TX CS aggie
@suddenlink.net |  [Firmware] DD-WRT vs Tomato for UPnP and TCP connections
| |
|
 
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| Re: [Firmware] DD-WRT vs Tomato for UPnP and TCP connections At this point, I would say Tomato wins out, especially with its adoption of miniupnp. The default upnp library (Intel's) and utility that comes with the stock firmware (and last I looked, DD-WRT) is atrocious.
I've covered this in the old and recent past:
»New Version Of Tomato
»wrt54gl / DD-WRT and UPnP
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer. | |
|
 |
TX CS aggie
@suddenlink.net | Re: [Firmware] DD-WRT vs Tomato for UPnP and TCP connections thank you for pointing that out I have been out of the loop after Tomato 1.23
For my main router I agree Tomato is the way to go. | |
|
| | RoadRunner79
join:2008-01-19
San Antonio, TX | Re: [Firmware] DD-WRT vs Tomato for UPnP and TCP connections If I have DD WRT already on router is it easy to put tomato onto the router? | |
|
| | | robewhitener
join:2001-06-22
Asheville, NC | Re: [Firmware] DD-WRT vs Tomato for UPnP and TCP connections I prefer Tomato 1.23. 1.25 seems to have some issues, but 1.23 seems to be rock solid. I'm using the Victek mod.. That guy is just amazing.
--
| |
|
| | | | Napsterbater
Premium
join:2002-12-28
Milledgeville, GA
 ·Windstream
 ·BroadVoice
| Re: [Firmware] DD-WRT vs Tomato for UPnP and TCP connections said by robewhitener  :I prefer Tomato 1.23. 1.25 seems to have some issues, but 1.23 seems to be rock solid. I'm using the Victek mod.. That guy is just amazing. What kind of issues, 1.25 has been rock soild for me on my WRTSL54GS (man that a long model number =P)
--
AMD Phenom II x3 720 BE @ 3.5Ghz(OC) | 4Gb Memory @ 1600mhz | Sapphire ATI HD4870 1GB 800mhz/1000mhz(OC) | 2x500GB HDD's Raid 0 | Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Build 7100 | |
|
|
|
|
