Vista. Giving Local Area Network connection preference

Sometimes I use my notebook attached to a docking station and sometimes I walk around using a wireless connection.

So I've got both network connections configured in Windows Vista.

I'd like to configure it in a way that once it is attached to the docking station it does NOT use the wireless network connection but instead uses the LAN one.

Is there anyway of doing so? Currently I work around this issue by manually disabling the wireless connection anytime the notebook sits in the docking station.

Hints are greatly appreciated. Maybe there's a small free tool which allows to easily switch between connections?

dahat wrote:

While I never had much luck with it when I needed it back when I was running 2000... the Interface Metric property (of the TCP (v4 or v6) protocol properties) allows you to specify which interface should have higher priority.

Another option is to explicitly change the order the adapters are used in:

Start -> Network -> Network and Sharing Center -> Manage network connections -> Advanced (menu) -> Advanced Settings

Thanks for your reply. I could not find an "Advanced (menu)" in "Network Connections". Running Vista Ultimate here, so I suppose it should have this option.

Could you explain in a bit more detail how to get there?

Be# wrote:



dahat wrote: While I never had much luck with it when I needed it back when I was running 2000... the Interface Metric property (of the TCP (v4 or v6) protocol properties) allows you to specify which interface should have higher priority. Another option is to explicitly change the order the adapters are used in: Start -> Network -> Network and Sharing Center -> Manage network connections -> Advanced (menu) -> Advanced Settings

Thanks for your reply. I could not find an "Advanced (menu)" in "Network Connections". Running Vista Ultimate here, so I suppose it should have this option.

Could you explain in a bit more detail how to get there?

You're not alone.



Press ALT to activate the classic menu.

And yet again Vista's new "improved" Control Panel is shown to be a failure of epic proportions.

ManipUni wrote:

And yet again Vista's new "improved" Control Panel is shown to be a failure of epic proportions.

Yeah, definitely prefer Vista to XP when taken as a whole, but that is just some crazy bad design. And if you open that dialog box that Long points to, it doesn't look like it has been updated in a long long time.

Still not as bad as the instlal new font dialog. It hasn't been changed since Windows 3.1, what PM owns that feature??!?

Personally I think the "classic menus" are a horrible idea. It's like saying "we're not quite sure this is a good design so here's the old version too".

They should've either stuck with menus, or (preferably) made sure that the new interface could do everything the menus could then get rid of the menus entirely (similar to the Office 2007).

Providing two ways to do stuff, one of which is not easily discoverable but required for some functionality, is not a good idea.

Vista's Control Panel is a good idea with bad execution. Certainly the main Control Panel interface is better than it was (it's basically XP's category view done right), and I like the idea of keeping the settings inside the explorer window. But they should've done it everywhere; as it is it's a mishmash of the explorer-style windows and old-style dialogs which looks like a mess.

What they should have done is all sit down in a room and come up with an entire concept to do all Control Panel functions instead of re-inventing the UI for every screen and designing screens with multiple components in them (e.g. MMC).

See OS X for details (don't see Linux).

Windows Vista's UI is the answer to - "What would happen if the UI was 10% Windows 3.1, 30% Windows 9x, and 60% Windows Vista?"

PS - Vista's Control Panel *IS* worse than XP because it is even less intuitive if that is possible.

I've a sneaking suspicion that Control Panel will get something of an overhaul in the next version of Windows. It's pretty clear that much of the current "design" is a hideous mess of backwards-compatability and things that had to be bodged to reduce UAC prompts.

+1 on the stupidness of hidden "classic" menus as well.

AndyC wrote:

I've a sneaking suspicion that Control Panel will get something of an overhaul in the next version of Windows.

Joy.

So now system support staff will have to memorise three instruction sets for people to do basic operations in the Control Panel.

It does a lot more harm than good to only half arse fixed something like this.

AndyC wrote:

It's pretty clear that much of the current "design" is a hideous mess of backwards-compatability and things that had to be bodged to reduce UAC prompts.

Why not simply do two Control Panels... A basic one that a normal user can use and a Escalate Button which when used brings up all of those controls plus administrative controls (e.g. OS X, Task Manager)?

ManipUni wrote:



AndyC wrote: I've a sneaking suspicion that Control Panel will get something of an overhaul in the next version of Windows.

Joy.

So now system support staff will have to memorise three instruction sets for people to do basic operations in the Control Panel.

It does a lot more harm than good to only half arse fixed something like this.

AndyC wrote: It's pretty clear that much of the current "design" is a hideous mess of backwards-compatability and things that had to be bodged to reduce UAC prompts.

Why not simply do two Control Panels... A basic one that a normal user can use and a Escalate Button which when used brings up all of those controls plus administrative controls (e.g. OS X, Task Manager)?

Why not just do 1 version and leave it the heck alone.

The control panel isn't meant to be a fancy-schmancy, whiz-bang UI, it's a place to tweak stuff.  Usually, you don't want noob users to muck around in there, and non-noobs are able to navigate quite well in the simple layout, so why do we need a 3rd option?

AndyC wrote:

+1 on the stupidness of hidden "classic" menus as well.

Hidden "classic" menus are fine as long as everything's exposed in the UI...  it's just that they usually screw up and forget something (e.g. this, or Import/Export favorites in IE).

ScanIAm wrote:

The control panel isn't meant to be a fancy-schmancy, whiz-bang UI, it's a place to tweak stuff. Usually, you don't want noob users to muck around in there, and non-noobs are able to navigate quite well in the simple layout, so why do we need a 3rd option?

A non-administrator isn't a noob.

Things like:
- Desktop Look / Feel
- Sound Options
- Language, and Time Zone Settings
- Login Display Picture, Password etc
- Accessibility

Should ALL be accessible to any user account on the machine and should only change settings within the context of that user.

I'm not talking about a "whiz-bang" UI. I'm talking about hiding inaccessible options until you escalate the UI to an administrative state. It really isn't a new or original concept.

Feel free to check out the Windows Vista Task Manager as an example.

PS - Your "noob friendly" UI would make it far easier for a non-administrator to damage the machine and or it would result in multiple UAC prompts (e.g. One per task). My way is a single prompt and less clutter most of the time.

CannotResolveSymbol wrote:

(e.g. this, or Import/Export favorites in IE).

Import/Export favorites is available without needing the classic menus, just click the "add to favorites" button (the star with the plus on it) and pick "Import and Export".

I have an idea!!!!

Microsoft, you know what's a wireless card and what is a wired card.

You also know that the wire is ALWAYS preferrer for the same network path.

So why in god's name doesn't the wired card get a lower metric by default than wireless cards?

People that want it the other way around can change it, but I don't know ANYONE that doesn't think it's stupid that EVERY computer with a wireless card and a wired card defaults to the wireless as highest priority. I get asked this question probably 10 times a month and have to set the metric on every single computer!

This is the type of thought that goes into a Mac that is completely laking in Windows (i.e. Vista's 7 different ways to shut it down!)

MS needs to rehire it's QA team on top of the unit tests and get some usability happening again.

ManipUni wrote:



ScanIAm wrote: The control panel isn't meant to be a fancy-schmancy, whiz-bang UI, it's a place to tweak stuff. Usually, you don't want noob users to muck around in there, and non-noobs are able to navigate quite well in the simple layout, so why do we need a 3rd option?

A non-administrator isn't a noob.

Things like:
- Desktop Look / Feel
- Sound Options
- Language, and Time Zone Settings
- Login Display Picture, Password etc
- Accessibility

Should ALL be accessible to any user account on the machine and should only change settings within the context of that user.

I'm not talking about a "whiz-bang" UI. I'm talking about hiding inaccessible options until you escalate the UI to an administrative state. It really isn't a new or original concept.

Feel free to check out the Windows Vista Task Manager as an example.

PS - Your "noob friendly" UI would make it far easier for a non-administrator to damage the machine and or it would result in multiple UAC prompts (e.g. One per task). My way is a single prompt and less clutter most of the time.

Yay for you taking the exact opposite point from my post.

I'll summarize:  The UI should be geared towards smarty-pants admins, not noobs.