I have tried both the official 2.10.09 and unofficial 2.10.10 betas.

For me they both have the same problem, blocking by schedule
(keywords] does not work. It must work so I can keep my young children
off the net when I am not present.

Settings are present and correct and they only work again when I
revert to 1.05.00.

Do I need to set the router to defaults before upgrading (or even
after)? If so, will I be able to import a backup of my configuration?

TIA for any help.

--
Cheers,

Guy

** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
** out of someone who richly deserves it.

"Dr Teeth" <no_email_here_please@tardis.com> wrote in message
news:tmh431duoukpasjivg5lgfibth07s2l2ki@4ax.com...
>I have tried both the official 2.10.09 and unofficial 2.10.10 betas.
>
> For me they both have the same problem, blocking by schedule
> (keywords] does not work. It must work so I can keep my young children
> off the net when I am not present.
>
> Settings are present and correct and they only work again when I
> revert to 1.05.00.
>
> Do I need to set the router to defaults before upgrading (or even
> after)? If so, will I be able to import a backup of my configuration?
>
> TIA for any help.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Guy
>
> ** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
> ** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
> ** out of someone who richly deserves it.

its a known bug and will be fixed in the full public release

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:36:56 +0000, Dr Teeth
<no_email_here_please@tardis.com> wrote:

>Do I need to set the router to defaults before upgrading (or even
>after)?

Generally this is recommended. You may also need to reboot the router
several times, and I found with my SMC that I had to go away for 30
mins before trying to configure it. No idea why...

I also needed to set the config with IE - it didn't behave properly
with Firefox.

>If so, will I be able to import a backup of my configuration?

quite likely not, as the config size will be different.

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:25:34 +0000 (UTC), "MM" <mmaltby@btinernet.com>
wrote:

>its a known bug and will be fixed in the full public release

Thanks. Any idea of an ETA?


--
Cheers,

Guy

** And some people think that coming **
** down from the trees was a big mistake. **

"Dr Teeth" <no_email_here_please@tardis.com> wrote in message
news:tmh431duoukpasjivg5lgfibth07s2l2ki@4ax.com...
>I have tried both the official 2.10.09 and unofficial 2.10.10 betas.

I can see no mention that there is an "official" 2.**.** release - all
2.**.** releases are beta according to www.netgear.com

Don't use beta firmware unless you're having a problem with the official
release. At least I wouldn't.

Gareth.

Gareth wrote:
> "Dr Teeth" <no_email_here_please@tardis.com> wrote in message
> news:tmh431duoukpasjivg5lgfibth07s2l2ki@4ax.com...
>> I have tried both the official 2.10.09 and unofficial 2.10.10 betas.
>
> I can see no mention that there is an "official" 2.**.** release - all
> 2.**.** releases are beta according to www.netgear.com
>
> Don't use beta firmware unless you're having a problem with the
> official release. At least I wouldn't.
>
> Gareth.

Funnily enough it's a 1.**.* beta which has solved all my problems the
2.**.* ones effectively break it again....

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 22:59:45 -0000, "Gareth" <hotmail.com@dgareth.spm>
wrote:

>>I have tried both the official 2.10.09 and unofficial 2.10.10 betas.
>
>I can see no mention that there is an "official" 2.**.** release - all
>2.**.** releases are beta according to www.netgear.com

read what I wrote again s-l-o-w-l-y.

2.10.09 is an official beta as it appears on Netgear's site, the
2.10.10 is an unofficial beta as it does not and was leaked.

Hope penny's dropping now <g>.

--
Cheers,

Guy

** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
** out of someone who richly deserves it.

"Dr Teeth" <no_email_here_please@tardis.com> wrote in message
news:lps73150piafs0emn0d6v80epd26nl7dh0@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 22:59:45 -0000, "Gareth" <hotmail.com@dgareth.spm>
> wrote:
>
>>>I have tried both the official 2.10.09 and unofficial 2.10.10 betas.
>>
>>I can see no mention that there is an "official" 2.**.** release - all
>>2.**.** releases are beta according to www.netgear.com
>
> read what I wrote again s-l-o-w-l-y.
>
> 2.10.09 is an official beta as it appears on Netgear's site, the
> 2.10.10 is an unofficial beta as it does not and was leaked.
>
> Hope penny's dropping now <g>.

An read the second part of what I said - don't use a chuffing beta unless
you're having problems with the official release; don't be surprised if a
beta software breaks functions that were previously working.

And 2.10.10 was not "leaked" - Netgear gave me a download location for it as
a result of problems with the 1.5 release (i.e. the "official" support
service suggested that I use it as a result of problems with the "official"
1.5 release. Your distinction between "official" and "unofficial" beta
release is therefore questionable.

Gareth.

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:53:21 -0000, "Gareth" <hotmail.com@dgareth.spm>
wrote:

>Your distinction between "official" and "unofficial" beta
>release is therefore questionable.

The .10 beta is not on their site whereas the .9 is.

--
Cheers,

Guy

** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
** out of someone who richly deserves it.

"Dr Teeth" <no_email_here_please@tardis.com> wrote in message
newspa931tju3uqiduib2o3hnm3k2o2tpa99p@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:53:21 -0000, "Gareth" <hotmail.com@dgareth.spm>
> wrote:
>
>>Your distinction between "official" and "unofficial" beta
>>release is therefore questionable.
>
> The .10 beta is not on their site whereas the .9 is.

And for your next example of amazing observational skills?

Fwiw the Netgear firmware system is odd: 1.05 apparently contains an earlier
version of the DSL connection code than 1.04.

Gareth.