Text 5554, 200 rader
Skriven 2005-03-21 17:52:00 av CHARLES ANGELICH (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av GERALD MILLER
Ärende: lan
===========

123c544572b5
win95



Hello Gerald - 

GM> [snip] 

CA>>>> No need to berate yourself. My attempts to network my
CA>>>> brother's machines was quite some time ago (earlier this
CA>>>> year) and in no way related to any conversations here on
CA>>>> FIDO. 

GM>>> Your brother's machines are now networked or the attempt
GM>>> was not successful? 

CA>> I failed miserably and have not returned to try a second
CA>> time as yet. I _will_ but not sure when. 

GM> Please take capacious notes so you can relate all the
GM> details back to us. 

I will start with, "It was the best of times, it was the worst
of times ..." and work from there. :-) 

GM> Who started this thread anyway? I haven't seen this much
GM> action since Lindbergh crossed the Atlantic. 

I began this conversation about networking by admitting that I
had little/no hands-on experience with networking and had
failed miserably when attempting same on two of my brother's
computers. My admitting a failure emboldened others to admit to
lesser failures of a similar nature and it expanded from there.
:-) 

It was and continues to be my hope that rather than pretend
"all is well" we will share our negative experiences along with
our successes and all learn more than we knew by doing so. The
few self-proclaimed 'experts' have and will continue to chime
in to regal us with their accomplishments but that is also the
nature of FIDO along with the more positive aspects. :-) 

GM>>>>> ;-) Only certain aspects are easy, the rest is "ball
GM>>>>> breaking" work! 

CA>>>> I am encouraged by so many others here and their
CA>>>> willingness to admit that networking/P2P Windows
CA>>>> computers has not always worked as-advertised and can be
CA>>>> extremely frustrating. It's a start. Once we admit that
CA>>>> tutorials and docs available aren't entirely forthcoming
CA>>>> about every step necessary we may be able to compile a
CA>>>> _proper_ set of instructions for each version of Windows
CA>>>> that results in the total networking capabilities we
CA>>>> have all been lead to believe exists within the Windows
CA>>>> OS. 

CA>> >> :-) 

GM>>> Would this P2P be PPTP (Point-to-Point Tunneling
GM>>> Protocol)? 

CA>> Nope nothing fancy just P2P. :-( 

GM> As in Limewire / Kazza ??? 

No as in from one computer cabled directly to another computer. 

CA>> --8<--cut 

BR>>>>>> Well, I had difficulty mostly due to my own ignorance
BR>>>>>> ... had I researched the subject beforehand, I would
BR>>>>>> have found plenty of information, all very neatly
BR>>>>>> organized with exactly what I needed, including screen
BR>>>>>> shots <shrug>. I still have to set up ICS to share the
BR>>>>>> modem plus DOS networking on another machine, as well
BR>>>>>> as Linux & Samba, so I checked out the references
BR>>>>>> given and saved the web pages complete with
BR>>>>>> screenshots for perusal under DOS as needed. 

BR>>>> >> [:^) 

GM>>>>> Very neatly organized? Screen shots? DOS networking?
GM>>>>> E-mail will be forthcoming! <vBg> 

CA>>>> If Ben has knowledge as to the whereabouts of such
CA>>>> detailed information it would benefit many users here if
CA>>>> he listed those locations within a message posted here
CA>>>> on FIDO? 

GM>>> I would agree with that request also. Google can provide
GM>>> much good information (at "most" times), but it can give
GM>>> enough information to choke a horse -- information
GM>>> overload. 

Notice the URLs did not appear within this thread (or any other
I am aware of). 

CA>> All source of inforation (tutorials especially) are not
CA>> complete. Many assume knowledge that I do not have or are
CA>> too specific about the hardware and software to be of much
CA>> use (to me). 

GM> I _think_ Ben mentioned that Alan Z. is holding _ALL_ the
GM> answers... :B) 

Alan has admitted that originally his information was too very
W95 specific and he has since expanded the information to
include other newer versions of Windows. I have confidence that
Alan will eventually have the subject well in hand. :-) 

GM> [snip] 

CA>>>> Had I been 'lucky' I may have been unaware that the
CA>>>> available information is incomplete and often
CA>>>> contradicts other information. My misfortune may have
CA>>>> positive results if we can compile better tutorials. 

GM>>> Due to my recent catastrophe, I may be able to start a
GM>>> description for W2k.... 

CA>> Good. :-) 

GM> Good? You can be a cold hearted, cruel SOB when you put
GM> your mind to it. Oh, wait... Are you meaning the fact that
GM> I may be doing a description for W2K? <smile> Yes, that
GM> could be good, I guess. I just hope that I don't get
GM> overwhelmed with details... 

If you are like me you will forget to write down what you have
done during 'flurries' of activity and then abandon your notes
when you realize parts are missing. :-) 

GM>>>>> Also, WinXPP and Win2K are NT based systems, are they
GM>>>>> not? Is anyone aware of compatibility issues between
GM>>>>> these two systems? (I suspect that they would be more
GM>>>>> harmonious than most other systems, but I'm seeking
GM>>>>> answers) 

CA>> The difference in NTFS and NTFSv5 is significant but
CA>> you're referring to networking here. :-) 

GM> This discussion about NT File Systems is getting to be a
GM> little hairy! 

GM> If I had a drive on my (former) W2K box that was NTFS and I
GM> transferred some files across the network to a NTFS drive
GM> on the WinXPP box, what would happen? The implication that
GM> I'm receiving is that either W2K or XPP is NTFSv5 and that
GM> there may be an incompatibility issue here. 

The act of transfer involves software that accesses the OS at a
level where differences in hard drive formats do not enter into
the equation. 

GM> My presumption was that NTFS was a "standard" file system
GM> and that everything would be okey-dokey, no matter which
GM> way the files were moved. 

NTFS is/was a 'standard' and NTFSv5 is also a standard as is
FAT32, FAT16, and FAT12. I think there was also an HPFS
somewhere along the way for Microsoft? 

Short version is that W2K and XP share the NTFSv5 format.
Software that operates at that level (utilities mainly) need to
be compatible. Earlier NT uses NTFS and may or may not be
compatible. 

CA>>>> In theory, any machine using TCP/IP to network should
CA>>>> function with any other machine using TCP/IP. A Linux
CA>>>> machine should be able to network with a Windows machine
CA>>>> (any flavor). The differences in filename max length and
CA>>>> allowed characters might be a speed bump though? 

GM>>> Maybe I misunderstood what I read in the Dummies book,
GM>>> but that's the exact purpose of TCP/IP, be a "translator"
GM>>> between the various OSes (*NIX included) so that the
GM>>> 'bumps' would be negotiated -- translation is provided
GM>>> during transfer. Nothing is ever perfect, though. 

CA>> According to Alan Zisman's writeup about the client
CA>> software I would say "No, not perfect just yet". 

GM> Sigh. Win some, loose some. 

GM> And the alternative to this not so perfect method is ... ? 

Apparently to chase down a Microsoft compatible client software. 

>
>        ,                          ,
>      o/      Charles.Angelich      \o       ,
>     <|                              |>  __o/
>     / >          USA, MI           < \   __\__
 

--- * ATP/16bit 2.31 * 
... DOS the Ghost in the Machine! http://www.devedia.com/dosghost/
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)