New computer, no internet

August 6, 2007 6:49 PM

New computer won't connect to internet...

I just bought a new computer (Compaq bottom line) for my mother-in-law who only uses it for internet / email. Everything seems to be working fine, however it does not recognize the internet connection...a cable modem. The modem is working fine and works if hooked back up to the old computer. The message displayed on the system tray icon is "Network Access: Local Only" I've tried the wizards to diagnose and repair the connection to no avail. The green data light at the ethernet connection is blinking as if it is transmitting data...but no connection. It came pre-installed with Norton Internet Security :(
Any ideas?

posted by unccivil to computers & internet (16 comments total)

Have you tried restarting the cable modem? My modem will need to be restarted when I use a computer/router with a different MAC address.
posted by birdherder at 7:05 PM on August 6, 2007

Does this computer have Vista? Have you tried calling the help line since its a new comp? Or, the people who provide you with the cable modem...?
posted by crewshell at 7:15 PM on August 6, 2007

Seconding bird herder, you need to be start the cable modem.
posted by k8t at 7:17 PM on August 6, 2007

I've restarted the modem several times...unplug, wait, plug back in.

I called Compaq support once, but the support person (or maybe I) could not speak english very well and we could not seem to communicate with each other what the exact problems or solutions were.
posted by unccivil at 7:27 PM on August 6, 2007

Do you have any software that came with the cable modem? You may need to use it to install a driver that your Compaq needs to recognize it. The software might set up the network connection for you too.

Can you tell us the brand and model of the cable modem? Sadly if you just bought a new computer, then it's probably running Vista which I don't have, so I can't give detailed instructions for the next bit, but hopefully someone else will chime in. In the meantime...

Have you compared the internet connection that exists on the old computer with the new computer?

(If you know how, Go to the Control Panel, and select Network, then review the existing Local Area Connection by right-clicking, then selecting properties. In the box that pops up, scroll down to Internet Protocol, click once, and then click the Properties button. Compare what you see on the two computers. Make them the same if they're not.)
posted by lockedroomguy at 7:36 PM on August 6, 2007

No, the cable modem is a typical plug&play variety provided by Time Warner Cable. I don't have the manufacturer handy (I'm on my own computer at home right now). I will check the Internet Protocol...from what I remember it was trying to connect using a WAN PPP????, which I thought should be a LAN (since it's not wireless, right?); but I don't know how to change that.

I tried setting up a new network, but that didn't work either.
posted by unccivil at 7:46 PM on August 6, 2007

thirding (frikkin') vista.

in vista, microsoft fixed (aka broke) something in dhcp client. connecting to any microsoft dhcp server is no problem, but many other existing dhcp servers (whether your home linksys/netgear/etc. router, or directly to your isp's network) will cause vista to perform as mentioned.

there are two or three registry workarounds you can try, but honestly the easiest way is to wipe the machine and install xp (or ubuntu if you're feeling adventurous) -- we (several it professionals) spent many a day on this at work, and that is our best advice.

cf
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928233
http://www.reviewingit.com/index.php/content/view/29/2/
(not hyperlinked just because it pisses me off so much...)
posted by dorian at 7:49 PM on August 6, 2007

ok had to look it up, but here is the other thing we'd tried that some people'd recommended --
netsh interface tcp set global rss=disabled autotuninglevel=disabled
(need to execute this from command prompt with escalated privileges)

NB: this and the registry mods did NOT help us one bit, altho various people on the 'net reported success with either or both... oddly what DID help us in one case was simply changing the SSID of a wireless router to something new; go fig.
posted by dorian at 8:02 PM on August 6, 2007

If the only problem is you can't get an address from the DHCP server in the router just go with static IPs.
posted by Mitheral at 8:16 PM on August 6, 2007

dorian...hmmmm, a lot of that went over my head and the registry change is a scary prospect. Obtaining a copy of XP would probably cost more than the computer itself. Can I change the SSID on a cable modem? I might try that first.
posted by unccivil at 8:21 PM on August 6, 2007

Sorry for my ignorance, but I don't even know what a DHCP server is or how to find out if the modem has one...I also am clueless on static IPs.
posted by unccivil at 8:24 PM on August 6, 2007

apologies... changing ssid is something you can do on a wireless router (e.g. think of when you connect to a wireless network "starbucks123", "mikes apartment", "apple 412332" etc. that is the ssid... in your case it's not relevant, sorry)

dhcp server is the thing that is giving your computer a dynamic IP address (in this case, as you are connected directly to cable modem yes? it is your internet provider giving you the address; the modem is simply an intermediary. so it really doesn't make sense to try setting a static IP, unless you were to put a router between the computer and the modem)

oh hell where is paulsc, he needs his own languagehat-style signal....

well, without wiping or installing anything, or making any scary registry changes... how about trying one of these two things:

a) connect a different computer (e.g. yours or a friends, laptop running windows xp or mac osx or linux) and see what happens (in this case you probably do need to power-cycle the modem as people mentioned)

2) borrow or download+burn a linux livecd (ubuntu is fine but for convenience even something as small as INSRT will be sufficient) -- boot it and see if it can get on the network (again, caveat of re-booting the modem)

this at least may tell you if it's the problem of vista on the compaq or not.
posted by dorian at 8:43 PM on August 6, 2007

Seriously: if your mother is only going to be using this thing for Internet and email and maybe a bit of word processing, kicking Vista in the head NOW and switching to Ubuntu is going to save you a world of grief.

Yes, I'm an Ubuntu fanboi. But I'm also an experienced Windows sysadmin. And my mother's computer runs Ubuntu.
posted by flabdablet at 9:16 PM on August 6, 2007

silly me you already said connecting the old computer works. sorry. disregard previous post!

so yeah, burn down vista! install ubuntu (or even better kubuntu!!) -- as mentioned you can give it a try first with the livecd, without ever touching the windows installation. if it passes muster, install it permanently.

kubuntu > ubuntu
posted by dorian at 9:51 PM on August 6, 2007

Call Time Warner and have them walk you through it.

If you've got Vista it should be set up for DHCP by default. You may need some kind of PPPoE software from Time Warner though.
posted by BrotherCaine at 12:35 AM on August 7, 2007

This is absolutely not the place to get into a KDE vs. Gnome religious war; I'll state upfront, though, that I picked Gnome (standard on Ubuntu) rather than KDE (standard on Kubuntu) for my mother's machine, and that I also use Gnome at home.

In my opinion, the Gnome project's focus on usability, discoverability and doing the right thing by default makes it more suitable for newbie users (and for me, incidentally) than KDE's focus on control, customization and extensibility. There's an equally well-informed body of opinion that takes the opposite view.

In fact, whether you choose to install Ubuntu or Kubuntu (or Xubuntu or Edubuntu or any of the other derivatives) matters much less than you might easily conclude by reading the assorted flame wars. You will have far more fun and less grief with any of these than with Vista.

All the Ubuntu derivatives run the same package manager and use the same package structure, so anything you install in an Ubuntu-derived system will run fine regardless of which (if any!) desktop environment you pick. The package manager will sort out all the dependencies and auto-install all the required libraries whenever you install any package. Your upfront choice of desktop environment is not a limiting choice.

Also, Canonical provides metapackages that install the entire Gnome suite, the entire K suite, the entire XFCE suite, the entire Fluxbox suite, and so on; it's very very easy to install a bunch of desktop environments, try them out and see which would fit your mother's usage patterns most comfortably.

These are Interesting Times for Microsoft. This is the first time Microsoft has released a new operating system into a market environment containing free alternatives that are easier to get up and running with than Microsoft's new product, despite Windows being preloaded on the vast majority of new computers.

Unix and derivatives have always, since Day 1, been multi-user, multi-tasking, time-sharing systems. This has meant that there has always, in Unix culture, been a clear divide between system-level administrative tools and application programs, and it's very very rare to find an end-user app that wants admin rights it doesn't actually need.

Windows, by contrast, started out as a firmly single-user system, and that has created a culture that still today makes it take a fair degree of fiddling to get popular application programs working without needing admin rights to do so. The net result is that most Windows boxes run with full admin rights active most of the time - partly because that's how they usually come preconfigured, but mostly because most people don't have the time or inclination to tune their OS or fight with their apps to make this unnecessary. This, in turn, makes the effects of security exploits consistently disastrous, and keeps people like me in business just cleaning up the mess.

To give a system with this cultural inheritance any semblance of security, Microsoft has really had no choice but to bolt on fix after fix after patch after fix: virus scanners, spyware scanners, Malicious Software Removal Tools and now, in Vista, User Account Control and mandatorily signed device drivers - and all because the one security facility that actually can be made to work, and work very very effectively without causing any stress at all for users (non-admin rights for most programs most of the time) is Too Hard for cultural, rather than technical, reasons.

With Vista, the security bolt-ons have become so visible, and so confusing and annoying, that people are actually starting to have almost as much trouble dealing with the security stuff as they have ever had dealing with advertising pop-ups or spyware.

With Ubuntu, the Unix family has finally got its out-of-the-box usability act together. It really has. And the result is a secure and mostly trouble-free system that's genuinely pleasant to use, genuinely easy to do family tech support for, and free.

And that's why I'm a Linux fanboi, and that's why I hope you'll at least give serious consideration to the notion of ditching Vista. In 2007, Ubuntu is simply less trouble than Windows. This wasn't true until about last year. It really is true now, and given the cultural legacies of both systems, I can't see it getting less true any time soon.
posted by flabdablet at 5:31 PM on August 7, 2007