Text 6309, 183 rader
Skriven 2005-03-28 08:17:28 av Gerald Miller (1:342/512)
   Kommentar till text 5554 av CHARLES ANGELICH (1:123/140)
Ärende: lan
===========
Hello CHARLES,

    Responding to a post in the WIN95 area:
    On Monday March 21 2005 at 17:52,
    CHARLES ANGELICH [1:123/140] wrote to GERALD MILLER,
    about: lan

[snip]

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

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

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

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

Okay, Truman Capote... ;B-))

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

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

I have to admire people who admit to failure.  The "normal" defense
mechanism / self-preservation reflex is to NOT admit to such.  [grin]

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

That is all very well as long as the 'experts' do not cloud the facts with
"baffle-gas" and bovine patties.

I believe that setting up a network system works best on a 'virgin' install
as I am encountering numerous (unforeseen) problems as I attempt to correct
my defective Win2K network.

[trim]

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

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

 GM>> As in Limewire / Kazza ???

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

Okay.  I believe you have this 'under control' with your use of Windows
Commander and the null modem Parallel cable (or is it a Serial cable?)?

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

--8<--cut

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

--8<--cut

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

I think a query directed to Alan Zisman _may_ produce the URL.  No
guarantees.  ;-))

--8<--cut

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

Was it in e-mail to you from Alan that you obtained the above info?  I
don't recall seeing such in the echo area...  Of course, I may have missed
the message due to the increased traffic flow and my (lately) poor memory.

[snip]

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

 CA>>> Good. :-)

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

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

Yes, that appears to be happening already.  I mentioned that I had replaced
one NIC with another and it seems that I forgot to mention that I used the
"Add / Remove Hardware" applet _before_ I removed the NIC (I also
"presumed" that applet would remove the old NIC drivers as well -- if the
applet was 'designed' correctly, it should have removed the old driver
information)...  DETAILS will kill me.  :-)))))

[trim]

 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 on the
 GM>> WinXPP box, what would happen? The implication that I'm receiving is
 GM>> that either W2K or XPP is NTFSv5 and that there may be an
 GM>> incompatibility issue here.

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

That fact takes some stress off my mind.  Thank you.

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

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

Someone can correct me, but I believe that HPFS (High Performance File
System) was an IBM initiative developed expressly for the OS/2 software.  I
tested a couple of versions and then concluded that support for them was
going to be equal to that of support for Amigas -- it's somewhere 'out
there' but you really got to hunt for it!  (I'm likely to upset some Amiga
users with that statement, but not so many that will endanger my life.)

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

It's a 'youse pays youse money and youse takes youse chances' type of
situation?  [grin]

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

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

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

 GM>> Sigh. Win some, loose some.

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

 CA> Apparently to chase down a Microsoft compatible client software.

Now, isn't that typical of Micro$oft -- lack of disclosure?

           Cheers ... Gerald

... I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see I should have been more specific!
--- GoldED+/DPMI32 v1.1.5-040330 [msg of Monday March 28 2005]
 * Origin: Apple computer... It's so good, it's Red Delicious! (1:342/512)