Text 4935, 97 rader
Skriven 2005-03-15 18:28:13 av Alan Zisman (1:106/2000.0)
   Kommentar till text 4921 av CHARLES ANGELICH (1:123/140)
Ärende: Re: lan
===============
-=> CHARLES ANGELICH wrote to ALAN ZISMAN <=-

 BR>>> matter what I do when I go to network neighborhood, it
 BR>>> says network unavailable. I checked the Help info but it
 BR>>> just confirmed what I already did <groan>. Anyone?

 DC>> From my experience, it's a lot of trial and error, mostly
 DC>> error!

 CA>> > --8<--cut

 CA>> I've tried on three seperate occasions to get an XP to
 CA>> network with a W98SE machine and failed.

 CA>> I've noticed since those embarassing failures that many
 CA>> (if not most) who do get this to work have no idea what
 CA>> finally worked for them. They 'fiddled' until it worked
 CA>> even if they won't admit to that.

 AZ> I got a new WinXP-powered system at my school yesterday
 AZ> (the first NEW computer since 2000)... I need it to connect
 AZ> to the Win98-powered peer-to-peer servers.

 CA> That's another thing that confuses me. At one time there were
 CA> 'token ring' networks, LANs (Novell or Lantastic), and then
 CA> direct connections via null cable. Now there is P2P which seems
 CA> to me to be a _renamed_ LAN? My understanding is probably
 CA> warped but 'token ring' networks had a server connected to by
 CA> 'clients', LANs did not have a central sever with all machines
 CA> sharing resources. Resources being primarily printers, and
 CA> drives ( I don't recall them sharing modems - maybe they did?).

 CA> If there is no server involved I don't think 'network' is an
 CA> entirely accurate designation for P2P. Seems there was a time
 CA> when a distinction was made in this case.

 CA> Other software that _emulates_ networking via null cables will
 CA> not allow the use of the machine designated as the 'server'.
 CA> Only the 'client' machine can execute other software during the
 CA> connection to the machine that is designated as the server.

 AZ> Although the Win98 server showed up in the My Network
 AZ> Places list, it gave an error message saying I was not
 AZ> permitted to connect. I installed NetBEUI from the XP CD,
 AZ> and it now connects without problem.

 CA> I remembered that you had mentioned NetBEUI as a solution to
 CA> printer sharing and I did try adding NetBEUI several times.

 CA> Theoretically there is no logical reason why NetBEUI should be
 CA> required. Linux and the entire internet function (network)
 CA> using TCP/IP and no NetBEUI?

 1) I don't have any direct experience using Token Ring... but my (limited)
understand is that it's a hardware standard... it covers Network Interface
Cards, cabling, etc... just as Ethernet allows for cards (at various speeds),
cables (several different specifications), etc. Different network protocols
should (again, to my limited understanding) work with different hardware
standards. For instance, a decade or more ago, the first network that I set up
was using Lantastic networking software over Arcnet cards and cabling. We
quickly switched to using Ethernet cards-- and thin coax cabling (since we
didn't need expensive hubs that way), and finally to Ethernet using twisted
pair cabling-- but all running the same Lantastic software.

2) Local Area Networks can be designed to work around a dedicated server--
Novell Netware, or one of a variety of Windows server versions are examples.
Peer-to-peer networks use software in which any of the systems can be sharing
resources (typically files or printers) with the others. WFWG, Win9x, WinNT
Pro, Win 2000 Pro, or Win XP (Home or Pro) can all be set up for peer-to-peer
networks (as could the old Lantastic).

In my school, I use Win9x peer-to-peer networking, but designate a couple of
systems as what I refer to as quasi-servers; they're acting as servers because
no one sits down at them and uses them as workstations. I do that for a couple
of reasons. One is security; I wouldn't want a kid to be working at the system
that stores everyone else's files, records for keyboarding and ESL software,
etc. The other is performance... I found that having someone using possibly CPU
or Disk-intensive programs while others were accessing files or printing via
that system made for a poorly-performing workstation and a poorly-performing
server.

But it's a 'quasi-server' because it's running Win9x rather than a 'real'
network operating system. In some cases, the distinction can be nominal-- there
are reportedly only a few Registry settings different between NT 4 Server and
Workstation or Win 2000 Server and Professional-- and a hack floats around the
Net to instantly switch between one and the other. (One of the differences is
that NT4 Workstation and Win2000 Pro are limited to 10 connections at a time).
A Linux installation can be used either as a workstation or a server; the
difference is what optional programs are installed (Apache for web serving, for
instance).

3) I agree-- I don't know of any 'theoretical' reason why NetBEUI should be
needed on a properly set up TCP/IP network... but it seems to make a big
difference in real life.
... Inet mail to: alan at zisman dot ca
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.46
 * Origin: COMM Port OS/2 juge.com 204.89.247.1 (281) 980-9671 (1:106/2000)