Re: Superhub 2
 

Not sure how that's relevant.

Huawei made the other VMDG485, not Netgear.

---------- Post added at 11:37 ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 ----------

The SH1 is already a backward step... :sleep: My current simultaneous dual-band "N750" router uses 3w while idle compared to 9w for the single-band Superhub (others have reported over 12w)

Re: Superhub 2
 

Up To :p:

Re: Superhub 2
 

sky's hub seems even worse than virgin's their's only 100mbit lan ports.

my conclusion is isp provided equipment generally sucks compared to the normal branded stuff. but with that said I have used router's branded before that have also sucked, router's are just one of those things where experience can vary a lot.

Re: Superhub 2
 

and they are a perfect example of you pay for what you get. The problem is that most non-tech savy customers are happy because they have got "broadband" and don't understand what a router does and all the different features. And as people like to keep telling me, the shub is more than adequate for most peoples needs

Re: Superhub 2
 

Would that explain why I got this message?

I fought tooth and nail to not get a Superhub in the past lol.

Re: Superhub 2
 

Heh Qtx please break NDA and tell us about the superhub v2 when you get it :D

Re: Superhub 2
 

Superhub 2 and Android version of TV Anywhere are the only things I can think of that they could be trialling soon, unless anyone knows any different?

Very much doubt I will be getting anything to trial from VM due to my disconnection date being in 2 weeks time :woot:

Re: Superhub 2
 

Class, we don't have R37 yet but VM want you to trial a new SH? This despite the fact that you're leaving :D

Re: Superhub 2
 

Agree about the ports and no 5ghz at all, but wired or wireless the SR-101, unlike the SH, seemed rock solid stable. Probably because the auto-channel feature actually works. :) Other than that though the interface sucks and the router is noticeably slow, probably underpowered. It has, however, been recieved with much more enthusiasm than the SH ever was.

^ This.

Re: Superhub 2
 

Sky's fastest service is 80Mb and most home users won't have even one single wired device plugged in.

---------- Post added at 16:50 ---------- Previous post was at 16:48 ----------

I'm not sure how "normal" people are a "problem".

The "problem" is companies catering for the mass market and the niche market (i.e. us) not liking it.

TBH I get the same issues whenever I go to the supermarket.

Re: Superhub 2
 

Ah, a bit of a 'foodie' like myself then ? :)

---------- Post added at 17:29 ---------- Previous post was at 17:25 ----------

---------- Post added at 17:25 ---------- Previous post was at 17:14 ----------

Yes, same here, would be great if it was the SH2. Providing it's any good of course. It's strange to be picked however, as they know I'm a VMNG300 user :cool:

Re: Superhub 2
 

QAS* is in corp mode :p

Most users does not equal all users, but the sky hardware situation is defenitly worse than VM because VM does have a modem mode switching the superhub to a dumb modem and the superhub does at least have gigabit ports as well.

Re: Superhub 2
 

Would you rather have a bloated router functioning as a modem on VM or a modem functioning as a modem on FTTC and your own router?

Re: Superhub 2
 

you cant have the latter on sky tho easily. can on infinity but not sky.

so the latter situation is better but you not saying the sky situation.

Re: Superhub 2
 

I think Qasi's point is beside the point. Infinity/Sky aren't that great at the higher frequencies. When I was on 40/10, I got 38/8; when they doubled the frequency, distance mattered more and I don't get 76/18 - I get 55/10. Likewise at the next BT speed uplift will attenuate signal further. VM speed is not governed by home to cabinet distance.

In repsect of the SH, all VM have to do is position the SH as a get you going router with the option of using it in modem only mode.

Simples.