Help idiots guide to networking

newbie to networking, at the end of the month I am having telewest broadband
fitted, so in preparation I brought


1 * netgear Fa311 10/100 Mbps Ethernet card for the main PC
1 * netgear FVS318 8 port cable/DSL prosafe VPN firewall router
1 * netgear WG602 54 Mbps wireless access point
1 * Belkin wifi 802.11g/54g wireless network card for my laptop.

The plan is to have the main pc as the usual place to connect but with the
summer coming I thought the ability to roam with the laptop to share both
data and connect to broadband would be nice.

problem how the hell do you set it all up, although I don't have the
broadband yet I thought I might be able to at least share files, I have
installed the software were required, connected the cables, all the lights
seem to flash on the firewall and access point, windows recognises the
cards, but I thought accessing the shared folders would be like treating the
other computer as a new drive letter, but I seem to be getting know where, I
keep getting errors like I don't have access rights.

Dose any one have a Idiots guide to setting this equipment up, my laptop has
a internal Ethernet card, I have even tried unplugging the wireless and
running a cat 5e cable, still nothing.

I do get the Local area connection icon pop up saying connected a 100Mbps.



P4 1.7 desktop
P4 2.8 Laptop


any help appreciated

regards

Wayne

Forgot to say running windows professional XP




"WPS" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:c5n2nc$nvu$(E-Mail Removed)...
> newbie to networking, at the end of the month I am having telewest
broadband
> fitted, so in preparation I brought
>
>
> 1 * netgear Fa311 10/100 Mbps Ethernet card for the main PC
> 1 * netgear FVS318 8 port cable/DSL prosafe VPN firewall router
> 1 * netgear WG602 54 Mbps wireless access point
> 1 * Belkin wifi 802.11g/54g wireless network card for my laptop.
>
> The plan is to have the main pc as the usual place to connect but with the
> summer coming I thought the ability to roam with the laptop to share both
> data and connect to broadband would be nice.
>
> problem how the hell do you set it all up, although I don't have the
> broadband yet I thought I might be able to at least share files, I have
> installed the software were required, connected the cables, all the lights
> seem to flash on the firewall and access point, windows recognises the
> cards, but I thought accessing the shared folders would be like treating
the
> other computer as a new drive letter, but I seem to be getting know where,
I
> keep getting errors like I don't have access rights.
>
> Dose any one have a Idiots guide to setting this equipment up, my laptop
has
> a internal Ethernet card, I have even tried unplugging the wireless and
> running a cat 5e cable, still nothing.
>
> I do get the Local area connection icon pop up saying connected a 100Mbps.
>
>
>
> P4 1.7 desktop
> P4 2.8 Laptop
>
>
> any help appreciated
>
> regards
>
> Wayne
>
>
>

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 23:38:07 +0100, "WPS"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>
>> problem how the hell do you set it all up, although I don't have the
>> broadband yet I thought I might be able to at least share files, I have
>> installed the software were required, connected the cables, all the lights
>> seem to flash on the firewall and access point, windows recognises the
>> cards, but I thought accessing the shared folders would be like treating
>the
>> other computer as a new drive letter, but I seem to be getting know where,
>I
>> keep getting errors like I don't have access rights.

Hi Wayne,

There are a few stages to this .. I suggest you start with the wired
PC's and move to the WiFi afterwards.

Create a folder called 'Shared' and share it (you don't want to share
the root or any system folders). It will probably mention security and
do you want simple sharing etc and you should answer yes.

Ensure all the machine are in the same workgroup.

Install the NetBIOS (NetBEUI) protocol (as well as TCP/IP) as I've
found that makes sharing quicker / easier.

If you can't 'browse' to another machine use the Start, Run,
\\machinename option (browsing can sometimes be slow to catch up).

Once you have got it all working you will wonder how it ever didn't
work ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 23:35:32 +0100, "WPS"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>any help appreciated

first things first - get TCP/IP working.

Do all the computers and devices receive IP addresses from the router
via DHCP ? On each machine look at My Network Places / View network
connections and the details panel on the left will tell you the IP
address etc. These ought to be 192.x.y.z or 10.x.y.z

you can also put cmd into the Run box of Start menu then type ipconfig
/all to see the same info.

You don't need netbeui tcp/ip is fine.

Can you access the config pages of the wireless AP and the router on
their default addresses.

Phil

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:51:33 +0100, Phil Thompson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 23:35:32 +0100, "WPS"
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>any help appreciated
>
>first things first - get TCP/IP working.
>
>Do all the computers and devices receive IP addresses from the router
>via DHCP ? On each machine look at My Network Places / View network
>connections and the details panel on the left will tell you the IP
>address etc. These ought to be 192.x.y.z or 10.x.y.z
>
>you can also put cmd into the Run box of Start menu then type ipconfig
>/all to see the same info.
>
>You don't need netbeui tcp/ip is fine.

You don't *need* netbios/beui but I believe its faster than TCP/IP
(smaller overhead) and simpler (for a novice) to set-up (just machine
name?), certianly as he has no broadband access at the moment anyway?


All the best ..

T i m

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:54:21 +0100, T i m <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>You don't *need* netbios/beui but I believe its faster than TCP/IP

maybe, but its an add-on one can live without and isn't standard XP so
why not just fix the issues instead of hiding them behind netbeui.
Netbios over tcp/ip is standard XP and what MS networking uses, see
http://www.practicallynetworked.com/...hoot/netbt.htm

As he has a router / firewall in the system the less protocols the
better :-)

Phil

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:54:21 +0100, in uk.comp.home-networking T i m
<(E-Mail Removed)> strung together this:

>You don't *need* netbios/beui

But it causes more prolems than it solves, TCP/IP is more 'stable'
than netbeui.
--

SJW
A.C.S. Ltd.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:26:06 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) (Lurch)
wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:54:21 +0100, in uk.comp.home-networking T i m
><(E-Mail Removed)> strung together this:
>
>>You don't *need* netbios/beui
>
>But it causes more prolems than it solves,

It does?

TCP/IP is more 'stable'
>than netbeui.

I'm not sure I understand how something more complicated can be more
stable but I'll take yer word for it?

Mind you .. I was running a 50 user NetBeui based LAN (IBM Lan Manager
spinoff) for a few years that lot's of Netware / Unix folk didn't
'understand' but seemed to work ok .. and fast ... KISS ?

All the best ..

T i m ..

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:34:22 +0100, T i m <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I'm not sure I understand how something more complicated can be more
>stable but I'll take yer word for it?

well he'll be needing TCP/IP for the internet anyway so NetBeui is
not an alternative option, 1 protocol is likely to be more stable than
2. I am also not clear that the proposed hardware router will handle
NetBeui at all - do you know ?

>Mind you .. I was running a 50 user NetBeui based LAN (IBM Lan Manager
>spinoff) for a few years that lot's of Netware / Unix folk didn't
>'understand' but seemed to work ok .. and fast ... KISS ?

I used to be a user of something similar, then we had to add multi
protocol stacks to do other stuff and it all got out of hand. As a
non-routing protocol NetBeui is fast and simple on a LAN but you have
to contain it on a WAN or everything shouting at everything else gets
to be a cacophony. When we changed over TCP/IP was slower on LAN
segments but the overall system was much better esp when we added
internet connectivity on top.

TCP/IP on WIndows XP seems to be simple enough - in what way would
NetBeui be simpler ?

Phil

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 09:02:21 +0100, Phil Thompson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>I used to be a user of something similar, then we had to add multi
>protocol stacks to do other stuff and it all got out of hand

Oh indeed. I was only suggesting that if you wanted a *basic* local
network (file and print services) then NetBios would probably do?

As a
>non-routing protocol NetBeui is fast and simple on a LAN but you have
>to contain it on a WAN or everything shouting at everything else gets
>to be a cacophony.

Well if you only had a router then it would stay 'contained' within
you local net on it's own? You would need a BRouter for it to creep
outside? ;-)

When we changed over TCP/IP was slower on LAN
>segments but the overall system was much better esp when we added
>internet connectivity on top.

Indeed. And I wouldn't suggest anything else these days (even though I
*prefer* to run bith I/P and NetBIOS as shares seem easier / quicker
to handle?
>
>TCP/IP on WIndows XP seems to be simple enough - in what way would
>NetBeui be simpler ?

Well, TCP/IP on *anything* post DOS is 'easy enough' as long as you
know what sort of things are supposed to be entered in the boxes? How
many non-network folk would know A DNS server from a Default Gateway?
How many average PC 'Joe's' understand subnetting or why one address
is 'ok' to use and another not?

Why would NetBeui be simpler? Try adding it as a protocol then
changing it's properties? You can't (compared with the 5 windows of
fields with IP on XP?)! As long as each PC has a unique machine name
then that's all there is to do .. couldn't be much simpler could it?
Had I not needed IP I would never had the problem with my new Acer
laptop requesting DHCP off my Router and (for reasons not yet
explained) taking the *upper* address from the scope (which in the
case of my D-Link router, got hung by some bad lease expiry or
summat?). Had it taken the first address offered, (like everything
else seems to) all would have been fine ... TCP/IP more reliable eh!
;-)

More flexible yes, simpler No ;-)

(IMHO)

All the best ..

T i m