that when I head home to see the parents I can have wireless and not have JUST dialup as an option. Oh god I hope so. I hate dialup with a passion, how did I deal with it when I lived at home?! HOW?!?!

No WEP or WPA? (0, Flamebait)

Fahrvergnuugen (700293) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815877)

As always with Microsoft, security is an afterthought.

I'd say it's par for the course...

Double speed (2, Interesting)

JDStone (741327) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815878)

I'm wondering if you could effectively double your speed by connecting to more than one access point. Wireless access is everywhere today, you could set up your laptop and instantly get at least 2 access point connections almost anywhere, like San Francisco for example.

Actually useful (1)

Dekortage (697532) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815879)

There are a number of actually useful reasons for this kind of driver, security being one of them. E.g. you could split out your LAN from your Internet connection and allow users to log into different access points simultaneously to get the work done that they need: stuff on the Internet versus stuff on the local network.

OTOH, if you can set up one of your virtual WiFi cards to be an ad hoc access point routing to another virtual WiFi instance that is connected to an internal network, then other people could hop on and use your computer as a WiFi router.

The real question is, can you virtualize Slashdot opinions?

Re:Actually useful (1)

ogiller (3107) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815964)

If I was an Network Admin I would not want each employee creating a connection that could be used to leap frog over my firewall. Most office computers are not running a firewall (ei Zone Alarm). So these computers would be connecting to the Internet unprotected. Imagine each of those connections as another way for a virus to get on your intranet.

Would you not want to control how the connection is made to the Internet at one location?

Encryption is overrated anyway apparently.. (1)

jkind (922585) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815886)

The # of encrypted networks here in Eastern Canada are greatly outnumbered by the # of wideopen networks. This is a cool piece of news.. Nice way to start the day :)

Re:Encryption is overrated anyway apparently.. (1)

jkind (922585) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815905)

oh and why is this in the hardware section? :)

version 1 already? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815897)

shouldn't a very primative release by like version 0.1 beta?

can this be done on OS X with bridging? (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815904)

I don't have a wifi cardbus card to play with but maybe someone else does. Mac OS allows network sharing, where you can for example, run an ethernet cable to your mac, and "share" that network on your wireless nic, to other nearby wireless users. The opposite is also possible, to pull in a wireless signal and share it on your ethernet port. (useful for when you have a 2nd computer that is not wifi capable, and no way to run a cable, but you have another mac with wifi and ethernet to act as a bridge)

Would it be possible to plug in a wifi cardbus card into say, a powerbook that already had wifi, and bridge between the built-in and the add-on wifi? I don't see any reason why this wouldn't work, besides maybe interferance.

Not as cheap as doing it with one nic, but maybe more efficient?

Re:can this be done on OS X with bridging? (1)

Pius II. (525191) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815975)

It seems like this can be in OS X by rather clicking the "Duplicate" button in your network settings while having your Airport card selected. I don't have two wireless APs to test, but it sure works for connecting to two networks transmitting over the same ethernet wire.

WinModem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13815907)

Anyone see the similarities to the old WinModems? You remember these little combos of a sound card, and software drivers running under Windows. They relied on the CPU to do a lot of the processing of the modem connection.

Computer makers liked them because they were cheaper, and took up less space in a laptops.

Do you also remember that they did not work on Linux? I remember trying some Linux drivers made for a Lucent modem and don't think I got it working on my laptop.

Is this another way for Microsoft to discourage people from using a different OS? We will see where they take it. If computer makes can save money by moving some of the processing to the CPU I am sure some will take advantage of the opertunity. They did it with the WinModem.

Re:WinModem (1)

glesga_kiss (596639) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815968)

Do you also remember that they did not work on Linux? I remember trying some Linux drivers made for a Lucent modem and don't think I got it working on my laptop.

Sigh. "They did not work on Linux" is entirely wrong. The phrase you are looking for is "Linux drivers were not available". There is NO reason why Linux cannot work with a software based modem. Your beef is with the modem manufacturer for not having drivers, not Microsoft trying to "discourage people from using a different OS".

In other news... (-1, Offtopic)

StarvingSE (875139) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815914)

Slashdot virtually duplicates your news stories...

Once again... (0, Redundant)

cyberkahn (398201) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815937)

"The current build is a very primitive release, with no support for WEP or WPA encryption."

Security comes second. Microsoft is getting serious about security. Yeah ok.

Now if Windows would connect to one network... (1)

Prototerm (762512) | more than 8 years ago | (#13815946)

...without dropping the connection at least once a day, I'd be happy. Microsoft, makers of the finest semi-functional software in the world!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...