Q: Dropping Wi FI Signal

Good to have some feedback.

What concerns me is that it appears to be many routers that appear to have problems. (apparently)

In this thread there are quite a lot of makes mentioned.

I have a AVM fritz box (latest model), also what I dont understand is that is a lot of people including me also have people who have used the dark side to connect or know someone from the darkside that connects to their router but do not have problems.

Strange ?

I never had problems connecting from the darkside - which was fortunate since I was never good at resolving problems in darkside machines.

I have been keeping tabs on this thread several times a day and have resisted posting since I have no solutions and will defer to the more experienced users. I agree that there must be multiple causes to this problem and would resist changing any hardware until I see how/if Apple responds (10.6.3?). In my case, I replaced my older Apple Extreme 6 months ago with the latest unit and did not experience any problems at that time. My new laptop as well as my Apple TV and iPhone are ok, but my wife is using my previous 1st gen. Intel MBP and is experiencing the frequent Airport dropping described in this thread (both laptops are running 10.6.2). No solution has solved the problem so far. You would think Apple would make sure there were no problems using an Apple laptop with an Apple router, so I wouldn't rush too fast to blame 3rd party routers. I'm trying to be patient, but I understand everyone's frustrations and hope there is a solution soon.

I have managed to get a temporary cure on 1 laptop (which until a couple of weeks ago was fine, upgrade to SL). Also which progressively got worse even after doing a clean install.

2 things that have made a difference (all others solutions have not, ie deleting plist, removing ipv6 etc etc.)

I changed router from channel 1 to channel 7 (even though this conflicts with some other device I have in house, probably cordless phone, as my router allows me to see a usage graph of sorts).

At same time I have switched off N.

So currently with wep 128 and everything is working.

I will try over the next few days to isolate exactly what starts to trigger problems again, N, WPA, channel settings, as its not instant it takes time for problem to start to occur please do not hold breath.

Maybe 10.6.3 will be the cure we all hope so maybe we will never know but if 10.6.3 is a week away I should have some more info at least in my situation.

california99 wrote:
I don't fully agree with that from a user's perspective, since I never encountered any problems prior to upgrading from Leopard to SL, so SL seems to be less forgiving of buggy routers (and wireless channel interference) than previous versions of the OS, but in terms of constantly going for all-round better performance, I am now pretty confident that switching to another router will resolve all my issues.

Recall I've given examples of why this may occur before.

In this case, Snow Leopard may well be asking things of the DHCP server that are *perfectly legal* in terms of the spec that the firmware in the D-Link handles poorly.

Yes, as I reported on this thread some time ago, one of the first things the Apple engineer told me was that SL handles some networking transactions differently from earlier versions of the OS. That explains the "SL factor" in my case. The worrying thing is that as a manufacturer of consumer electronics, Apple still doesn't fully "get it" in terms of what that entails. Remember, this was the company that brought out the very first really well designed personal computer that was easy to use out of the box, with an intuitive interface, that was superbly engineered and worked well, and then lost almost the entire market because it did not understand what their possible customers wanted. If Apple wants to be a "use it out of the box" provider, they have to make sure their products work at least with all the leading brands of routers. This amazing (for Apple) discussion thread shows what is likely an iceberg-tip of problems brought on by the SL release. No matter how well engineered, if Apple's customers cannot use their products, they'll go elsewhere.

@William Kucharski

Let me see if I understand this. The situation may be like that with Safari and html. Safari is so strict in its html rendering that some pages do not read correctly because they are poorly written. I can open pages in FireFox that I cannot open in Safari. And, yes, the fault, lies with the coding of the web page, which FireFox sort of ignores/slops over, etc.

And that may be the same situation here? That flaws in the router's firmware may prevent it from working with requests so strictly legal that there is no "slop" in the system, play in the gears, that allow for things to "just" sort of work.

That would account for all the various non-Apple routers not working, assuming they're all flawed in some way. Would that account for the Apple routers not working? Possibly; though there may be other causes at work, there--these things are no doubt multiply determined.

But, if it is as you say, then there isn't any real hope that the problem will go away. In other words, Apple would have to put the slop back into its coding in order to interact with flawed routers. I doubt if Apple will do that; they are quite puritanical if not downright righteous.

But in that case, what can we do as end users?

My wife's Mac, running Leopard, doesn't drop connections. Is my only alternative to abandon Snow Leopard and to reinstall Leopard?

Yours, in consternation,

Alarik

I started having these wireless dropout problems way back when I upgraded to Leopard. I have since turned off Airport and used an Ethernet connection with my iMac. I have been following this thread to see if Snow Leopard would fix these issues (I purchased a copy but have not yet installed it), but apparently not.

To me, the point some have been trying to make, including the Apple engineer who was helping california99, that Apple is following the standards strictly and so it is not Apple's fault is completely irrelevant. When it comes to something like WiFi, the whole point is that most people need to be able to connect at airports, coffee shops, and a whole lot of other places where they don't have control of the router model, firmware, etc. If it takes "slop" in the code to be able to do that, then so be it. The "correct" implementation for something like WiFi is not the one that strictly follows the standards but which is unable to work where users need it to work, but the one that allows users to connect anywhere (or at least almost anywhere). If Microsoft can produce an implementation allowing users to connect to all sorts of routers with varying versions of firmware without issues, then obviously it can be done. From any reasonable user perspective, that is the "correct" implementation, and the one Apple should also be supplying.

Doesn't the iPad run on SL? I wonder if Apple isn't having to address this issue there.

FWIW, I'm running the previous-generation Airport Extreme but that's obviously not the issue, since I have the same problem wherever I take my MB. If 6.3 doesn't address the problem, I'll probably buy an extender.

It would be wise for Apple to acknowledge the issue. Nobody likes being strung along in limbo like this.

*William K wrote:*
+I can just about guarantee it won't, as it's clear that not everyone here is suffering from the same issues (as shown by the fact that the various suggestions clear up some peoples' issues for good and they do nothing for others.)+

Then here's hoping that 10.6.3 will fix my Airport problems, and I can reupgrade from 10.4.11 again.

FrankInColorado wrote:
To me, the point some have been trying to make, including the Apple engineer who was helping california99, that Apple is following the standards strictly and so it is not Apple's fault is completely irrelevant. When it comes to something like WiFi, the whole point is that most people need to be able to connect at airports, coffee shops, and a whole lot of other places where they don't have control of the router model, firmware, etc. If it takes "slop" in the code to be able to do that, then so be it. The "correct" implementation for something like WiFi is not the one that strictly follows the standards but which is unable to work where users need it to work, but the one that allows users to connect anywhere (or at least almost anywhere). If Microsoft can produce an implementation allowing users to connect to all sorts of routers with varying versions of firmware without issues, then obviously it can be done. From any reasonable user perspective, that is the "correct" implementation, and the one Apple should also be supplying.

That's just it - Microsoft doesn't provide anything in terms of drivers for third party hardware like Wi-Fi chips.

Individual hardware vendors provide drivers for their hardware that Microsoft passes along as part of the OS install - much like HP does with their printer drivers for Mac OS X.

Unfortunately, many of those vendors also test with their routers using their hardware only and figure it doesn't matter.

Apple should not have to hack all kinds of weird workarounds into their software to get it to work with broken third party hardware, especially when what's broken about them will change from firmware release to firmware release. If Apple notifies the third party of their issues and they choose not to fix it, that's not Apple's problem.

If you think it's easy to make something that works everywhere regardless of adherence to networking standards, you write it - you could make a fortune.

In a very real way what you're asking is akin to "Hey, if I add 2 + 2 and get 3 or 5, that should be close enough, how dare you insist the answer be 4."

There is no "slop" in protocols; they explicitly state what will happen when you make certain requests or perform certain operations. These are computers, not living creatures; if say Mac OS X requests an IP address from a DHCP server and it declines to provide one, what precisely could it do? Vary parameters of the request randomly to see if changing one magically makes the server act properly? Things just don't work that way.

If that's not a good enough answer, install Boot Camp and a copy of Windows - problem solved forever. That or eBay your Mac and buy a PC.

Apple does their best to test and insure compatibility with as wide a variety of platforms as possible, but the bottom line is standards exist for a reason, and if third parties don't want to play by the rules, things are going to break.

As far as strict HTML rendering in Safari goes, Firefox has long been even stricter than Safari's rendering has been, and the main cause of problems is once again third parties that write and test on Internet Explorer only.

I'm not trying to be snippy or dismissive here, but those of you demanding that Mac OS X just work with every conceivable router in every conceivable situation have absolutely no idea of how complex the issue is; this diagram just begins to scratch the surface:





If other platforms you have work when a Mac running SL doesn't, feel free to use those; in the end you have to do what you have to do to accomplish what you want, and you won't be hurting my feelings any if you drift off to use Windows, Solaris or Linux instead. I've got nothing at stake here, I'm just an end user and I pay my own money for Macs and Mac OS X as all of you do.

I use a Mac because it's one of the best ways for me to get what I want to get done done; if another operating system or device makes that task easier for you for whatever reason, enjoy and I'm sorry your Mac OS X experience was a negative one.

To William K--

You are right in what you say. I agree, and I sympathize with your exasperation.

In my own case, I was just trying to find out why something that worked in Leopard stopped working in Snow Leopard and, to my exasperation, worked on my wife's Mac and not my own. The nerve!

There have been glitches of all sorts with Macs--as with all computers--since I started (with OS 7.5.3). I expect that, and OS X, compared with the past, is downright saintly. No one can reasonably expect the OS (or the machine itself) to work perfectly.

Again, in my own case, I have contrived a simple workaround. The connection drops about once every twelve hours or so. The icon for Airport in the menu bar still shows the system as connected. I simply go to the menu bar, turn Airport off, wait a moment, and then turn Airport back on and the connection is reestablished. (It's easier than using ethernet and going into the Preference Pane and hitting the renew the lease button.)

I'm sure Apple will correct this at some point, assuming that it can.

Thanks for your help.

All the best--

Alarik

Are there any UNIX shell scripters here?

For users like Alarik, it should be a simple thing to just periodically run a script via cron which does an 'ifconfig en1 down' and 'ifconfig en1 up' again.

I've got a Linux background and saw that running 'ifconfig' requires sudo and thus a password. Isn't there some other way, except hacking /etc/sudoers? Because I noticed that turning AirPort on/off via the menu bar does not require a password.

Bart

You seem to take it personally, kind of "defending" Apple,

"Apple does their best to test and insure compatibility with as wide a variety of platforms as possible, but the bottom line is standards exist for a reason, and if third parties don't want to play by the rules, things are going to break."

How do you know? The cold facts are:

Whatever protocols, standards and other technicalities imply, Mac OSX before SL and MS OSs work flawlessly with any WiFI device I (and looks like most/all the other contributors to this thread) threw at them. So the issue has been introduced with SL. There can be no argument about this. You say that protocols and standards leave no leeway. There are tolerances implied at the hardware level, nothing to do with protocols and calls, and that can make a difference (Apple had in the past problems with RAM because they applied the narrowest timing standards, while the same RAM SIMMs worked on other Macs or PCs).

Whatever has been changed, it is Apple's job to put it back in the right place. I don't need and don't want to know about it. Franklin said "If Microsoft can produce an implementation allowing users to connect to all sorts of routers...". Well, Apple did it too up to 8 months ago, so it can definitely be done. Fast, possibly.

The problem happens apparently also with Apple branded routers, did you notice this? So how can this be explained? Who is to blame then?

Any workaround that makes ONE machine work with ONE router are not interesting for me, any mac should reasonably work with any WiFi device. Full stop. That's what WiFi connectivity is about. I need to go to the library or an hotel lobby and use whatever device they have and on which I cannot alter any setting.

I am a Mac user since the very first 128k, and I never had such problems, nor Apple refusing to take ownership of it, and the press acting as if it does not exist. I do not intend to change machine because of this, since it is still the best thing around, but I surely advice anybody considering a Mac to consider this issue before deciding, particularly if I know they need to travel or work on the move, because I don't want them to blame me for the advice. And I find no reason to defend Apple, since I paid handsomely for all I have, and I expect it to work.

maurizm wrote:
You seem to take it personally, kind of "defending" Apple,

"Apple does their best to test and insure compatibility with as wide a variety of platforms as possible, but the bottom line is standards exist for a reason, and if third parties don't want to play by the rules, things are going to break."

It's not personal; I just hate speculation without reference to facts, or those who make wildly impractical demands.

How do I know Apple tests? Because they're not idiots.

This is how things work in the computer industry:

• Interactions with standards-adherent products work or are bugs.

• Interactions with non-standards-adherent products *are a complete gamble*.

Whatever protocols, standards and other technicalities imply, Mac OSX before SL and MS OSs work flawlessly with any WiFI device I (and looks like most/all the other contributors to this thread) threw at them. So the issue has been introduced with SL. There can be no argument about this. You say that protocols and standards leave no leeway. There are tolerances implied at the hardware level, nothing to do with protocols and calls, and that can make a difference (Apple had in the past problems with RAM because they applied the narrowest timing standards, while the same RAM SIMMs worked on other Macs or PCs).

Problems were thus the fault of whom? That's right, users who bought third-party RAM that didn't meet the specs.

Likewise, if Apple is adhering to the specs it's up to third party manufacturers to fix their bugs.

If you don't like it, buy something else or install Boot Camp and run Windows. It's that simple.

If it's something Apple can reasonably change, they probably will. If it's something that happens because "Windows does it, but the standards don't specify that" they likely won't.

The problem happens apparently also with Apple branded routers, did you notice this? So how can this be explained? Who is to blame then?

What about the millions of Snow Leopard users having no problems with Apple (or for that matter other routers?) Did Apple accidentally get it right for them?

Any workaround that makes ONE machine work with ONE router are not interesting for me, any mac should reasonably work with any WiFi device. Full stop. That's what WiFi connectivity is about. I need to go to the library or an hotel lobby and use whatever device they have and on which I cannot alter any setting.

If they choose to use products for which their are firmware fixes they have not applied or products which violate standards, no one can stop them.

Any Mac reasonably does work with any Wi-Fi device that does not have buggy firmware and that follows the standards properly.

I've yet to find anywhere that my Snow Leopard MBP will not connect to. Yes, I know, bring it by your home/office/hotel and you'll show me, and as I've said before, I do sympathize, *I have been there myself*.

I am a Mac user since the very first 128k, and I never had such problems, nor Apple refusing to take ownership of it, and the press acting as if it does not exist. I do not intend to change machine because of this, since it is still the best thing around, but I surely advice anybody considering a Mac to consider this issue before deciding, particularly if I know they need to travel or work on the move, because I don't want them to blame me for the advice. And I find no reason to defend Apple, since I paid handsomely for all I have, and I expect it to work.

Then you will remember the Firewire bridge chip fiasco when Mac OS X 10.3 Panther was released.

Basically Apple modified their drivers to use FireWire differently, and certain FireWire bridge chips had a bug where they did not implement the protocol properly, and many, many third party drive enclosures stopped working.

The problem was Oxford's (manufacturer of the 922 bridge chip) and Oxford had to release a new revision of firmware to correct it.

Apple did not change their drivers to work around it, as their drivers were correct, the firmware was wrong.

This didn't stop owners of the drives from connecting them to Macs running Panther and promptly losing all the data on their drives, but the point is those responsible fixed the problem.

So to bring this full circle, it's long been Apple's policy to fix the bugs that are theirs and notify third parties to fix bugs determined to belong to them. About the only time I can recall them doing any differently is when they released Leopard and found that despite it being an IETF recommendation for nearly a decade, most ISPs' DNS servers couldn't properly handle SRV record requests and Apple went back to issuing A record requests instead.

The work Apple's engineers have been doing with some of the people here shows they do care about root causing the issues people have been experiencing, and as I've said if it turns out to be their problem, they'll fix it.

As I've also said time and time again, if it all works for you in Leopard, by all means go back to Leopard. It's simply not worth the brain damage to hope that Apple fixes the issue "this time" only to have your Wi-Fi drop out time and time again for you.

However, more than one person has found that going back has not fixed their problem as the root cause in their scenario was that some other factor, usually environmental, was at play and it's just coincidence that it became a factor around the time they started using Snow Leopard.

That's why I said that hoping for a "fix" in 10.6.3 will likely result in happiness for some, anger for others, and a whole slew of people who complain that "everything worked perfectly until the 10.6.3 update."