Vista Home Premium networking questions

F

FiremanThul

New Member
I have vista home premium on my new laptop. I'm wondering if there's a way to give the wired network interface priority over the wireless, for example, I'm running around the house and on wireless, but I want to download a large file, so I plug it in wired.. I would prefer at this point for all network traffic to go through the wired network for faster throughput.

Thanks in advance :)
 
Yeah that's my current method, but it takes a few minutes for the computer to figure out what's happening. Just curious if there was a better way.

Thanks anyways :)
 
My thought would be this: give your wired connection a static IP and let the wireless get a dynamic one. Once you plug in disable the wireless and once you unplug re-enable i. Just leave you wired one enabled the entire time. Not certain if it will work or not though, just a thought.
 
the only way to do this is what allanoon said..turn off the wireless. Vista is slow at figuring htings out even on a faster mahcine so you jsut have to wait.
 
sadly default route on a windows box is limited to a single IP - can have multiple ips per nic but default route is still associated to the ip address. The only way you can route across different ip addresses is to associate a port and tag the port which only Linux can do. In a nutshell, can't be done.
 
Yeah I figured as much, was just hoping I could give the wired port a higher priority. Overall I'm amazed at how Vista handles networking, I think it's much smoother and definitely more powerful than XP ever was.
 
I'm glad you think so. Every corporate scenario I've thrown at it it's been a disaster in terms of usability and performance(even on gigabit).
 
Hescominsoon said:
I'm glad you think so. Every corporate scenario I've thrown at it it's been a disaster in terms of usability and performance(even on gigabit).
Click to expand...

The more I use it, the more I can see where a business user/IT pro would have some large headaches with it, however from an end-user home networking standpoint, it has some very nice features.
 
heck even here at my house it's a nightmare. It's slow..slow slow. I'm on gigabit and should be getting(with my settings due to not using jumbo frames) aroun 250 megabits a second. Vista to vista i get around 185, vista to windws server i get around 200..vista to linux i get 60 in bursts and average 30. MS did this on purpose..they intenitonally designed the new SMB2 protocol to mess with Linux and right now it's pretty effective..unfortunatly it also kills windows networking AND WAn networking as well.

http://www.twit.tv/floww14

Take a listen to that and you'll hgere where mr. allison was told by a ms engineer that smb2 is meant to "f"(i quote that from the podcast..it's bleeped out except the last part you hear the ck) with samba.
 
Last edited:
i don't know how it could be the recommended config for vista when it wasn't even a possible configuration before.

for that matter, i got similar performance on Server 2003 and on a Vista to Vista copy i literally just ran with 2 4GB files it was averaging around 350ish with a peak of about 400.

there are a *lot* of things you need to look at, such as what your internal disk transfer rate is (and is it, for example, constrained by a cruddy RAID driver or device like some of the Promise and SiliconImage ones), the allocation sizes on disks, the characteristics of files being transferred, etc... before you chalk it up to being a problem with the networking stack.
 
I had already taken a look at that..plus done extensive research. MS when they started talking about vista were already saying to their developers and partners that vista will work best with server 2k8.
 
...i'd say that too if i had to push new server licenses, not that 2008 isn't more compelling than Vista, but that's a pretty obvious statement.

that being said, i'll be happy to post a ss showing a far greater sustained transfer rate than you're experiencing since it clearly does perform significantly better on my network than yours.
 
Go ahead..but i'm not basing my statements on just my experiences..Yours as far as I'll see are atypical...

Also on the exact same hardware Linux to vista...xp to linux..xp to 2k3..xp to 2k8..vista to anything else except 2k8..etc etc. I see the results I've stated. Much research has shown similar results. My clients being less than 10 employees want something that works well without massive amounts of tuning(which equals $$$ out of their pockets)...That leaves anythingbut vista.
 
Last edited:
...and finally i post a ss to clear this out of my favorites :)

Vista to 2008: 45.1 MB/s = 360Mb/s
Vista to Vista: 51.5 MB/s = 412Mb/s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top