Connecting laptop via serial or parallel port - w/virtual drive letter

I need to network my laptop to my desktop so the laptop sees a virtual
drive letter that's actually a directory on the desktop. The laptop is
an older PIII with Serial, parallel, USB 1.1 - no ethernet. Windows has
"direct cable connection" for serial/parallel, but Mircrosoft says
"Before you can transfer files from the host to the guest computer, the
files must be in a shared directory,..."
(http://www.microsoft.com/technet/arc...mspx?mfr=true).

The desktop is a newer Athlon 1.0Ghz with XP Pro. The laptop is a PIII
500mhz with 98SE. The laptops serial port is an EIA232-E, 16550
compatible, 9-pin D; the parallel port is IEEE P1284-A, EPP, and ECP
compatible. Which connection would be faster (serial/parallel) - an
article on Wiipedia says asynchronous RS232 is actually faster than
parallel at higher CPU clock speeds due to "skew" caused by the
parallel cable. I'll probably just get a NULL serial cable, because I
expect it to be cheaper, and I won't be needing it again - if this will
work.

The reason I need this is that files were accidently deleted from the
laptop via DOS. The file recovery software can see them, and it asks
for a drive/directory to save the restored files in - so I need a
virtual drive letter -> the desktop computer. I don't want to save the
restored files locally first, because that could corrupt the other
deleted files. (I don't want to buy a network card for the laptop,
because I don't want to install software for it...)

Any help appreciated.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> I need to network my laptop to my desktop so the laptop sees a virtual
> drive letter that's actually a directory on the desktop. The laptop is
> an older PIII with Serial, parallel, USB 1.1 - no ethernet. Windows
> has "direct cable connection" for serial/parallel, but Mircrosoft says
> "Before you can transfer files from the host to the guest computer,
> the files must be in a shared directory,..."
> (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/arc...mspx?mfr=true).
>
> The desktop is a newer Athlon 1.0Ghz with XP Pro. The laptop is a PIII
> 500mhz with 98SE. The laptops serial port is an EIA232-E, 16550
> compatible, 9-pin D; the parallel port is IEEE P1284-A, EPP, and ECP
> compatible. Which connection would be faster (serial/parallel) - an
> article on Wiipedia says asynchronous RS232 is actually faster than
> parallel at higher CPU clock speeds due to "skew" caused by the
> parallel cable. I'll probably just get a NULL serial cable, because I
> expect it to be cheaper, and I won't be needing it again - if this
> will work.
>
> The reason I need this is that files were accidently deleted from the
> laptop via DOS. The file recovery software can see them, and it asks
> for a drive/directory to save the restored files in - so I need a
> virtual drive letter -> the desktop computer. I don't want to save
> the restored files locally first, because that could corrupt the other
> deleted files. (I don't want to buy a network card for the laptop,
> because I don't want to install software for it...)
>
> Any help appreciated.

You can do that; or, if hte machines each have an ethernet card, or you want
to spend a couple bucks (they're cheap) to outfit them, all you need is a
crossover cable between the two computers to network them without a swtich
or router even. Easier and likely a lot faster way to get it going. Then
there's no need to fiddle with drive associations either; the local and
remote drives on each machine, all available.

Pop`

Pop` wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> > I need to network my laptop to my desktop so the laptop sees a virtual
> > drive letter that's actually a directory on the desktop. The laptop is
> > an older PIII with Serial, parallel, USB 1.1 - no ethernet. Windows
> > has "direct cable connection" for serial/parallel, but Mircrosoft says
> > "Before you can transfer files from the host to the guest computer,
> > the files must be in a shared directory,..."
> > (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/arc...mspx?mfr=true).
> >
> > The desktop is a newer Athlon 1.0Ghz with XP Pro. The laptop is a PIII
> > 500mhz with 98SE. The laptops serial port is an EIA232-E, 16550
> > compatible, 9-pin D; the parallel port is IEEE P1284-A, EPP, and ECP
> > compatible. Which connection would be faster (serial/parallel) - an
> > article on Wiipedia says asynchronous RS232 is actually faster than
> > parallel at higher CPU clock speeds due to "skew" caused by the
> > parallel cable. I'll probably just get a NULL serial cable, because I
> > expect it to be cheaper, and I won't be needing it again - if this
> > will work.
> >
> > The reason I need this is that files were accidently deleted from the
> > laptop via DOS. The file recovery software can see them, and it asks
> > for a drive/directory to save the restored files in - so I need a
> > virtual drive letter -> the desktop computer. I don't want to save
> > the restored files locally first, because that could corrupt the other
> > deleted files. (I don't want to buy a network card for the laptop,
> > because I don't want to install software for it...)
> >
> > Any help appreciated.
>
> You can do that; or, if hte machines each have an ethernet card, or you want
> to spend a couple bucks (they're cheap) to outfit them, all you need is a
> crossover cable between the two computers to network them without a swtich
> or router even. Easier and likely a lot faster way to get it going. Then
> there's no need to fiddle with drive associations either; the local and
> remote drives on each machine, all available.
>
> Pop`

What?? I consider an ethernet card a network card.

This is NOT a "regular parallel printer cable" you might have hanging
around - see:

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/d....mspx?mfr=true
(yeah it's on the xp page but 98 or xp = same thing):

"To contact Parallel Technologies to order Direct Cable Connection
cables"
Within the United States and Canada: (800) 789-4784
Outside the United States and Canada: (425) 869-1119
etc

so if you're trying to avoid spending $$ - that's not an option.

How big are the files - how about restore them to floppy on laptop?

Bobb


================================================


<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
>
> Pop` wrote:
>> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> > I need to network my laptop to my desktop so the laptop sees a
>> > virtual
>> > drive letter that's actually a directory on the desktop. The laptop
>> > is
>> > an older PIII with Serial, parallel, USB 1.1 - no ethernet. Windows
>> > has "direct cable connection" for serial/parallel, but Mircrosoft
>> > says
>> > "Before you can transfer files from the host to the guest computer,
>> > the files must be in a shared directory,..."
>> > (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/arc...mspx?mfr=true).
>> >
>> > The desktop is a newer Athlon 1.0Ghz with XP Pro. The laptop is a
>> > PIII
>> > 500mhz with 98SE. The laptops serial port is an EIA232-E, 16550
>> > compatible, 9-pin D; the parallel port is IEEE P1284-A, EPP, and
>> > ECP
>> > compatible. Which connection would be faster (serial/parallel) - an
>> > article on Wiipedia says asynchronous RS232 is actually faster than
>> > parallel at higher CPU clock speeds due to "skew" caused by the
>> > parallel cable. I'll probably just get a NULL serial cable, because
>> > I
>> > expect it to be cheaper, and I won't be needing it again - if this
>> > will work.
>> >
>> > The reason I need this is that files were accidently deleted from
>> > the
>> > laptop via DOS. The file recovery software can see them, and it
>> > asks
>> > for a drive/directory to save the restored files in - so I need a
>> > virtual drive letter -> the desktop computer. I don't want to save
>> > the restored files locally first, because that could corrupt the
>> > other
>> > deleted files. (I don't want to buy a network card for the laptop,
>> > because I don't want to install software for it...)
>> >
>> > Any help appreciated.
>>
>> You can do that; or, if hte machines each have an ethernet card, or
>> you want
>> to spend a couple bucks (they're cheap) to outfit them, all you need
>> is a
>> crossover cable between the two computers to network them without a
>> swtich
>> or router even. Easier and likely a lot faster way to get it going.
>> Then
>> there's no need to fiddle with drive associations either; the local
>> and
>> remote drives on each machine, all available.
>>
>> Pop`
>
> What?? I consider an ethernet card a network card.
>

Reply inline:

On 14 Dec 2006 12:25:46 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>I need to network my laptop to my desktop so the laptop sees a virtual
>drive letter that's actually a directory on the desktop. The laptop is
>an older PIII with Serial, parallel, USB 1.1 - no ethernet. Windows has
>"direct cable connection" for serial/parallel, but Mircrosoft says
>"Before you can transfer files from the host to the guest computer, the
>files must be in a shared directory,..."
>(http://www.microsoft.com/technet/arc...mspx?mfr=true).
>
>The desktop is a newer Athlon 1.0Ghz with XP Pro. The laptop is a PIII
>500mhz with 98SE. The laptops serial port is an EIA232-E, 16550
>compatible, 9-pin D; the parallel port is IEEE P1284-A, EPP, and ECP
>compatible. Which connection would be faster (serial/parallel) - an
>article on Wiipedia says asynchronous RS232 is actually faster than
>parallel at higher CPU clock speeds due to "skew" caused by the
>parallel cable. I'll probably just get a NULL serial cable, because I
>expect it to be cheaper, and I won't be needing it again - if this will
>work.

FWIW For Direct Cable Connection a Data Transfer type cable
(Laplink type), male to male, must be used for a parallel printer
port connection ($7.00 at Staples). Printer and null modem cables
won’t work for this. I have the cable and it works.

How to Setup Direct Cable Connection
http://home.ptd.net/~bwatt/directcc.html

Regards,

Bill Watt
Win98 Computer Help & Other Information
http://home.ptd.net/~bwatt/
__________________________________________________ _________

>The reason I need this is that files were accidently deleted from the
>laptop via DOS. The file recovery software can see them, and it asks
>for a drive/directory to save the restored files in - so I need a
>virtual drive letter -> the desktop computer. I don't want to save the
>restored files locally first, because that could corrupt the other
>deleted files. (I don't want to buy a network card for the laptop,
>because I don't want to install software for it...)
>
>Any help appreciated.

Try using a USB flash memory drive....

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> I need to network my laptop to my desktop so the laptop sees a virtual
> drive letter that's actually a directory on the desktop. The laptop is
> an older PIII with Serial, parallel, USB 1.1 - no ethernet. Windows has
> "direct cable connection" for serial/parallel, but Mircrosoft says
> "Before you can transfer files from the host to the guest computer, the
> files must be in a shared directory,..."
>
(http://www.microsoft.com/technet/arc...rkc19.mspx?mfr
=true).
>
> The desktop is a newer Athlon 1.0Ghz with XP Pro. The laptop is a PIII
> 500mhz with 98SE. The laptops serial port is an EIA232-E, 16550
> compatible, 9-pin D; the parallel port is IEEE P1284-A, EPP, and ECP
> compatible. Which connection would be faster (serial/parallel) - an
> article on Wiipedia says asynchronous RS232 is actually faster than
> parallel at higher CPU clock speeds due to "skew" caused by the
> parallel cable. I'll probably just get a NULL serial cable, because I
> expect it to be cheaper, and I won't be needing it again - if this will
> work.
>
> The reason I need this is that files were accidently deleted from the
> laptop via DOS. The file recovery software can see them, and it asks
> for a drive/directory to save the restored files in - so I need a
> virtual drive letter -> the desktop computer. I don't want to save the
> restored files locally first, because that could corrupt the other
> deleted files. (I don't want to buy a network card for the laptop,
> because I don't want to install software for it...)
>
> Any help appreciated.
>

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
>I need to network my laptop to my desktop so the laptop sees a virtual
> drive letter that's actually a directory on the desktop. The laptop is
> an older PIII with Serial, parallel, USB 1.1 - no ethernet. Windows has
> "direct cable connection" for serial/parallel, but Mircrosoft says
> "Before you can transfer files from the host to the guest computer, the
> files must be in a shared directory,..."
> (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/arc...mspx?mfr=true).
>
> The desktop is a newer Athlon 1.0Ghz with XP Pro. The laptop is a PIII
> 500mhz with 98SE. The laptops serial port is an EIA232-E, 16550
> compatible, 9-pin D; the parallel port is IEEE P1284-A, EPP, and ECP
> compatible. Which connection would be faster (serial/parallel) - an
> article on Wiipedia says asynchronous RS232 is actually faster than
> parallel at higher CPU clock speeds due to "skew" caused by the
> parallel cable. I'll probably just get a NULL serial cable, because I
> expect it to be cheaper, and I won't be needing it again - if this will
> work.
>
> The reason I need this is that files were accidently deleted from the
> laptop via DOS. The file recovery software can see them, and it asks
> for a drive/directory to save the restored files in - so I need a
> virtual drive letter -> the desktop computer. I don't want to save the
> restored files locally first, because that could corrupt the other
> deleted files. (I don't want to buy a network card for the laptop,
> because I don't want to install software for it...)
>



Although, in theory you could connect using a serial cable

I think it might actually be easier to just purchase a harddrive adaptor for
about $9
and temporarily connect the laptop's drive to your desktop

Pop` wrote:
>
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> > I need to network my laptop to my desktop so the laptop sees a virtual
> > drive letter that's actually a directory on the desktop. The laptop is
> > an older PIII with Serial, parallel, USB 1.1 - no ethernet. Windows
> > has "direct cable connection" for serial/parallel, but Mircrosoft says
> > "Before you can transfer files from the host to the guest computer,
> > the files must be in a shared directory,..."
> > (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/arc...mspx?mfr=true).
> >
> > The desktop is a newer Athlon 1.0Ghz with XP Pro. The laptop is a PIII
> > 500mhz with 98SE. The laptops serial port is an EIA232-E, 16550
> > compatible, 9-pin D; the parallel port is IEEE P1284-A, EPP, and ECP
> > compatible. Which connection would be faster (serial/parallel) - an
> > article on Wiipedia says asynchronous RS232 is actually faster than
> > parallel at higher CPU clock speeds due to "skew" caused by the
> > parallel cable. I'll probably just get a NULL serial cable, because I
> > expect it to be cheaper, and I won't be needing it again - if this
> > will work.
> >
> > The reason I need this is that files were accidently deleted from the
> > laptop via DOS. The file recovery software can see them, and it asks
> > for a drive/directory to save the restored files in - so I need a
> > virtual drive letter -> the desktop computer. I don't want to save
> > the restored files locally first, because that could corrupt the other
> > deleted files. (I don't want to buy a network card for the laptop,
> > because I don't want to install software for it...)
> >
> > Any help appreciated.
>
> You can do that; or, if hte machines each have an ethernet card, or you want
> to spend a couple bucks (they're cheap) to outfit them, all you need is a
> crossover cable between the two computers to network them without a swtich
> or router even. Easier and likely a lot faster way to get it going. Then
> there's no need to fiddle with drive associations either; the local and
> remote drives on each machine, all available.
>
> Pop`

I have a similar problem to this guy. I tried the direct connect and
had nothing but problems as easy as it sounds.

I tried hooking up a stand alone harddrive to the USB 1. Windows98
first version can read the drive but it doesn't recognize the driver
under dos or windows 98 first edition to copy file by any method.

I was going to buy an ethernet card for my pcmia slot but it is so
special (not standard) for my old IBM thinkpad 385 that they are almost
impossible to get and very expensive.

Could I get a stand alone ethernet card and hook it to an RS232 or
parallel port or risky USB1 port and use the internet to transfer data
to my other computer as a friend suggested or will I likely meet
failure?

Pop` wrote:
>
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> > I need to network my laptop to my desktop so the laptop sees a virtual
> > drive letter that's actually a directory on the desktop. The laptop is
> > an older PIII with Serial, parallel, USB 1.1 - no ethernet. Windows
> > has "direct cable connection" for serial/parallel, but Mircrosoft says
> > "Before you can transfer files from the host to the guest computer,
> > the files must be in a shared directory,..."
> > (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/arc...mspx?mfr=true).
> >
> > The desktop is a newer Athlon 1.0Ghz with XP Pro. The laptop is a PIII
> > 500mhz with 98SE. The laptops serial port is an EIA232-E, 16550
> > compatible, 9-pin D; the parallel port is IEEE P1284-A, EPP, and ECP
> > compatible. Which connection would be faster (serial/parallel) - an
> > article on Wiipedia says asynchronous RS232 is actually faster than
> > parallel at higher CPU clock speeds due to "skew" caused by the
> > parallel cable. I'll probably just get a NULL serial cable, because I
> > expect it to be cheaper, and I won't be needing it again - if this
> > will work.
> >
> > The reason I need this is that files were accidently deleted from the
> > laptop via DOS. The file recovery software can see them, and it asks
> > for a drive/directory to save the restored files in - so I need a
> > virtual drive letter -> the desktop computer. I don't want to save
> > the restored files locally first, because that could corrupt the other
> > deleted files. (I don't want to buy a network card for the laptop,
> > because I don't want to install software for it...)
> >
> > Any help appreciated.
>
> You can do that; or, if hte machines each have an ethernet card, or you want
> to spend a couple bucks (they're cheap) to outfit them, all you need is a
> crossover cable between the two computers to network them without a swtich
> or router even. Easier and likely a lot faster way to get it going. Then
> there's no need to fiddle with drive associations either; the local and
> remote drives on each machine, all available.
>
> Pop`

I have lots of cross over cables but where does the ethernet card hook
to on an old laptop? What are the connection options that will work?

Also what do you have to do to get a file tranfered from one computer to
the other using this method?

philo wrote:
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> >I need to network my laptop to my desktop so the laptop sees a virtual
> > drive letter that's actually a directory on the desktop. The laptop is
> > an older PIII with Serial, parallel, USB 1.1 - no ethernet. Windows has
> > "direct cable connection" for serial/parallel, but Mircrosoft says
> > "Before you can transfer files from the host to the guest computer, the
> > files must be in a shared directory,..."
> > (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/arc...mspx?mfr=true).
> >
> > The desktop is a newer Athlon 1.0Ghz with XP Pro. The laptop is a PIII
> > 500mhz with 98SE. The laptops serial port is an EIA232-E, 16550
> > compatible, 9-pin D; the parallel port is IEEE P1284-A, EPP, and ECP
> > compatible. Which connection would be faster (serial/parallel) - an
> > article on Wiipedia says asynchronous RS232 is actually faster than
> > parallel at higher CPU clock speeds due to "skew" caused by the
> > parallel cable. I'll probably just get a NULL serial cable, because I
> > expect it to be cheaper, and I won't be needing it again - if this will
> > work.
> >
> > The reason I need this is that files were accidently deleted from the
> > laptop via DOS. The file recovery software can see them, and it asks
> > for a drive/directory to save the restored files in - so I need a
> > virtual drive letter -> the desktop computer. I don't want to save the
> > restored files locally first, because that could corrupt the other
> > deleted files. (I don't want to buy a network card for the laptop,
> > because I don't want to install software for it...)
> >
>
> Although, in theory you could connect using a serial cable
>
> I think it might actually be easier to just purchase a harddrive adaptor for
> about $9
> and temporarily connect the laptop's drive to your desktop

What do you mean by a harddrive adapter? What do you connect the hard
dirve adaptor to on an
old win98 that will work?