"Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmayka***@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:ZqI0e.13966$DW.7187@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> Microsoft sells (or used to sell) the MN-710, an 802.11g USB adapter.  The
> box *clearly* states that this product supports WPA, yet after
> installation, its Configuration Utility baldly says that it does *not*
> support WPA.
>
> How does Microsoft get away with such blatant false advertising?
>

> This is from CNETs review of the product. Its always a good thing to
> research a product before purchasing. Never take the manufacturers word on
> products abilities.
>
> "With WEP, WPA, and 802.1x support, the Microsoft MN-710 is equipped to
> join any encrypted wireless network. Unfortunately, the installation
> software doesn't load the Windows XP support patch for WPA, which means
> that you'll need to download and install it yourself to use the MN-710's
> enhanced security feature. Microsoft tells us no one is allowed to ship
> the patch, so that prevents the company from including the update with the
> MN-710. Fair enough, but the installation wizard never prompts you to
> download the patch from the Microsoft Web site, and the user manual lacks
> instructions for setting up WPA. This will leave some users in the dark
> about installing this security feature."

"Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmayka***@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:AzI0e.13968$DW.6534@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> "Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmayka***@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:ZqI0e.13966$DW.7187@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>> Microsoft sells (or used to sell) the MN-710, an 802.11g USB adapter.
>> The box *clearly* states that this product supports WPA, yet after
>> installation, its Configuration Utility baldly says that it does *not*
>> support WPA.
>
> The computer on which this was installed had Windows XP SP1 with all
> updates (except the potentially dangerous SP2 itself).  On this same
> computer I *was* able to run WPA using an Airlink+ 802.11g USB adapter
> with its own configuration utility.
>

"Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmayka***@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:rfJ0e.24676$hU7.21258@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> "DLink Guru" <rjacobs0spamfree@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:mJI0e.14345$191.5391@trnddc02...
>> The airlink utility has nothing to do with XP, so running WPA when not
>> controlled by XP has nothing to do with loading the WPA patch for windows
>> XP. Also, why do you think SP2 is "Potentially Dangerous"? Almost every
>
> Do I understand you correctly:
>
> - All other 802.11g manufacturers include their own configuration utility.
> Thus, if the box advertises WPA, the included utility does exactly that.
>
> - Microsoft doesn't bother including *any* configuration utility with its
> MN-710.  Instead, Microsoft assumes that the one built into Windows XP is
> "good enough."
>
> - However, the one in Windows XP is definitely not good enough, because it
> doesn't support WPA, and hence doesn't fulfil the advertising on the
> MN-710 box.  There is supposedly a secret patch to make XP support WPA,
> but Microsoft doesn't bother telling the customer that.
>
> - This secret patch may or may not be included in SP2, but it is *not*
> loaded into SP1 even if the customer installs all available updates
> (except SP2 itself, which can cause computers not to boot).
>
> If this is true, it still easily meets the definition of False
> Advertising.
>

"Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmayka***@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:ywL0e.10692$ZB6.8464@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> "DLink Guru" <rjacobs0spamfree@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:erJ0e.10320$Ax.8892@trnddc04...
>> No it does not meet the definition of False Advertising. They never state
>> that it supports WPA out of box, that would be false advertising. The
>> unit will support WPA with interation between you and the microsoft
>> patch, period. Its not a secret, its just not stated. Period. A 30 second
>> search on the net will tell you about it and how to find it.
>
> Read the Overview and System Requirements for the product:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/PRODUCTS/info/product.aspx?view=22&pcid=b8586aba-37dd-4409-9973-e5dfd1922630&type=ovr
> ---
> Automatic WEP and support for WPA security
> Transmit data more securely by using the latest in wireless encryption:
> Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) protection and Wi-Fi Protected AccessT
> (WPA).
>
> ---
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/PRODUCTS/info/product.aspx?view=22&pcid=b8586aba-37dd-4409-9973-e5dfd1922630&type=req
> ---
>      Operating System Microsoft Windows 98, Windows 98 SE, Windows
> Millennium Edition, Windows 2000 Professional*, Windows XP Professional,
> or Windows XP Home Edition
>
>      *Setup features and functionality are limited on Windows 2000
>
>
> ---
>
> There is absolutely no mention of any need for a secret patch; nor is
> there any such mention in the product's documentation, installation
> program, etc.
>
> Any ethical professional would see that the above is False Advertising for
> this product.
>

"Lawrence G. Mayka" <lgmayka***@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:aJL0e.10697$ZB6.10643@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> "DLink Guru" <rjacobs0spamfree@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:erJ0e.10320$Ax.8892@trnddc04...
>> period. Its not a secret, its just not stated. Period. A 30 second search
>> on
>
> That is precisely the definition of a secret.  If a patch is not a regular
> Windows Update, and is not mentioned in product documentation, but yet is
> mysteriously necessary for the advertised operation of the product, that
> patch is most definitely a Secret Patch.
>

> Add me to the lucky ones.  The first 5 or so machines I installed XP
> SP2 upon worked as expected.  I had some problems with VPN clients,
> but that was a known problem that the vendors were working on.
> However, the next two machines were disasters.  I ended up with two
> unbootable systems.  I had to boot from the cdrom, and reinstall XP.
> The repair option didn't work.  After the reinstall, I found the
> problem.  Both machines were full of spyware which broke the SP2
> install.  Since then, I've done about 20 SP2 installs and upgrades,
> and probably helped an equal number of users do it themselves.  No
> problems as long as the viruses, worms, spyware, and weird utilities
> are removed, quarantined, or disabled.  There was one other SP2
> failure that I had to deal with.  Norton System Works 2004 blew up
> during the install.  Recovery was a nightmare because Norton's
> uninstall didn't work and left hundreds of entries all over the
> registry.  When I finally hacked them out by hand using a registry
> editor, and manually trashed all of Norton's binaries, SP2 finally
> decided to install properly.  Anyway, methinks it's safe and
> benificial to install SP2.

>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> Add me to the lucky ones.  The first 5 or so machines I installed XP
>> SP2 upon worked as expected.  I had some problems with VPN clients,
>> but that was a known problem that the vendors were working on.
>> However, the next two machines were disasters.  I ended up with two
>> unbootable systems.  I had to boot from the cdrom, and reinstall XP.
>> The repair option didn't work.  After the reinstall, I found the
>> problem.  Both machines were full of spyware which broke the SP2
>> install.  Since then, I've done about 20 SP2 installs and upgrades,
>> and probably helped an equal number of users do it themselves.  No
>> problems as long as the viruses, worms, spyware, and weird utilities
>> are removed, quarantined, or disabled.  There was one other SP2
>> failure that I had to deal with.  Norton System Works 2004 blew up
>> during the install.  Recovery was a nightmare because Norton's
>> uninstall didn't work and left hundreds of entries all over the
>> registry.  When I finally hacked them out by hand using a registry
>> editor, and manually trashed all of Norton's binaries, SP2 finally
>> decided to install properly.  Anyway, methinks it's safe and
>> benificial to install SP2.

>If I have a machine to do any work on, the first thing I do is run a
>battery of antivirus and antispyware on it. And Norton is one of the
>worst viruses to get rid of. Symantec even has a removal program written
>just to get rid of Norton when all other measures fail. They apparently
>don't see the irony between that and all their other malware removal tools.