MacVillage.net

Today I thought I would share some information about how to setup broadband routers such as Airport and Linksys Wireless AP routers for use with Comcast HSI. I will be discussing Airport and Linksys routers in detail, though you can adapt this information for most popular brands. If you get one to work, send me the information so that I can pass it on.

Note: Comcast does not support routers, thus they will not offer support for them officially, thus this article is written with the “setting up your Mac for Comcast” equivalents. Since they will give you that information.

Airport (I did not have Airport available to test, so this is from gathering information):
Set the “DHCP Client ID” to your client ID. You may have to call Comcast to find out what your Client ID is. Simply ask for the appropriate DHCP Client ID for your account.

Comcast support reps said in December that it would not be needed once the transition is complete, yet I have not found anyone who doesn’t need it.

Update

There is more detailed information in the Airport Documentation, but that should do it.

Linksys:
Set the “Device Name” to your client ID (DHCP Client ID). You may have to call Comcast to find out what your ID is. Simply ask for the appropriate DHCP Client ID for your account.

Comcast support reps said in December that it would not be needed once the transition is complete, yet I have not found anyone who doesn’t need it.

Select “Dynamic IP Address”

Leave fields “IP Address,” “Network Mask,” “Gateway,” and “DNS” in the WAN port configurations blank.

Save these configurations. Note that it may take 45 seconds to a minute for the device to retrieve the proper configurations from the DHCP server.

Here is an example of what it should look like:

Router	Device Name: Hardware (MAC) Address: 00-00-00-00-00-00
LAN Port	Device IP Address: . . . Network Mask: . . .
WAN Port	IP Address from ISP: Dynamic IP Address Fixed IP Address IP Address . . . Network Mask . . . Gateway . . . DNS . . . Mask and Gateway are not required for PPPoE. PPPoE (PPP Over Ethernet) Account/User Name Password   Verify: Connect On Demand Disconnect after idle for minutes

If you have any information on getting other products to work with Comcast HIS, you can share them by giving me feedback, and I will either update this article or create a follow up.

Tomorrow on January 14th 2002, MacVillage.net News will celebrate its first birthday. It’s been an amazing first year, going from the obvious 0 readers to thousands. Thanks for the great year, hopefully in 2003, MacVillage.net News will improve even more.


Thanks!

This has been a belief of mine for quite some time, well over 3 years now, although I have been very quiet about it hoping to see what type of a crowd Mac OS X will bring. Now that Mac OS X is coming up on it’s first birthday, and we have seen that most developers are embracing the new operating system, I though it would be a good time for me to write this article. If Apple wants to succeed in its Digital Hub strategy, it needs to have an operating system that is a switch hitter. Apple needs to look out the windows, Microsoft Windows that is. Apple needs to learn about how to use Microsoft Windows to its advantage, and only then will the Mac OS start gaining on Windows. (before writing hate mail, continue reading so that you are at least informed and can write an argument back).

I don’t think I am the only one who sees a true digital hub as being “universal,” “reliable,” “efficient,” “simple,” “powerful,” and “compatible.” Mac OS X is a great operating system because it covers many of these ideas, and shows that Apple has the potential to succeed at this strategy. The one thing it lacks is being “compatible” with the rest of the world. Unless Apple captures that last link, the digital hub strategy will be thought of with the same word as the G4 Cube “potential,” but not “success.”

In order for the Mac OS to penetrate into all businesses, homes and schools, it must meet their needs 100%. In most cases it already does, except it isn’t “compatible.” Now I define the word “compatible” as being able to work with anything and anyone. Being universal. Plug something in and it works. Install something, and it works. No questions asked. With technologies such as USB and Firewire working for Apple, they are almost there, except with software.

I believe that before Mac OS X will become a true mainstream OS worthy of all businesses, educational institutions, and homes users, the Mac OS needs to be able to run <GASP> Windows software.

Now when I say that it needs to run “Windows Software” I am not at all recommending that Apple start shipping Windows XP on every new Power Mac G5. What I am recommending is that Apple implement Windows in a fashion similar to how it implemented Classic Mac OS in Mac OS X. Integrated, compatible, usable, reliable, and unobstructed.

The concept is not new. Critics of Apple have said for years that Apple needs to ship a Windows Emulator with the Mac OS. Rhapsody was originally supposed to be able to perform this task. It is now time for Apple to implement it in Mac OS X.

A company Lindows .com Inc. is currently in the process of adding Windows support to Linux. [Link]

By implementing Windows support in the Mac OS, it will not be helping Microsoft with a monopoly, but will be using Windows to help the Mac OS grow stronger. It would make Mac OS X a truly universal operating system. Built on a UNIX foundation, created by Apple to run Mac OS classic applications as well as Coca applications, and even Java is well supported in Mac OS X. The missing component is Windows.



By allowing Windows Applications to run on the Mac OS, there is so much to gain. First and foremost, it will be the only computer to run virtually anything you encounter. It reads virtually all popular disk formats, something Microsoft can’t say, it can run many different types of program, even windows, it can connect using many popular protocols, and it is very capable of working with Linux and other UNIX operating systems.

This is good for all audiences, businesses, schools, and home users.

Businesses will like the idea of being able to have one computer that is stable and capable of running almost anything it encounters. There is no more corporate platform wars for those with Mac OS X. They don’t need to decide which platform offers more benefits. That is important in capturing this important industry.

Schools also have a lot to gain. The Mac OS always had a strong educational market standing. With Windows support, that would only remove that growing PC portion of the industry. It would be one computer that can run any program they want to offer their students.

Home users would really benefit. Finally a computer that can run anything, hardware and software. With most home users connected, there are always people wondering how to open the file they received. With a truly universal OS, there would be no question. You have what you need.

This would also increase driver support for hardware products that are currently Windows only besides for being USB. I have long been angry at the hardware companies for not creating USB drivers for many of their products. With a universal OS, it would make sense for them to ensure that their products work. They would gain a complete market by doing so.

There is an obvious difference in PC and Mac hardware, which would cause there to be a decrease in performance, after all that is why emulators can’t be as fast as the true processor, but by integrating it into the operating system, it will give much more natural appearance. [Editor: Added to clarify a question by a few readers]

Microsoft would not really have too much to gain if this occurred, but it wouldn’t necessarily hurt them. It would give them a new market in which to sell their technologies, which we all know they have a ton of. Apple would be a huge market for them to offer their proprietary technologies and services through. It would also help prevent a future monopoly, keeping the Feds happy.

Apple obviously would need to convince developers to still develop for the Mac OS over windows, but that may not be so hard. Coca apps would obviously be the most efficient, thus faster, so just like programmers are starting to create coca applications rather than make classic applications, Apple most likely with a bit of work could keep its developers. Applications like Photoshop would obviously benefit by being available in Coca, and being able to take advantage of all the features the OS provides.[Editor: Added to clarify a question by a few readers]

Since the Windows would be integrated into the OS, it would be possible to make some changes to its appearance, similar to how an Mac OS 8 added a platinum interface. While a bit of a task, it can be done. That would at least make the interface blend in a bit.

By writing this article I understand that I am going to generate some controversy. Just like anyone else who has mentioned the idea, though I must point out that any time in history where two groups came together, the idea drew conflict, but later on proved to be beneficial to all parties. It’s not recommending the end of the Mac OS, it’s recommending that the Mac OS become the true digital hub, the universal computer capable of doing almost anything.

The idea is simple and something Apple seriously needs to address. To prevent the decrease in market share, Apple needs to ensure that their computers can run anything it counters. Then they will have a digital hub, and that golden plan Steve Jobs has can succeed. Until then, let us all look fondly at the Power Mac G4 Cube. Let us all say “potential.” Now let us yell “compatibility.”

The transition happened for me last week, though it has taken me a few days to deal with other issues, so now with no further delays, here is what I have noted.

Comcast High Speed Internet is really not so bad. The speed is really the same as @Home was, and nothing major has changed. It seems that their uplink is AT&T BI, which I never saw doing a traceroute with @Home, so that is something new.

As stated before, DHCP is the only method of connecting into the new network. There is currently no static IP address for home users. If you try to connect and make a static IP address, you will find yourself with connections in a few days. It appears the DHCP server refreshes every week, giving you a new IP address, though others report 4 days, and some as long as 10, so I really don’t know for certain how it will be.

A few users have noted that Comcast doesn’t record the MAC address of your computer’s Ethernet card, only that of your cable modem, though others have been told both are recorded. I have not been able to find any definite answer yet.

To supplement the Comcast HSI Application that Comcast has to allow you to go directly to the Comcast page (similar to the @Home application) I have created a generic program that will not only work with Comcast HSI but with virtually any other ISP [Link]

As for routers, I haven’t found one that hasn’t worked. The basic idea is that they must support DHCP, and must be configured correctly with your client ID in place. Static IP addresses are not supported, this is the primary reason I have found that they don’t work.

Now Comcast is working on the second phase of the transition which will add the following:
* Remote Access to your e-mail from virtually anywhere via Webmail
* “My File Locker” ? personal web space for storing your personal files
(MP3s, photos, etc.)
* Up to seven e-mail addresses


According to Comcast, they will provide further information about the conversion process. For a limited time, you will only be allowed 1 email address, with more to follow, eventually up to 7.

This week Apple released its new iMac, completely redesigned with an LCD display and a G4 under the hood this Umbrella like computer is “different” to put it lightly. [Press Release]

This new iMac so far has been the subject of a somewhat large debate. Will it sell? My guess is yes it will sell. Allow me to explain. Look at the pricing for the new iMacs:

The 800 MHz iMac, for a suggested retail price of $1,799(US), includes:

• DVD-R/CD-RW SuperDrive optical drive;
• 256MB SDRAM;
• 60GB Ultra ATA hard drive; and
• Apple Pro Speakers.

The 700 MHz iMac, for a suggested retail price of $1,499(US), includes:

• DVD-ROM/CD-RW Combo optical drive;
• 256MB SDRAM;
• 40GB Ultra ATA hard drive; and
• Apple Pro Speakers.

The 700 MHz iMac, for a suggested retail price of $1,299(US), includes:

• CD-RW optical drive;
• 128MB SDRAM; and
• 40GB Ultra ATA hard drive.

Those prices are pretty competitive. While they are not competing with the low end PC’s, they are cheaper than the G4, and feature more or less the same specifications, upgradability aside as the G4. This will harm the G4, though it may not matter since odds are the G5 will be released in March, or August at the latest. So Apple may not care to much about Power Mac G4 sales.

For as little as 1,299 you have a complete system ready to go, which makes a great terminal for businesses and schools. Think about it. Very small, efficient, and screen included in the design. One price for everything you need except a printer. Hook it up to your network and your ready to go. I can see this as a viable product for businesses.

Another market this product would be great for is the Internet Caf?’s. It’s not very large, which means more computers in a small area, it’s not over priced. It can run Mac OS X, giving a stable and reliable platform. It networks over Ethernet and via Airport. And it looks cool. All that is needed is software to run a Caf?, but that will most likely be overcome in the future.

This new iMac has “Terminal” written all over it. I can see it working mostly in networked environments, but it can also be a good buy for college students since it is very small. Great for those jail cell sized dorm rooms.

My guess is that Apple will sell a good number of these new iMacs, but I wouldn’t keep my hopes to high on having sales like the first iMac. This machine has potential, and should sell. Overall, I wish I could afford to buy one, though I wish I could afford many things I currently can’t. A new iPod would also be great.

I have been researching this for quite some time now. Back in November, based on a readers comment, I became interested in the ongoing struggle of Logitech customers using the QuickCam product line with Macs. Just today, I received my free QuickCam Express, which I got with my Iomega Zip 250 drive. So now that I have first hand experience, I am finally sitting down to publish this article.

On August 10, 1998 Connectix entered into an agreement to sell the QuickCam product line to Logitech. Since then Logitech has been overseeing the development of the QuickCam product line as well s the drivers to power them.

Logitech released it’s last driver update for the QuickCam series on November 6, 1998, over 3 years ago. In September of 2001, they came out with a new QuickCam driver which only supports the QuickCam Pro3000, no support for any other QuickCam, including my new QuickCam Express, which is USB based.

The current drivers that do exist, with the exception of the Pro3000 do not support Mac OS 9.2, an extension must be installed to bypass an error, which may in turn cause your computer to crash. There has never been a driver update to correct this. Not even a patch or solution on the web site.

Doing some research, I have found that the QuickCam product line is currently the most successful web cam on the market, being one of the earlier web cams on the market, and the best selling. There is a large market for such devices, though they have decided not to support Macs anymore, or so it seems.

There are a few projects such as the QuickCam Express driver project [Link] whose goal is to bring the QuickCam Express to Linux. So it may be possible for some good programmer to port this code over to Mac OS X. There is also some technical information about the workings of the QuickCam available. [Link] Another page has some great information about third party drivers for the QuickCam’s, though no Mac drivers [Link]

Wouldn’t that be a great open source project (hint.. .hint) If it isn’t done by the open source community, there may never be support for these cameras.

In all honesty, the hardware is very good. The products work great, but the Mac support is more of a joke than anything else. The prices are also some of the best on the market.

I have tried a few times to contact Logitech and have been told they no longer support Macs. This is according to a few support representatives, since I always try 2 or more times to ensure accuracy.

If anyone from Logitech is willing to comment to me so that I can pass information along to readers, feel free to send me some feedback. And if any programmer decided to take on the task, be sure to let me know so I can follow your status and keep readers informed on the efforts.

I have been wondering about this for quite some time, though on January 1st, I became somewhat convinced Apple is working on a “.net” project to compete with Microsoft and AOL. It all makes perfect sense.

My first item of evidence includes the following domain names:

applereach.com [Whois]
applereach.net [Whois]
macreach.com [Whois]
macreach.net [Whois]

Obviously something is going on for Apple to register these domain names. They seem a bit beyond defending trademark names since these all contain the word “reach”. Why “reach”? It can’t be Apple.net or mac.net since first of all these domain names are registered already, and secondly they would imply it is a Mac only service, which in order for it to succeed, it can’t be.

It would make sense for Apple to take a stab at this open field right now. People are not flocking to the .net idea like Microsoft has hoped. People are avoiding it as much as possible since there are large privacy concerns, and Microsoft is having trouble getting other sites to use .net services since nobody wants to be associated with privacy concerns. Microsoft has always been having these public relations problems. Apple has not. Provided Apple can prove it to be secure, Apple has a good chance of success. And Apple can prove it. Apple based Mac OS X on open source, and Apple has been using many open source security and net technologies. While Microsoft keeps all it’s code under raps, much of Apple’s may be free.

To help get companies to use Apple’s “.net like” strategy, since it could be made partially open source (something Microsoft would never do) it would be able to be used on almost any server architecture. Days after a release for the PPC, there would be many ports in progress for every other major platform.

The second major news is that Apple posted on their site:
“It’s like a backstage pass to the future.”

Referring to the Expo. This leads a person to believe that what Apple is going to announce will change the way we do something. Most likely something major. Apple wouldn’t want to create hype for something like an MP3 player, since that would be a letdown (bad for the Stock) so this has to be something that goes beyond Mac users. Apple letting us preview a “.net like” service would fit that description.


My only other guess could be that someone is buying Apple, it is being bought or that it is merging. But would Apple say anything before that is all final? And wouldn’t they have trouble keeping it quiet?

And obviously my other predictions [Link] still count.

A few MacVillage.net News readers have emailed me about a feature on the SpyMac.com [Link] website featuring what they claim is the new product Apple will announce. The pictures and some video show a demonstration of the “iWalk” which appears to be a PDA reminiscent of the long discontinued, and missed Newton.

I have taken some time to review these video’s and stills, and have decided to agree with the people of As the Apple Turns [Link] that is nothing more than a hoax, though a very good hoax.

Everything ATAT wrote made sense. Why did Apple let it out of the country? Apple has been said to chain prototypes to the tables.

Another thing I noticed was the iWalk video’s were uploaded at different sizes from 540×405 320×240. If the video is from one source, why different sizes? That doesn’t make much sense. Even if they are edited, one would assume they would all be saved the same. By making images smaller, it is easier to hide mistakes.

It appears to me to be a Pocket PC running either a movie of what the screen of an iWalk should look like, or a mock interface was made for this video. It was them simply put into a new shell. That would make the video look perfectly real without much video editing, though the creator is known for his talents in editing and digital graphics.

Lastly, if this was something that was really a prototype from Apple, it would have been closed by Apple Legal, or at least a highly publicized case by now. Apple would have most definitely filed papers for the courts.

While I don’t see it as a reality, I do hope it is true for the future. It would be great to see an Apple PDA reenter the market. From what these video’s show, this iWalk would be a awesome product. I want one bad, though most likely I won’t be able to afford one.