2 computers joined by a LAN cable
in [Hardware]
|
From: GMAN on 24 Jun 2010 14:23 In article <hvv0l2$aig$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, spamme0(a)go.com wrote: >JD wrote: >> What is the simplest software that would get them talking to one another? >> >> It seems that there are numerous ways to do this but lots of petty >> details to work on. >> >> Let's assume Windows OSs. >> >> TIA >Get a wireless router with a built-in wired ethernet switch. >Doesn't have to be wireless, but it's about the same price, >so might as well. >Virtually every garage sale has a router for sale. >They ask up to $15, but by the end of the day, an offer of >$1 will often snag one. > From there, it's almost automatic. Read the router manual. >Biggest issue is your firewall. Read the firewall manual. Most salvation army thrift stores or Savers stores will have tons of them for cheap. Hell, if this guy was local i'd give him my old WRT54GS Linksys
From: JD on 24 Jun 2010 15:39 GMAN wrote: > In article <hvv0l2$aig$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, spamme0(a)go.com wrote: >> JD wrote: >>> What is the simplest software that would get them talking to one another? >>> >>> It seems that there are numerous ways to do this but lots of petty >>> details to work on. >>> >>> Let's assume Windows OSs. >>> >>> TIA >> Get a wireless router with a built-in wired ethernet switch. >> Doesn't have to be wireless, but it's about the same price, >> so might as well. >> Virtually every garage sale has a router for sale. >> They ask up to $15, but by the end of the day, an offer of >> $1 will often snag one. >> From there, it's almost automatic. Read the router manual. >> Biggest issue is your firewall. Read the firewall manual. > Most salvation army thrift stores or Savers stores will have tons of them for > cheap. > > Hell, if this guy was local i'd give him my old WRT54GS Linksys Thank you JG, Mike and GMan. I don't know much about the Debian installer and I really have no interest in wireless electronics. I believe our bodies are being bombarded with too many waves of many kinds and I doubt if that would do anything to improve our health. Most likely it is the opposite.
From: JD on 24 Jun 2010 15:42 Paul wrote: > JD wrote: > >> >> >> Thanks again Paul. You are a huge mine of information. I have been >> working >> all day and am close to exhaustion. >> >> I brought my two boxes together with the lumpy cable. As you anticipated, >> there was no trace of any connection. However, I did have some >> interesting >> moments. I managed to copy my Win2K backup disk from my main box to my >> external drive and I connected that drive to the NetBook. I had hoped >> that I >> could copy the backup from there to the D: drive of the NetBook and then >> install Win2K. I did get it copied ok but when I tried to install - >> not a chance. >> Here was the message I was shown: >> >> "This CD-Rom is from an older version of Windows than the one you are >> presently using. Setup functionality from this disk will be disabled." >> >> Wow, doesn't MS think that it can control everything? I am close to >> the point of >> wiping Win 7 off the NetBook and, while laughing, I'll replace it with >> Win2K. >> >> Will try to answer your considerable efforts tomorrow. >> >> Have a great night tonight and a great day tomorrow :-) > > Windows Oses have support for multibooting on a single physical disk. > The idea is, you install the more modern OS, *after* the older OS is > installed. > Doing so, allows the installer on the more modern OS, to make > entries in its Boot Manager for the older OS. > > If you reverse the order, install Win7 first, then try to install > Win2K, then Win2K has no idea what Win7 is. Win7 uses a different > boot management method and files, than Win2K or WinXP. There may be > chaos if you move forward with that. To back out, you might have to > run whatever repair facilities Win7 has. > > So there may be some method to Microsoft's madness. They may > be looking out for you, and trying to prevent your Win7 install > from being trashed. > > In some cases, when I want to understand the issues, I use a Virtual PC > 2007 > session, and one or more virtual disks, to investigate. The only issue with > Windows OSes, is activation, and unplugging the network cable, might be > enough for me to do a few experiments. If you want to understand what > *could* happen, that provides a relatively tidy way of experimenting. > It's certainly cut down on the number of times I've had to physically > disconnect disks here to experiment. > > Your netbook may not have enough room for multiple disks. If you place > one OS on each physical disk, that avoids boot manager issues. You steer > which OS boots, using the BIOS popup boot menu (F8 or F10) or by using > the BIOS hard drive boot order. I use two separate disks here, for my > two regular OSes (WinXP and Win2K). I press F8 in my BIOS, to be able > to select which drive to boot. Doing it that way, means neither of my > boot managers is compromised, with a pile of alternate OSes to boot. > > I don't regularly use both OSes. One OS is the "maintenance OS" for the > other. Booting Win2K, I can do things to the WinXP OS files if I need to. > > While I've dealt with boot managers and setting them up, I don't really > want to run my computer like that on a regular basis. In general, > regardless of which OS installer disk I'm using, I find them uniformly > bad, and they always assume they can trash any OS they find on the disk. > For example, a Debian installer CD, will assume the *whole* disk > belongs to it. I find such practices presumptuous. When you stick > *any* OS installer CD in a computer, it's "buyer beware". It's one > of those times, you should have your full backups completed first. > > Paul Thanks again Paul. Your knowledge never ceases to amaze me :-) I am very familiar with some of the frustrations you have experienced, which makes me hesitant about getting into the messy problems like the external ATA drives on IDE computers. To be honest, I feel attached to Win2K and, from my experiences so far with Win 7, I would not be unhappy if I just erased it and replaced it with Win2K. Can you see any great advantages to keeping the Win 7? Not knowing much about this stripped down Win 7, I have no knowledge of what it can do that I would like. Certainly, wiping it and installing Win2K in its place would greatly simplify things.
From: Paul on 24 Jun 2010 20:02 JD wrote: > > Can you see any great advantages to keeping the Win 7? Not knowing much > about this stripped down Win 7, I have no knowledge of what it can do > that I would like. > Certainly, wiping it and installing Win2K in its place would greatly > simplify things. I think Win2K support stops in July or so. If you need any downloads for it, get them *now* , as in today. The main advantage of Win7 is it is still supported, you get security updates and so on. If you're going to run Win2K, make sure you have a copy of SP4 downloaded and a copy of the rollup (came after the Service Pack, but doesn't include all security updates). It's a relatively small download, compared to a Service Pack. Having those two, brings you mostly up to date. Windows Update will do the rest, but not after the end of the month, when I think it'll no longer update Win2K. There must be an exact date somewhere for Win2K, but I don't know the day right off hand. You'd also want to get the most recent IE6, as I had a problem with Acrobat complaining it wouldn't install unless IE6 was patched up. I'm not sure Win2K can take any more recent IE versions, so some SP of IE6 may be as good as it gets. There is a trick for getting "IE6 net install" to just dump the files in a directory, and I now use that directory for doing an SP1 install for IE6. That's how I'll be able to fix that when support is gone. In terms of functionality, Win7 won't be doing things that much different (at least, with respect to this discussion of a netbook). Win7 supports NUMA, has processor licensing by sockets rather than cores, and it likely a bit more secure (all that UAC :-) ). I doubt it runs faster than Win2K. Win2K would run in less memory. Win2K has poor support for 3D games now, due to the hard coding of WinXP or later checks into the games, so if you wanted to run a 3D game on Win2K, it takes some hacking of the game code. So support was already lagging for that, a couple years ago. If you just want to do email or the like, or run some third party software like an old copy of Photoshop, that wouldn't be a problem. Win7 will have better support for SSDs, for things like TRIM, or for 4K sector disks if you use them. If your netbook uses an SSD (solid state disk), then Win7 might be a better choice. You can still use Win2K to run the SSD, but tweaking it would require more manual intervention. If your netbook has a regular hard drive, then that probably isn't an issue. Some day, you'll find a drop dead issue for Win2K, so keep an archival copy of whatever Win7 came with the netbook. Have fun, Paul
From: JD on 24 Jun 2010 22:43
Paul wrote: > JD wrote: > >> Can you see any great advantages to keeping the Win 7? Not knowing >> much about this stripped down Win 7, I have no knowledge of what it >> can do that I would like. >> Certainly, wiping it and installing Win2K in its place would greatly >> simplify things. > > I think Win2K support stops in July or so. If you need any downloads > for it, get them *now* , as in today. The main advantage of Win7 is > it is still supported, you get security updates and so on. I have been getting regular updates from M$ for years now. > If you're going to run Win2K, make sure you have a copy of SP4 > downloaded and a copy of the rollup (came after the Service > Pack, but doesn't include all security updates). It's a relatively > small download, compared to a Service Pack. Having those two, > brings you mostly up to date. Windows Update will do the rest, but > not after the end of the month, when I think it'll no longer update > Win2K. There must be an exact date somewhere for Win2K, but I don't know > the day right off hand. I have all the service packs and there are also many other sources on the www. > You'd also want to get the most recent IE6, as I had a problem with > Acrobat complaining it wouldn't install unless IE6 was patched up. > I'm not sure Win2K can take any more recent IE versions, so some SP > of IE6 may be as good as it gets. There is a trick for getting "IE6 net > install" to just dump the files in a directory, and I now use that > directory for doing an SP1 install for IE6. That's how I'll be able to > fix that when support is gone. I have IE6 and the Sp1 is installed, though it's really a poor product by comparison with FFox. Thanks for that "IE6 net install" tip. I'll look into it after I get the NetBook set up. > In terms of functionality, Win7 won't be doing things that much > different (at least, with respect to this discussion of a netbook). > Win7 supports NUMA, has processor licensing by sockets > rather than cores, and it likely a bit more secure (all that UAC :-) ). > I doubt it runs faster than Win2K. Win2K would run in less memory. > Win2K has poor support for 3D games now, due to the hard coding of WinXP > or later checks into the games, so if you wanted to run a 3D game on > Win2K, it takes some hacking of the game code. So support was already > lagging for that, a couple years ago. If you just want to do email > or the like, or run some third party software like an old copy of > Photoshop, I have little interest in gaming and high computer speeds is not a concern of mine. My NetBook has 2GB of memory. It is also definitely faster than Win2K. It can shut down in about 5 seconds. It often takes Win2K 2 or more minutes to do that. > that wouldn't be a problem. Win7 will have better support for SSDs, > for things like TRIM, or for 4K sector disks if you use them. If your > netbook uses an SSD (solid state disk), then Win7 might be a better choice. > You can still use Win2K to run the SSD, but tweaking it would require > more manual intervention. If your netbook has a regular hard drive, > then that probably isn't an issue. My NetBook has the usual hard disk - no solids yet. I had a thought this evening and would like to know whether there would be much effort involved. Suppose I copied the present Win 7 (crippled, of course) to another drive. Then delete the present OS on NetBook and install Win2K on the C: drive, where Win 7 is now. Then install Win 7 on the D: drive. You think that would be easy? > Some day, you'll find a drop dead issue for Win2K, so keep an > archival copy of whatever Win7 came with the netbook. No CD was provided with the drive but I have seen mentions of a backup being present on the HD - how much of a backup is unknown to me right now. I'll investigate that and whether I can copy it to my external drive that is attached to the NetBook at present. Would copying the present C: drive and pasting it into D: be possible, even if D: has a greater size than C:? Another probably-very-far-fetched solution - swap the C: and D: drives :-) Thanks again Paul for all your efforts. It's much appreciated. > Have fun, > Paul Fortunately I am not under great stress at this time, so playing with computers is a good challenge to the old grey matter in the lump on top :-) |