connect using DCC

Hi,
I'm trying to access info on host pc through guest laptop using Direct Cable
Connection. I seem to be able to enable both systems to do so but am having
a problem with mapping the network drive. I can seem to do one but not the
other.
Does anyone have a proven set-up procedure?
Both systems are running XP.

TIA

In article <Ex35f.454$(E-Mail Removed)>, retro_cal says...
> Hi,
> I'm trying to access info on host pc through guest laptop using Direct Cable
> Connection. I seem to be able to enable both systems to do so but am having
> a problem with mapping the network drive. I can seem to do one but not the
> other.
> Does anyone have a proven set-up procedure?
> Both systems are running XP.
>
Yeah.

1) FORGET DCC. It hardly ever works and is piss poor slow. Remember how
slow it was to transfer stuff from the net with a 56k modem? Well
that's the speed you're going to be looking at. You certainly don;t
want to be transferring anything bigger than a couple of 100k and
certainly nothing over 1MB unless you have a spare hour to wait.

2) Go to your local PC Shop. If they've not got network cards, buy one
for each. Buy a crossover network cable.

3) Ensure File and Printer Sharing is included in the list of
exceptions in Windows Firewall and any 3rd party firewall you're using.

--
Conor

"You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras.

Conor wrote:
> In article <Ex35f.454$(E-Mail Removed)>, retro_cal says...
>
>>Hi,
>>I'm trying to access info on host pc through guest laptop using Direct Cable
>>Connection. I seem to be able to enable both systems to do so but am having
>>a problem with mapping the network drive. I can seem to do one but not the
>>other.
>>Does anyone have a proven set-up procedure?
>>Both systems are running XP.
>>
>
> Yeah.
>
> 1) FORGET DCC. It hardly ever works and is piss poor slow. Remember how
> slow it was to transfer stuff from the net with a 56k modem? Well
> that's the speed you're going to be looking at. You certainly don;t
> want to be transferring anything bigger than a couple of 100k and
> certainly nothing over 1MB unless you have a spare hour to wait.
>
> 2) Go to your local PC Shop. If they've not got network cards, buy one
> for each. Buy a crossover network cable.
>
> 3) Ensure File and Printer Sharing is included in the list of
> exceptions in Windows Firewall and any 3rd party firewall you're using.

I'd second that. Network stuff is cheap nowadays and far better than a
serial connection.

I was recently rejigging a couple of old PCs and ended up with a bitsa
with no network card in it, and needed to get some files onto it. I
didn't want to buy a network card as it was only a temporary situation
so I hooked it up to another machine with a serial null-modem cable. It
was 'orrible! It worked fine but it was sloooooww! It was a 'press the
button and go and have a cup of coffee' type of slow. :-(

(I know this doesn't answer your question, and if you are doing
something as a 'once off' DCC might be the best answer. Sorry I can't
help with DCC. I have used it but it was ages ago and it seemed a bit
dicky if I remember correctly. I used the older Interlink, which suited
my situation but won't help you as it doesn't support FAT32 or NTFS.)

Ok I'm not too bothered about speeds here I just want to be able to transfer
files. Can anyone recommend the best way to get it working?

retro_cal wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm trying to access info on host pc through guest laptop using Direct Cable
> Connection. I seem to be able to enable both systems to do so but am having
> a problem with mapping the network drive. I can seem to do one but not the
> other.
> Does anyone have a proven set-up procedure?
> Both systems are running XP.

Hmm.. tricky to know what to say really, without having a specific
problem or actually being there. Maybe these might help?

http://support.microsoft.com/default...305621&sd=tech
http://www.wown.com/j_helmig/dccmain.htm
http://www.wown.com/j_helmig/wxpdccin.htm
http://www.tecno.demon.co.uk/dcc/dcc.html
http://kb.iu.edu/data/ahcj.html
etc. etc.

Conor wrote:
> 1) FORGET DCC. It hardly ever works and is piss poor slow. Remember how
> slow it was to transfer stuff from the net with a 56k modem? Well
> that's the speed you're going to be looking at. You certainly don;t
> want to be transferring anything bigger than a couple of 100k and
> certainly nothing over 1MB unless you have a spare hour to wait.

What absolute rot. Using a modern UART and a decent serial cable you'll
have no problems with 115Kb/s transfer rates, which is over twice that
of a 56Kb/s modem (and that's if the modem is running at the theoretical
56Kb/s maximum). At those speeds you're looking at just over a minute
to transfer a 1MB file, even allowing for overheads.

I've had DCC running 'twix various machines with absolutely no troubles
whatsoever.

--
-Gareth Halfacree
http://gareth.halfacree.co.uk

In article <Rqu5f.132368$(E-Mail Removed)> ,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> Conor wrote:
> > 1) FORGET DCC. It hardly ever works and is piss poor slow. Remember how
> > slow it was to transfer stuff from the net with a 56k modem? Well
> > that's the speed you're going to be looking at. You certainly don;t
> > want to be transferring anything bigger than a couple of 100k and
> > certainly nothing over 1MB unless you have a spare hour to wait.
>
> What absolute rot. Using a modern UART and a decent serial cable you'll
> have no problems with 115Kb/s transfer rates, which is over twice that
> of a 56Kb/s modem (and that's if the modem is running at the theoretical
> 56Kb/s maximum).

Except that newer modems use hardware compression - my 56k serial modem
could easily max out the serial port on some types of download.

Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <Rqu5f.132368$(E-Mail Removed)> ,
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>What absolute rot. Using a modern UART and a decent serial cable you'll
>>have no problems with 115Kb/s transfer rates, which is over twice that
>>of a 56Kb/s modem (and that's if the modem is running at the theoretical
>>56Kb/s maximum).
>
> Except that newer modems use hardware compression - my 56k serial modem
> could easily max out the serial port on some types of download.

A fair point well made. Indeed, data compression in modems is not
limited to newer 56K modems; I had a Pace v34bis modem which would quite
happily compress data in both directions.

The point about 1MB taking significantly under an hour to transfer still
stands, however; and for pre-compressed data (such as gzipped archives)
the transfer rate of a DCC connection will be roughly double that of a
56K modem.

--
-Gareth Halfacree
http://gareth.halfacree.co.uk

In article <Rqu5f.132368$(E-Mail Removed)> , Gareth R
Halfacree says...
> Conor wrote:
> > 1) FORGET DCC. It hardly ever works and is piss poor slow. Remember how
> > slow it was to transfer stuff from the net with a 56k modem? Well
> > that's the speed you're going to be looking at. You certainly don;t
> > want to be transferring anything bigger than a couple of 100k and
> > certainly nothing over 1MB unless you have a spare hour to wait.
>
> What absolute rot.

Not really. I tried it once even using Laplink that compresses the
data.

> Using a modern UART and a decent serial cable you'll
> have no problems with 115Kb/s transfer rates, which is over twice that
> of a 56Kb/s modem (and that's if the modem is running at the theoretical
> 56Kb/s maximum). At those speeds you're looking at just over a minute
> to transfer a 1MB file, even allowing for overheads.
>
You keep believing that.

> I've had DCC running 'twix various machines with absolutely no troubles
> whatsoever.
>
It runs, just piss poorly.


--
Conor

"You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras.

Conor wrote:
> In article <Rqu5f.132368$(E-Mail Removed)> , Gareth R
> Halfacree says...
>>Using a modern UART and a decent serial cable you'll
>>have no problems with 115Kb/s transfer rates, which is over twice that
>>of a 56Kb/s modem (and that's if the modem is running at the theoretical
>>56Kb/s maximum). At those speeds you're looking at just over a minute
>>to transfer a 1MB file, even allowing for overheads.
>
> You keep believing that.

It's not something I have to believe in, Conor; I've seen it with my own
two eyes.

> It runs, just piss poorly.

I can only assume that you have been unable to configure it properly.

--
-Gareth Halfacree
http://gareth.halfacree.co.uk