• March 28, 2024, 07:19:58 PM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

This Forum Beta is ONLY for registered owners of D-Link products in the USA for which we have created boards at this time.

Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Is the Chinese v1.30 beta4 newer than the global 1.32NA?  (Read 14970 times)

EddieZ

  • Level 10 Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2494
Re: Is the Chinese v1.30 beta4 newer than the global 1.32NA?
« Reply #15 on: January 02, 2010, 03:29:34 AM »

I know the whole SDK explanation that prevents us from downgrading. It's logically possible but I can't help to think the real reason that we cannot downgrade is probably because they don't want us to get the 3G tethering feature back.

Why would they deny the tethering feature? I'm curious as to the reson you have in mind.
The reason why Dlink will not make older fimrwares downgradeable is quite simple IMHO:
- They need to take extra Ubicom lcences for adapting the older firmwares with the new SDK
- They need to put a lot extra effort in firmware design: some basic features will need to be rewritten from scratch due to new SDK and kernel.

From a econmic point of view this will be killing for their earnings. So I don't blame them for not doing all this. Customer satisfaction is great but if it kills your company it won't do much good...
Logged
DIR-655 H/W: A2 FW: 1.33

foxium

  • Level 1 Member
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: Is the Chinese v1.30 beta4 newer than the global 1.32NA?
« Reply #16 on: January 06, 2010, 07:16:23 AM »

Why would they deny the tethering feature? I'm curious as to the reson you have in mind.
The reason why Dlink will not make older fimrwares downgradeable is quite simple IMHO:
- They need to take extra Ubicom lcences for adapting the older firmwares with the new SDK
- They need to put a lot extra effort in firmware design: some basic features will need to be rewritten from scratch due to new SDK and kernel.

From a econmic point of view this will be killing for their earnings. So I don't blame them for not doing all this. Customer satisfaction is great but if it kills your company it won't do much good...

Very insightful and I must say I agree with you on both points. I read from some other forums that D-link removed 3G support primarily due to cell phone operator pressures (because most US/NA operators forbid tethering) -- thus my thoughts.

I don't need 3G tethering and so I'm not trolling, but if it's really not for that reason that they won't let us downgrade, then at least consider re-enabling 3G support -- it would make a lot of people happy (again). And that feature alone shouldn't require any ubicom license and I suppose adopting the previous 3G code to support the latest kernel should involve none to minimal effort.

Anyway, I've been using consumer routers of many brands and I don't remember seeing the removal of otherwise perfectly working features from newer firmwares. I like the DIR-655, and except wireless bridging, I don't really use or want to use the other features they removed. But I probably won't buy any more d-links in the future due to the experience with this router's firmware incidents.

Not to mention my two DIR655's sharethe same LAN MAC address. And apparently some other guy in DSLreports reported his d-link switch (not DIR655) got flashed to the same MAC address after upgrading his firmware. Buyer beware.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2010, 07:36:04 AM by foxium »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]