Corrupted Files Over LAN

I have noticed that when I transferred files over my LAN that they sometimes
became corrupted. I found it was the NIC in my main computer causing
problem. It is an ASUS P5B motherboard with onboard Atheros L1 Gigabit
Ethernet 100/100/1000Base-T adapter. I had Vista x64 look for newer drivers
and a newer driver was found but I still had corruption of files leaving
computer. After much searching I found the suggestion of setting Task
Offload=off in the driver settings fixed the problem. Turning off Task
Offload seems to have cut the gigabit LAN transfer speed by half but it is
still better than having corrupted files. I am posting this fix to help
anyone else with this trouble. Has anyone else had this problem with the
NIC's in an ASUS motherboard? I am guessing Atheros is not a very good NIC
brand as I have never had a problem like this before.

"Kent_Diego" <> wrote in message news:5Ri4l.3328$...
> I have noticed that when I transferred files over my LAN that they sometimes
> became corrupted. I found it was the NIC in my main computer causing
> problem. It is an ASUS P5B motherboard with onboard Atheros L1 Gigabit
> Ethernet 100/100/1000Base-T adapter. I had Vista x64 look for newer drivers
> and a newer driver was found but I still had corruption of files leaving
> computer. After much searching I found the suggestion of setting Task
> Offload=off in the driver settings fixed the problem. Turning off Task
> Offload seems to have cut the gigabit LAN transfer speed by half but it is
> still better than having corrupted files. I am posting this fix to help
> anyone else with this trouble. Has anyone else had this problem with the
> NIC's in an ASUS motherboard? I am guessing Atheros is not a very good NIC
> brand as I have never had a problem like this before.

I didn't find any references to your specific problem, however I did see
a host of other problems with Atheros (formerly Attansic) controllers...
Windows refusing to boot with the latest Windows Update driver, etc.

A workaround would be to install a separate network card and disable
the Atheros. Or upgrade from Vista to XP :-)

<André>; "PE1PQX" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Ken Maltby beweerde :
> > Has anyone else had this problem with the
> >>>> NIC's in an ASUS motherboard? I am guessing Atheros is not a very
good
> >>>> NIC
> >>>> brand as I have never had a problem like this before.
> >>>
> >>> I didn't find any references to your specific problem, however I did
see
> >>> a host of other problems with Atheros (formerly Attansic)
controllers...
> >>> Windows refusing to boot with the latest Windows Update driver, etc.
> >>>
> >>> A workaround would be to install a separate network card and disable
> >>> the Atheros. Or upgrade from Vista to XP :-)
> >>
> >> Er... upgrading from Vista to XP???
> >>
> >
> > Sounds right to me.
> >
> > The Gigabit controllers mentioned with with my last two
> > Asus system generations (A8N-E and M3A32-MVP)
> > were Marvell.
> >
> > Luck;
> > Ken
>
> I think he meant downgrading from Vista to XP, not upgrading...
>
Me thinks it was ment that Vista is not all that great and you would be
up-grading by going to XP-Pro.... still running 2k pro here, but thought
vista would be better, still dont know yet. its really all the same software
and upgrades are really needed only when current os wont handle new hardware
properly... ie:32 gigs of memory. and I thought DOS was cool had a
Commodore 64.


Pokeyman

"pokey man" <james7273(remove)@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:OKK4l.11462$...
>
> <André>; "PE1PQX" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > Ken Maltby beweerde :
> > > Has anyone else had this problem with the
> > >>>> NIC's in an ASUS motherboard? I am guessing Atheros is not a very
> good
> > >>>> NIC
> > >>>> brand as I have never had a problem like this before.
> > >>>
> > >>> I didn't find any references to your specific problem, however I did
> see
> > >>> a host of other problems with Atheros (formerly Attansic)
> controllers...
> > >>> Windows refusing to boot with the latest Windows Update driver, etc.
> > >>>
> > >>> A workaround would be to install a separate network card and disable
> > >>> the Atheros. Or upgrade from Vista to XP :-)
> > >>
> > >> Er... upgrading from Vista to XP???
> > >>
> > >
> > > Sounds right to me.
> > >
> > > The Gigabit controllers mentioned with with my last two
> > > Asus system generations (A8N-E and M3A32-MVP)
> > > were Marvell.
> > >
> > > Luck;
> > > Ken
> >
> > I think he meant downgrading from Vista to XP, not upgrading...
> >
> Me thinks it was ment that Vista is not all that great and you would be
> up-grading by going to XP-Pro.... still running 2k pro here, but thought
> vista would be better, still dont know yet. its really all the same software
> and upgrades are really needed only when current os wont handle new hardware
> properly... ie:32 gigs of memory. and I thought DOS was cool had a
> Commodore 64.

Bing bing we have a winner.

Win2K is best. XP is a security nightmare, although the best MS
option for 64-bit. Vista? An outright disaster.

>> ....
>
> Bing bing we have a winner.
>
> Win2K is best. XP is a security nightmare, although the best MS
> option for 64-bit. Vista? An outright disaster.
>
>
Funny you bring up security as that is the biggest improvement Vista bring
to the table. A lot of moaners complain about UAC but I like getting a
notification if some third rate application is trying to modify system
settings. I run Vista x64 on a quad core with 8 GB so it takes ~35 seconds
to boot up. I had a dual boot Vista x64/XP at first but I got rid of the XP
drive recently as I never used it. It just seemed old, dull and a big waste
of RAM. The signed driver enforcement is a drag or old obscure peripherals.
I got plenty of old computers that do OK with XP. I put Vista 32-bit on an
old P4-3.0GHz w/2 GB RAM and it runs OK. It takes a while to get used to
the way Vista is set up but after a while it is no problem. It sure looks a
lot nicer. My wife made me install on her computer when she saw Vista on
mine. Now days the new DirectX 10 games run faster in DX10 mode than DX9.

This reminds me of when Windows 95 first came out. The news groups were
flooded with complainers who hated Win 95 and were all going back to Win
3.1. I wonder how many are still using Windows 3.1? If your hardware cannot
support Vista, stick with XP, 2000 or 3.1 if that is what works.

"Kent_Diego" <> wrote in message news:0BR4l.3445$...
> >> ....
> >
> > Bing bing we have a winner.
> >
> > Win2K is best. XP is a security nightmare, although the best MS
> > option for 64-bit. Vista? An outright disaster.
> >
> >
> Funny you bring up security as that is the biggest improvement Vista bring
> to the table. A lot of moaners complain about UAC but I like getting a
> notification if some third rate application is trying to modify system
> settings. I run Vista x64 on a quad core with 8 GB so it takes ~35 seconds
> to boot up. I had a dual boot Vista x64/XP at first but I got rid of the XP
> drive recently as I never used it. It just seemed old, dull and a big waste
> of RAM. The signed driver enforcement is a drag or old obscure peripherals.
> I got plenty of old computers that do OK with XP. I put Vista 32-bit on an
> old P4-3.0GHz w/2 GB RAM and it runs OK. It takes a while to get used to
> the way Vista is set up but after a while it is no problem. It sure looks a
> lot nicer. My wife made me install on her computer when she saw Vista on
> mine. Now days the new DirectX 10 games run faster in DX10 mode than DX9.
>
> This reminds me of when Windows 95 first came out. The news groups were
> flooded with complainers who hated Win 95 and were all going back to Win
> 3.1. I wonder how many are still using Windows 3.1? If your hardware cannot
> support Vista, stick with XP, 2000 or 3.1 if that is what works.

It's not a question of what your hardware can support. Run through the
list of services/processes on a new Vista install, and the amount of bloat
(not to mention potential security holes) is beyond belief. As for UAC,
it's the first thing people disable in Vista, because of MS's horrible and
lazy implementation. No one wants to click 10 or 20 braindead dialog
boxes to do any bit of routine maintenance or administration on a system.

Vista was just another excuse for MS to sell the same OS (practically)
one more time to consumers. DX10 would have been faster and far
more easily coded for Win2K than Vista.

In article <5Ri4l.3328$>, says...

> I have noticed that when I transferred files over my LAN that they sometimes
> became corrupted. I found it was the NIC in my main computer causing
> problem. It is an ASUS P5B motherboard with onboard Atheros L1 Gigabit
> Ethernet 100/100/1000Base-T adapter. I had Vista x64 look for newer drivers
> and a newer driver was found but I still had corruption of files leaving
> computer. After much searching I found the suggestion of setting Task
> Offload=off in the driver settings fixed the problem. Turning off Task
> Offload seems to have cut the gigabit LAN transfer speed by half but it is
> still better than having corrupted files. I am posting this fix to help
> anyone else with this trouble. Has anyone else had this problem with the
> NIC's in an ASUS motherboard? I am guessing Atheros is not a very good NIC
> brand as I have never had a problem like this before.

I myself had issues one time (not specifically that board & NIC) on the
recieving end corrupting files. At first attributed it to onboard NIC,
tried PCI NIC still same problem. Turned out it was a bad memory stick
corrupting the files during transfer on the recieving end machine. If I
transfered files from the bad stick machine to another it was fine.