LanMan98 version 2.00 - compatible with Windows 7?
Alex Cessford
The subject says it all really.
I remember it was a fair while before LM98 was able to catch up with
Vista which I currently suffer under on the dark side but it has
worked fine linking my Iyonix to PC-land ever since 2.00 was released.
I'm getting lots of comments from both RISC OS and Windows users to
the effect that Windows 7 is much better than Vista and definitely
worth upgrading to. Snag is, I am never going to abandon my Iyo unless
forced, I need it so much as my primary machine.
I do however do a lot of file-transferring between the two machines.
It wasn't overly arduous, but still quite a pain when I was forced to
swap files via usb pen-drive before 2.00 came along, so a lack of LM98
compatibility with Windows 7 means that Bill G ain't gonna get my
cash.
Anyone tried it yet?
--
Alex.
David Pitt
Everyone is waiting for someone else??
LanMan98v2 works fine here, Iyonix 5.14 to and from Windows 7. Even LanManFS
works though slowly, (Lan Manager 2.34).
Windows 7 is a big improvement on Vista, I have upgraded both my Vista
machines, both are much more responsive than they were and in particular the
disc thrashing has gone away. Vista SP2 did help but Windows 7 was money
well spent.
--
David Pitt
Snow Leopard - MessengerPro
Dave Plowman (News)
Alex Cessford <al...@cessford.org.uk> wrote:
> I do however do a lot of file-transferring between the two machines.
> It wasn't overly arduous, but still quite a pain when I was forced to
> swap files via usb pen-drive before 2.00 came along, so a lack of LM98
> compatibility with Windows 7 means that Bill G ain't gonna get my
> cash.
> Anyone tried it yet?
Just had my 'free' upgrade to Win7 for a recently purchased laptop and it
seems to work ok here. Only just done a test, though.
--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long? *
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Chris Hughes
David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> Alex Cessford <al...@cessford.org.uk> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The subject says it all really.
>>
>> I remember it was a fair while before LM98 was able to catch up with Vista
>> which I currently suffer under on the dark side but it has worked fine
>> linking my Iyonix to PC-land ever since 2.00 was released.
>>
>> I'm getting lots of comments from both RISC OS and Windows users to the
>> effect that Windows 7 is much better than Vista and definitely worth
>> upgrading to. Snag is, I am never going to abandon my Iyo unless forced, I
>> need it so much as my primary machine.
>>
>> I do however do a lot of file-transferring between the two machines. It
>> wasn't overly arduous, but still quite a pain when I was forced to swap
>> files via usb pen-drive before 2.00 came along, so a lack of LM98
>> compatibility with Windows 7 means that Bill G ain't gonna get my cash.
>>
>> Anyone tried it yet?
>>
> Everyone is waiting for someone else??
> LanMan98v2 works fine here, Iyonix 5.14 to and from Windows 7. Even LanManFS
> works though slowly, (Lan Manager 2.34).
Although my LanMAN98v2 see's the new Windows 7 PC and I can check the
Free space, I get "Connection Down" whenever I try to actually see the
files.
It works fine from Win7 to RiscPC using Samba
> Windows 7 is a big improvement on Vista, I have upgraded both my Vista
> machines, both are much more responsive than they were and in particular the
> disc thrashing has gone away. Vista SP2 did help but Windows 7 was money
> well spent.
Oh Windows 7 is very nice indeed, been impressed so far.
--
Chris Hughes
Paul Sprangers
> Anyone tried it yet?
Yes, it works easily and very fast, while I never got either LanMan to work
with Vista.
Kind regards,
Paul Sprangers
David Pitt
[snip]
> Although my LanMAN98v2 see's the new Windows 7 PC and I can check the Free
> space, I get "Connection Down" whenever I try to actually see the files.
With which RISC OS?
LanMan98v2 does talk to Windows 7 from OS6.06 here. I do recall it did not
work with the A9home, that may have been a DHCP related problem, or its
converse.
>
> It works fine from Win7 to RiscPC using Samba
I never have any luck with Samba!
BernardUK
kept under XP. Is it likely to operate more or less completely when
accessing a later version of Windows?
Also, it makes an unusable horlicks of displaying the content of a
reasonably large directory (of photos) stored on a network attached
storage disc whose compatibility with XP has been OK.
Is LanMan98 actually supposed to be a complete solution for such
needs? Is it still being developed?
Just thought I'd ask...
Chris Hughes
David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> Chris Hughes <ne...@noonehere.co.uk> wrote:
> [snip]
>> Although my LanMAN98v2 see's the new Windows 7 PC and I can check the Free
>> space, I get "Connection Down" whenever I try to actually see the files.
> With which RISC OS?
RISC OS 6.16
> LanMan98v2 does talk to Windows 7 from OS6.06 here. I do recall it did not
> work with the A9home, that may have been a DHCP related problem, or its
> converse.
>>
>> It works fine from Win7 to RiscPC using Samba
> I never have any luck with Samba!
Never had any problem with it.
Using version 0.07a 19 April 2001
--
Chris Hughes
Alex Cessford
Paul Sprangers <Pa...@sprie.nl> wrote:
Hi all,
>> Anyone tried it yet?
> Kind regards,
> Paul Sprangers
Thank you so much to everyone who has replied.
I'll really pleased to hear both how much of an improvement Windows 7
is and especially that my Iyonix with RO 5.13 will be able to transfer
files back and forth via LanMan98 version 2.
Looks like I can safely support Bill Gates' retirement fund after all!
--
Alex.
Chris Evans
BernardUK <URL:mailto:b.b...@bcs.org> wrote:
> I can't get LanMan98 2.00 to support file locking/unlocking of files
> kept under XP. Is it likely to operate more or less completely when
> accessing a later version of Windows?
Don't know about that!
> Also, it makes an unusable horlicks of displaying the content of a
> reasonably large directory (of photos) stored on a network attached
> storage disc whose compatibility with XP has been OK.
Are you meaning that say a sort by name is not all sorted alphabetical?
If yes that is a known RISC OS filer problem, a quick test here shows the
problem with a 400 entry directory on RISC OS 3.7 when using ADFS or LanMan98
The problem was fixed in RO 4.02
> Is LanMan98 actually supposed to be a complete solution for such
> needs? Is it still being developed?
It is less than a year since the last update!
What extra features are you needing
Chris Evans
--
CJE Micro's / 4D 'RISC OS Specialists'
Telephone: 01903 523222 Fax: 01903 523679
ch...@cjemicros.co.uk http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/
78 Brighton Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2EN
The most beautiful thing anyone can wear, is a smile!
BernardUK
attached
> Are you meaning that say a sort by name is not all sorted
> alphabetical?
No, I'm afraid it's worse than that.
> What extra features are you needing
Since this thread is really about Windows 7 compatibility, I will
gather my thoughts and reply direct to you Chris: it may be that my
problems are not generally shared, or else that they deserve airing in
a separate thread related to my NAS disc.
> The most beautiful thing anyone can wear, is a smile!
So why wear anything else?
Bernard.
Rob Kendrick
"Barry Allen (news)" <evan...@onetel.net.uk.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <afd71720-da34-4ec6...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> BernardUK <b.b...@bcs.org> wrote:
> > they deserve airing in a separate thread related to my NAS disc.
>
> Please share anything to do with a NAS disc and Windows 7.
>
> At the moment I have a NAS disc which works fine with my Iyonix and
> Windows XP. If there is a problem with Windows 7 and the NAS I'll keep
> Windows XP as long as possible.
Should be; there have been very few changes really in the CIFS layer
between XP and Windows 7. Certainly none as large and annoying as the
authentication changes between 9x, 2000 and XP.
B.
Martin Wuerthner
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
There must have been some changes between XP and Vista because they
completely stopped my Fujitsu-Siemens StorageBird NAS from working.
The official position of Fujitsu-Siemens is that this is a known
problem and the product will not be updated to work with Vista.
Before that experience I would have argued that you would not in
general expect any OS version dependency at all with a NAS. After all,
the whole idea of a NAS is that it can be accessed by all computers in
the network, no matter which OS they use.
Martin
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Wuerthner MW Software http://www.mw-software.com/
ArtWorks 2 -- Designing stunning graphics has never been easier
spam...@mw-software.com [replace "spamtrap" by "info" to reply]
Rob Kendrick
Martin Wuerthner <spam...@mw-software.com> wrote:
> Before that experience I would have argued that you would not in
> general expect any OS version dependency at all with a NAS. After
> all, the whole idea of a NAS is that it can be accessed by all
> computers in the network, no matter which OS they use.
Often, embedded hardware and software is dreadful. I once had an IP
KVM that would only work with Windows, and only with Windows 2000. It
spoke VNC, so you'd hope it'd work anywhere, but no: the IP stack on
the KVM was dreadful and buggy as hell, and only one version of
Windows happened to have an IP stack that'd cope, and one assumes that
was by luck rather than design.
Windows Vista and 7 talks CIFS/SMB. If a NAS that claims either of
those doesn't work, I'd take it back to the shop as not fit for purpose
(assuming you're within the window of time that allows that.)
B.
Dave Higton
Rob Kendrick <nn...@rjek.com> wrote:
> Windows Vista and 7 talks CIFS/SMB. If a NAS that claims either of
> those doesn't work, I'd take it back to the shop as not fit for purpose
> (assuming you're within the window of time that allows that.)
CIFS/SMB covers a huge number of variations. I sincerely doubt
that there is /anything/ out there that conforms to it all.
As I'm sure you well realise.
Dave
John Sandford
Martin Wuerthner <spam...@mw-software.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> Should be; there have been very few changes really in the CIFS layer
>> between XP and Windows 7. Certainly none as large and annoying as the
>> authentication changes between 9x, 2000 and XP.
> There must have been some changes between XP and Vista because they
> completely stopped my Fujitsu-Siemens StorageBird NAS from working.
> The official position of Fujitsu-Siemens is that this is a known
> problem and the product will not be updated to work with Vista.
One change which effected my nas was that Vista has the NTLM
authentication level was set higher than XP, Buffalo's fix was a
registery change that lower it one level which allowed Vista to try a
lower level if the high one failed.
The fix was to...
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\Currentcontrolset\control\Lsa
LMCompatibilityLevel set value data to 2 (hexidecimal)
This fix seems to have survived an upgrade to windows7 and my
linkstation is still accessible.
> Before that experience I would have argued that you would not in
> general expect any OS version dependency at all with a NAS. After all,
> the whole idea of a NAS is that it can be accessed by all computers in
> the network, no matter which OS they use.
> Martin
John
--
John Sandford West Herts UK
Hemel Hempstead RISC OS User Group email info @ hhrug.org
Alex Cessford
As the instigator of the original post about this I hope I will be
forgiven if I follow it up with a related but still rather off-topic
query, (not to mention that it is a PC question really).
My reason for posting it here is that replies to my original post have
been extremely helpful indeed so I am hoping that those kind folk can
help with a final piece of the jigsaw.
So, having been reassured that LM98 works fine with Windows 7, and
that Windows 7 itself is a worthwhile improvement on my existing
Vista, I am seeking further reassurance that the actual installation
process when upgrading from Vista Home Premium to Windows 7 Home
Premium before finally parting with my cash.
Anyone had problems with this? Anything to watch out for or be aware
of?
--
Alex.
Ray Dawson
> So, having been reassured that LM98 works fine with Windows 7, and that
> Windows 7 itself is a worthwhile improvement on my existing Vista, I am
> seeking further reassurance that the actual installation process when
> upgrading from Vista Home Premium to Windows 7 Home Premium before finally
> parting with my cash.
>
> Anyone had problems with this? Anything to watch out for or be aware of?
Although I didn't upgrade from Vista to Windows 7, a friend of mine did
without any problems.
I must admit that I took the opportunity to do a fresh install of Windows 7
- getting rid of all the crud one picks up over the years. The fresh install
was completely painless and, as my PC has a 64 bit processor, I took the
opportunity of going down the 64 bit road as the Windows 7 CD contains both
32 and 64 bit.
Don't forget there is a small app you can run from the MS site which checks
your computer to show up any potential application or driver problems with
Windows 7.
Cheers,
Ray D
David Pitt
Microsoft offer a Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor which may spot some hazards in
waiting, google will find that.
Obviously do a backup but also ensure the machine really does have all the
latest Vista upgrades by checking for updates again if the first check for
updates did find updates. This is to avoid a Vista upgrade trying to restart
the machine part way through the Windows 7 upgrade.
The in situ upgrades went perfectly here. The upgrader asks a few questions
to start with and can then be left to get on with it, a message to that
effect is issued.
Grahame Parish
Alex Cessford <al...@cessford.org.uk> wrote:
I've upgraded three machines here no problem - just allow plenty of
time if you are running an upgrade rather than a fresh install.
--
Grahame Parish
Aylesbury, Bucks. HP19 (UK)
maillistDOTparishATmillersHYPHENwayDOTnet
Alex Cessford
David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> Alex Cessford <al...@cessford.org.uk> wrote:
>> So, having been reassured that LM98 works fine with Windows 7, and that
>> Windows 7 itself is a worthwhile improvement on my existing Vista, I am
>> seeking further reassurance that the actual installation process when
>> upgrading from Vista Home Premium to Windows 7 Home Premium before finally
>> parting with my cash.
>>
>> Anyone had problems with this? Anything to watch out for or be aware of?
>>
> Microsoft offer a Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor which may spot some hazards in
> waiting, google will find that.
> Obviously do a backup but also ensure the machine really does have all the
> latest Vista upgrades by checking for updates again if the first check for
> updates did find updates. This is to avoid a Vista upgrade trying to restart
> the machine part way through the Windows 7 upgrade.
Thank you for that advice - very useful. I have stored it safely for
reference.
> The in situ upgrades went perfectly here. The upgrader asks a few questions
> to start with and can then be left to get on with it, a message to that
> effect is issued.
How long?
Thanks again,
--
Alex.
Alex Cessford
Ray Dawson <r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Alex Cessford <al...@cessford.org.uk> wrote:
>> So, having been reassured that LM98 works fine with Windows 7, and that
>> Windows 7 itself is a worthwhile improvement on my existing Vista, I am
>> seeking further reassurance that the actual installation process when
>> upgrading from Vista Home Premium to Windows 7 Home Premium before finally
>> parting with my cash.
>>
>> Anyone had problems with this? Anything to watch out for or be aware of?
> Although I didn't upgrade from Vista to Windows 7, a friend of mine did
> without any problems.
> I must admit that I took the opportunity to do a fresh install of Windows 7
> - getting rid of all the crud one picks up over the years. The fresh install
> was completely painless and, as my PC has a 64 bit processor, I took the
> opportunity of going down the 64 bit road as the Windows 7 CD contains both
> 32 and 64 bit.
My PC is a HP Pavilion a6250 desktop tower machine with Intel Core2
Quad processor Q6600. The box label says that my copy of Vista is Home
Premium 32-bit, but I have no idea if my machine has 64-bit
capability, and can't seem to find out from all its paperwork. Any
idea?
Would you recommend that I go for the fresh install too? The machine
was purchased new in December 2007.
> Don't forget there is a small app you can run from the MS site which checks
> your computer to show up any potential application or driver problems with
> Windows 7.
As you didn't say what this was called I tried both a Google search
and a direct search of the Microsoft website but have failed to find
out what this could be? Could you help me please?
Ah! STOP PRESS! Just read David Pitt's post. Were you referring to
Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor?
Regards,
--
Alex.
Alex Cessford
Grahame Parish <spam...@millers-way.net> wrote:
Is a fresh install quicker than an upgrade then? And how long for
either approach, please?
Cheers,
--
Alex.
Grahame Parish
Alex Cessford <al...@cessford.org.uk> wrote:
> Cheers,
Two machines were in-situ upgrades from 64bit Vista to 64bit Win7 - no
problems, but the time taken depends on what is already installed, how
many user accounts, etc. I've seen reports of a couple of hours to
seven or more for complex setups. Mine were probably around 2-3
hours, but all settings and software were moved over.
On my wife's laptop I went from 32bit Vista to 64bit Win7 and this had
to be a fresh install, you can only do 32-32 or 64-64 as an in-situ
upgrade. This one took less time, but I did have to track down some
extra drivers afterwards.
Dave Plowman (News)
Alex Cessford <al...@cessford.org.uk> wrote:
> So, having been reassured that LM98 works fine with Windows 7, and
> that Windows 7 itself is a worthwhile improvement on my existing
> Vista, I am seeking further reassurance that the actual installation
> process when upgrading from Vista Home Premium to Windows 7 Home
> Premium before finally parting with my cash.
I've just done this on a recently bought laptop. The upgrade was included
in the purchase price.
Went ok but took a long time. There were two CDs - one for Windows and one
for the laptop. Various drivers etc in the laptop one. So dunno about
upgrading without that.
--
*Who is this General Failure chap anyway - and why is he reading my HD? *
Alex Cessford
Grahame Parish <spam...@millers-way.net> wrote:
> In message <afff29bb5...@cessford.org.uk>
> Alex Cessford <al...@cessford.org.uk> wrote:
>> In message <29871dbb50.G...@grahame.parish>
>> Grahame Parish <spam...@millers-way.net> wrote:
>>> I've upgraded three machines here no problem - just allow plenty of
>>> time if you are running an upgrade rather than a fresh install.
>> Is a fresh install quicker than an upgrade then? And how long for
>> either approach, please?
>> Cheers,
> Two machines were in-situ upgrades from 64bit Vista to 64bit Win7 - no
> problems, but the time taken depends on what is already installed, how
> many user accounts, etc. I've seen reports of a couple of hours to
> seven or more for complex setups. Mine were probably around 2-3
> hours, but all settings and software were moved over.
Sorry to pester. I'm not sure I understand your use of the term
'in-situ'. That would be as opposed to what, exactly, please?
> On my wife's laptop I went from 32bit Vista to 64bit Win7 and this had
> to be a fresh install, you can only do 32-32 or 64-64 as an in-situ
> upgrade. This one took less time, but I did have to track down some
> extra drivers afterwards.
How can I find out whether my PC is 32 or 64-bit, please? It's a HP
Pavilion a6250 desktop tower machine with Intel Core2 Quad processor
Q6600.
The box label says that my copy of Vista is Home Premium 32-bit, but I
have no idea if my machine has 64-bit capability, and can't seem to
find out from all its paperwork. Any idea?
Regards,
--
Alex.
Grahame Parish
Alex Cessford <al...@cessford.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <80232fbb50.G...@grahame.parish>
> Grahame Parish <spam...@millers-way.net> wrote:
>> In message <afff29bb5...@cessford.org.uk>
>> Alex Cessford <al...@cessford.org.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <29871dbb50.G...@grahame.parish>
>>> Grahame Parish <spam...@millers-way.net> wrote:
>>>> I've upgraded three machines here no problem - just allow plenty of
>>>> time if you are running an upgrade rather than a fresh install.
>>> Is a fresh install quicker than an upgrade then? And how long for
>>> either approach, please?
>>> Cheers,
>> Two machines were in-situ upgrades from 64bit Vista to 64bit Win7 - no
>> problems, but the time taken depends on what is already installed, how
>> many user accounts, etc. I've seen reports of a couple of hours to
>> seven or more for complex setups. Mine were probably around 2-3
>> hours, but all settings and software were moved over.
> Sorry to pester. I'm not sure I understand your use of the term
> 'in-situ'. That would be as opposed to what, exactly, please?
By 'in-situ' I mean with it upgrading everything in place. Win7 does a
better job of this than previous versions. It saves out all your
settings and preferences and restores them against the new
installation, creating all the accounts, etc. All the existing
installed software remains in place and working (assuming it is still
compatible).
>> On my wife's laptop I went from 32bit Vista to 64bit Win7 and this had
>> to be a fresh install, you can only do 32-32 or 64-64 as an in-situ
>> upgrade. This one took less time, but I did have to track down some
>> extra drivers afterwards.
> How can I find out whether my PC is 32 or 64-bit, please? It's a HP
> Pavilion a6250 desktop tower machine with Intel Core2 Quad processor
> Q6600.
> The box label says that my copy of Vista is Home Premium 32-bit, but I
> have no idea if my machine has 64-bit capability, and can't seem to
> find out from all its paperwork. Any idea?
Your processor is 64-bit, so you can use either the 32bit or 64bit
version of Xp/Vista/Win7, but you can't do an in-situ upgrade from 32
to 64bit, it has to be a fresh install with user account created
manually afterwards, software re-installed, etc. Take a good backup
of the machine first, or use the user account migration feature so
that you can automate some of the account settings recreation after
installation.
John Sandford
Alex Cessford <al...@cessford.org.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>>
> My PC is a HP Pavilion a6250 desktop tower machine with Intel Core2
> Quad processor Q6600. The box label says that my copy of Vista is Home
> Premium 32-bit, but I have no idea if my machine has 64-bit
> capability, and can't seem to find out from all its paperwork. Any
> idea?
> Would you recommend that I go for the fresh install too? The machine
> was purchased new in December 2007.
For most users there is not much to be gained by going 64bit (better
use of memory over about 3GB/some speed increase mostly) and you could
have problems with 64bit drivers.
A fresh install will require you to re-install all the software you
have purchased and may lose the software included when you purchased
the machine as the recovery discs may not allow for the software
without also re-installing vista.
you could install to a different folder to your vista and have a dual
boot system, so retaining your current setup (this works with XP not
tried with vista but normally works if the second Windows OS is newer)
[snip]
> Ah! STOP PRESS! Just read David Pitt's post. Were you referring to
> Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor?
> Regards,
--
Alex Cessford
Grahame Parish <spam...@millers-way.net> wrote:
<Snip>
>> Sorry to pester. I'm not sure I understand your use of the term
>> 'in-situ'. That would be as opposed to what, exactly, please?
> By 'in-situ' I mean with it upgrading everything in place. Win7 does a
> better job of this than previous versions. It saves out all your
> settings and preferences and restores them against the new
> installation, creating all the accounts, etc. All the existing
> installed software remains in place and working (assuming it is still
> compatible).
Oh, I see. Thank you for enlightening me, most helpful. Sounds like
in-situ is the way for me to go. I just want my PC working as it was
before, only (presumably?), better, with Win7.
<Snip>
>> How can I find out whether my PC is 32 or 64-bit, please? It's a HP
>> Pavilion a6250 desktop tower machine with Intel Core2 Quad processor
>> Q6600.
>> The box label says that my copy of Vista is Home Premium 32-bit, but I
>> have no idea if my machine has 64-bit capability, and can't seem to
>> find out from all its paperwork. Any idea?
> Your processor is 64-bit, so you can use either the 32bit or 64bit
> version of Xp/Vista/Win7, but you can't do an in-situ upgrade from 32
> to 64bit, it has to be a fresh install with user account created
> manually afterwards, software re-installed, etc. Take a good backup
> of the machine first, or use the user account migration feature so
> that you can automate some of the account settings recreation after
> installation.
Thank you again for that. Following on from my comment above, I think
I'll make sure I've done the full backup first, but then stick with
the in-situ approach.
Best wishes,
--
Alex.
Alex Cessford
John Sandford <fornew...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> In message <f2382abb5...@cessford.org.uk>
> Alex Cessford <al...@cessford.org.uk> wrote:
> [snip]
> For most users there is not much to be gained by going 64bit (better
> use of memory over about 3GB/some speed increase mostly) and you could
> have problems with 64bit drivers.
Ah, right. That's helpful to know. Thank you John.
> A fresh install will require you to re-install all the software you
> have purchased and may lose the software included when you purchased
> the machine as the recovery discs may not allow for the software
> without also re-installing vista.
Arrgghh! That I don't need!
> you could install to a different folder to your vista and have a dual
> boot system, so retaining your current setup (this works with XP not
> tried with vista but normally works if the second Windows OS is newer)
Oh. That looks worth considering, even if only as a temporary backup
measure and I eventually ditch Vista altogether.
Thanks again,
--
Alex.
Alex Cessford
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <c6021cbb5...@cessford.org.uk>,
> Alex Cessford <al...@cessford.org.uk> wrote:
>> So, having been reassured that LM98 works fine with Windows 7, and
>> that Windows 7 itself is a worthwhile improvement on my existing
>> Vista, I am seeking further reassurance that the actual installation
>> process when upgrading from Vista Home Premium to Windows 7 Home
>> Premium before finally parting with my cash.
> I've just done this on a recently bought laptop. The upgrade was included
> in the purchase price.
> Went ok but took a long time. There were two CDs - one for Windows and one
> for the laptop. Various drivers etc in the laptop one. So dunno about
> upgrading without that.
Ah, that's worth knowing. Thank you.
Looks like I'll need to ask about a drivers CD when purchasing.
Cheers,
--
Alex.
John Sandford
Alex Cessford <al...@cessford.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <50bb39e...@davenoise.co.uk>
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>> I've just done this on a recently bought laptop. The upgrade was included
>> in the purchase price.
>> Went ok but took a long time. There were two CDs - one for Windows and one
>> for the laptop. Various drivers etc in the laptop one. So dunno about
>> upgrading without that.
> Ah, that's worth knowing. Thank you.
> Looks like I'll need to ask about a drivers CD when purchasing.
> Cheers,
The above 2 disc upgrade is only where the computer manufacture
supplies the upgrade to windows 7 as part of its purchase price and
would only be for a recent purchase.
you would need to go to the web site of your models manufacturer to
see if any updates have been issued for windows 7.
John
David Pitt
[snip]
> > The in situ upgrades went perfectly here. The upgrader asks a few
> > questions to start with and can then be left to get on with it, a
> > message to that effect is issued.
> How long?
I left my machines to get on with it so did not pay too much attention to
how long it all took, I think it was of the order of 2 to 3 hours.
David Pitt
> In message <96f545b...@binit.thesandfords.me.uk>
> John Sandford <fornew...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
> > you could install to a different folder to your vista and have a dual
> > boot system, so retaining your current setup (this works with XP not
> > tried with vista but normally works if the second Windows OS is newer)
> Oh. That looks worth considering, even if only as a temporary backup
> measure and I eventually ditch Vista altogether.
>
Not quite, Windows 7 is a complete replacement for Vista as far as I am
aware there is no reason at all to hang on to Vista.
Microsoft's Windows 7 upgrader does a brilliant job and is made to be easy
to use, there would have to be a very good reason to go looking for
complications.
David Pitt
> In article <c6021cbb5...@cessford.org.uk>,
> Alex Cessford <al...@cessford.org.uk> wrote:
> > So, having been reassured that LM98 works fine with Windows 7, and that
> > Windows 7 itself is a worthwhile improvement on my existing Vista, I am
> > seeking further reassurance that the actual installation process when
> > upgrading from Vista Home Premium to Windows 7 Home Premium before
> > finally parting with my cash.
>
> I've just done this on a recently bought laptop. The upgrade was included
> in the purchase price.
>
> Went ok but took a long time. There were two CDs - one for Windows and one
> for the laptop. Various drivers etc in the laptop one. So dunno about
> upgrading without that.
>
A purchased upgrade pack contains two DVDs, 32bit and 64bit.
The upgrade uses the existing Vista drivers.
David Pitt
No, that is complete rubbish, the upgrade uses the existing Vista drivers.
The upgrader does it all for you.
David Pitt
Ollie Clark
> How can I find out whether my PC is 32 or 64-bit, please? It's a HP
> Pavilion a6250 desktop tower machine with Intel Core2 Quad processor
> Q6600.
>
> The box label says that my copy of Vista is Home Premium 32-bit, but I
> have no idea if my machine has 64-bit capability, and can't seem to
> find out from all its paperwork. Any idea?
Your processor is 64bit capable.
To find out which version of Windows you've got installed, right click
on My Computer and look at the System type.
Cheers,
Ollie
Martin Hodgson
Chris Evans <ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <40a9c219-fa6e-42b0...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> > Is LanMan98 actually supposed to be a complete solution for such
> > needs? Is it still being developed?
> It is less than a year since the last update!
> What extra features are you needing
>
> Chris Evans
What is the current version?
I have 2.00 here.
I find the WSS website to be totally out of date and impossible to find
updates (if any exist).
Could you possibly point me in the right direction please.
Martin Hodgson
Alex Cessford
Martin Hodgson <marth...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> What is the current version?
> I have 2.00 here.
> I find the WSS website to be totally out of date and impossible to find
> updates (if any exist).
> Could you possibly point me in the right direction please.
To the best of my knowledge you are up to date, 2.00 is the latest. It
is certainly the version I have and I try to keep a fairly close eye
LM because it is vital to my needs - hence my original post on this
thread.
Hope that helps,
--
Alex.
Alex Cessford
David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> Alex Cessford <al...@cessford.org.uk> wrote:
Well that makes me even more happy! Thank you. I feel very reassured
now. Why is it that I trust RISC OS user's opinions of Microsoft than
the word of the great William G. I wonder?!!
--
Alex.
Alex Cessford
Ollie Clark <use...@ollieclark.com> wrote:
Ah that's where it is! Thanks Ollie.
Oh! That's odd.
I didn't follow your instructions *exactly* to the letter, but I went:
Start -> My Computer, and on the window that opens showing all the
drives across the top there are buttons. Third from the left is
labelled System Properties. Clicking that gets a largish window headed
"View basic information about your computer" and in that, against the
sub-heading System type: is says 32-bit Operating System.
Clutching at straws, you said my processor is "64bit capable". is
being 'capable' not necessarily the same as what it actually is,
perhaps?
Regards,
--
Alex.
Alex Cessford
David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> John Sandford <fornew...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
That's good then. Ta muchly once more.
--
Alex.
Alex Cessford
John Sandford <fornew...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> Cheers,
Oh right. I would not have known to do that if you hadn't told me, so
thank you very much John.
--
Alex.
Alex Cessford
David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> Alex Cessford <al...@cessford.org.uk> wrote:
> [snip]
Ok, thanks again. Even if mine is not exactly the same, that gives me
something of a yardstick to measure it against. ie. If it hasn't
finished after maybe 10 hours I should suspect a problem!
--
Alex.
Alex Cessford
David Pitt <ne...@pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> Alex Cessford <al...@cessford.org.uk> wrote:
Now I really do feel 100% happy about this. Thanks
--
Alex.
Dave Symes
> Hope that helps,
Though I'm on 2.00 as well, I'm sure there was another version later that
fixed some minor niggles for someone (2.01).
I think Chris (CJE) would be the person to answer this one.
Dave
--
Dave Triffid
Dr Peter Young
> In article <50bb3ead23...@freeuk.com>,
> Martin Hodgson <marth...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> Could you possibly point me in the right direction please.
> CJE seem to be handling updates.
And he has them in stock.
With best wishes,
Peter.
--
Peter, \ / \ Prestbury, Cheltenham, Glos. GL52
Anne \ / __ __ \ England.
and / / \ | | |\ | / _ \ http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
family / \__/ \_/ | \| \__/ \______________ pny...@ormail.co.uk.
Chris Hughes
Alex Cessford <al...@cessford.org.uk> wrote:
> Hope that helps,
2.01 is the current version. CJE Micro's are the new suppliers on
behalf of WSS
--
Chris Hughes
Chris Evans
A slightly more on topic question:
I'm trying to help remotely a customer to setup his Vista PC for LM98 but we
don't have a copy of Vista or Windows 7 here.
How do you find the [1] 'Full Computer Name' i.e. what is entered in LM98's
Server entry?
[1] In XP it is shown in Control Panel/system/Computer name, the customer
can't find a system entry in Control Panel and he said there wasn't a Switch
to Classic View
Chris Evans
--
CJE Micro's / 4D 'RISC OS Specialists'
Telephone: 01903 523222 Fax: 01903 523679
ch...@cjemicros.co.uk http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/
78 Brighton Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2EN
The most beautiful thing anyone can wear, is a smile!
Chris Evans
Correct, the version currently shipping is 2.01. Users of 2.00 do not need
to upgrade unless they have a problem. If you have contacted WSS with a
problem and they believe 2.01 may fix it they will update 2.00 users.
> I think Chris (CJE) would be the person to answer this one.
>
> Dave
>
John Sandford
Chris Evans <ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> A slightly more on topic question:
> I'm trying to help remotely a customer to setup his Vista PC for LM98 but we
> don't have a copy of Vista or Windows 7 here.
> How do you find the [1] 'Full Computer Name' i.e. what is entered in LM98's
> Server entry?
> [1] In XP it is shown in Control Panel/system/Computer name, the customer
> can't find a system entry in Control Panel and he said there wasn't a Switch
> to Classic View
There is, windows 7 is different to vista.
> Chris Evans
quick method if he has a network icon in the system tray, right click
on the network icon choose open network on sharing center the map at
the top of the screen starts with the computers name followed by the
gateway icon then the internet icon.
Dave Plowman (News)
Chris Evans <ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:
> How do you find the [1] 'Full Computer Name' i.e. what is entered in
> LM98's Server entry?
> [1] In XP it is shown in Control Panel/system/Computer name, the
> customer can't find a system entry in Control Panel and he said there
> wasn't a Switch to Classic View
Performance and maintenance - System?
Or try My network places - that should show the name it's known as.
--
*Xerox and Wurlitzer will merge to market reproductive organs.
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Alan Calder
> A slightly more on topic question:
> I'm trying to help remotely a customer to setup his Vista PC for LM98
> but we don't have a copy of Vista or Windows 7 here.
> How do you find the [1] 'Full Computer Name' i.e. what is entered in
> LM98's Server entry?
You could try: Start -> Network. This should show any computers seen on
the network - sadly not the RO one(s).
If your customer is not using Classic View in Control Panel it is easy to
change as there is are the words Classic View to click on to change the
view! However, choosing in the non- Classic View Start -> Control Panel
-> System and Maintenance -> Device Manager will give a list of devices
with the top item being the computer and its name.
Cheers
Alan
--
Alan Calder, Milton Keynes, UK.
Ollie Clark
>>
>> To find out which version of Windows you've got installed, right click
>> on My Computer and look at the System type.
>
> A slightly more on topic question:
>
> I'm trying to help remotely a customer to setup his Vista PC for LM98 but we
> don't have a copy of Vista or Windows 7 here.
>
> How do you find the [1] 'Full Computer Name' i.e. what is entered in LM98's
> Server entry?
On Vista, the same way. Right-click on "Computer", select properties and
the full computer name is shown.
Cheers,
Ollie
Ollie Clark
> In message <slrnhg55lp...@greedy.zen175545>
>
> Clutching at straws, you said my processor is "64bit capable". is
> being 'capable' not necessarily the same as what it actually is,
> perhaps?
All PC processors are 32bit capable so can run 32bit windows (and other
OSes). Some of them are also 64bit capable and can therefore run 64bit
windows but they can also run 32bit windows.
So, to answer your question, if you install a 64bit OS, then your
processor will run in 64bit mode. At the moment, you've got a 32bit
OS installed so your processor runs in 32bit mode.
Either will do for running RPCEmu or VRPC (to bring it slightly on
topic).
Cheers,
Ollie
Ray Dawson
> So, to answer your question, if you install a 64bit OS, then your
> processor will run in 64bit mode. At the moment, you've got a 32bit OS
> installed so your processor runs in 32bit mode.
>
> Either will do for running RPCEmu or VRPC (to bring it slightly on topic).
The advantage of running a 64bit Windows OS is that you can have up to 192MB
of RAM, whereas 32bit is limited to just over 3MB.
In practice most motherboards impose an 8 or 12MB limit - but it's enough to
make an appreciable difference.
Much better for running resource hungry emulators.
Cheers,
Ray D
Richard Russell
> The advantage of running a 64bit Windows OS is that you can have up to 192MB
> of RAM, whereas 32bit is limited to just over 3MB.
>
> In practice most motherboards impose an 8 or 12MB limit - but it's enough to
> make an appreciable difference.
Err, I think you mean GB not MB!!
Richard.
http://www.rtrussell.co.uk/
Alex Cessford
Ray Dawson <r...@magray.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Ollie Clark <use...@ollieclark.com> wrote:
And there's something else I didn't know!
Thanks Ray.
Regards,
--
Alex.
Alex Cessford
Ollie Clark <use...@ollieclark.com> wrote:
> Alex Cessford wrote:
>> In message <slrnhg55lp...@greedy.zen175545>
>>
>> Clutching at straws, you said my processor is "64bit capable". is
>> being 'capable' not necessarily the same as what it actually is,
>> perhaps?
> All PC processors are 32bit capable so can run 32bit windows (and other
> OSes). Some of them are also 64bit capable and can therefore run 64bit
> windows but they can also run 32bit windows.
Ok.
> So, to answer your question, if you install a 64bit OS, then your
> processor will run in 64bit mode. At the moment, you've got a 32bit
> OS installed so your processor runs in 32bit mode.
Pretty obviously, I never knew that!
You learn something knew every day, don't you! Thank you for
enlightening me, Ollie.
> Either will do for running RPCEmu or VRPC (to bring it slightly on
> topic).
I've actually got VRPC, but on my RISCbook (Asus EeePC/WinXP), not on
HP Pavilion.
Regards,
--
Alex.
Chris Evans
Thanks for all the answers lads, I'll get back to the user.
Graham Thurlwell
> In article <40a9c219-fa6e-42b0...@o10g2000yqa.googlegro
> ups.com>,
> BernardUK <URL:mailto:b.b...@bcs.org> wrote:
<snip>
>> Is LanMan98 actually supposed to be a complete solution for such
>> needs? Is it still being developed?
> It is less than a year since the last update!
What's the current version number, and who do I see about a free
upgrade to it from v2.00?
> What extra features are you needing
The same minimum functionality as I had with v1.22 would be a start.
Did you ever forward that network printing timeout problem I told you
about at last Wakefield to the developers?
--
Graham Thurlwell
Jades' First Encounters Site
http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
Ray Dawson
Chris Hughes
Ollie Clark <use...@ollieclark.com> wrote:
> Alex Cessford wrote:
>> In message <slrnhg55lp...@greedy.zen175545>
>>
>> Clutching at straws, you said my processor is "64bit capable". is
>> being 'capable' not necessarily the same as what it actually is,
>> perhaps?
> All PC processors are 32bit capable so can run 32bit windows (and other
> OSes). Some of them are also 64bit capable and can therefore run 64bit
> windows but they can also run 32bit windows.
All current processors in PC's, both Intel and AMD are 64 bit
processors that can work in 32 bit as well.
You can run either a 64 bit or 32 bit version of the Windows OS, if
you use a 64 bit OS then the OS has a 32 bit emulation system, which
runs any software (correctly written) which is 32 bit only.
--
Chris Hughes
druck
> As the instigator of the original post about this I hope I will be
> forgiven if I follow it up with a related but still rather off-topic
> query, (not to mention that it is a PC question really).
It is a PC question totally.
> My reason for posting it here is that replies to my original post have
> been extremely helpful indeed so I am hoping that those kind folk can
> help with a final piece of the jigsaw.
Please do not do this. I get back after 2 days to find over 100 posts in
this group, the majority of them about bloody windows, and a good half
of those one line replies by yourself with no attempt to snip the
quoting. If you are going to use Windows, get used to going to a Windows
support forum or newsgroup, that is what they are there for.
---druck
Dave Symes
I have a LM98 disc configured to link to a directory on my Ubuntu install,
and sometimes it will work and other times not, and I really can't fathom
what's happening.
I'm just wondering if anyone else had suffered this with a Linux install?
Dave
Yes, both this SARPC with LM98 and the ubuntu machine are running, and the
ubuntu directory is set Shared, and permissions are set both read and
write for anyone.
Unable to resolve address dave-desktop (that *is* what the ubuntu install
is called).
I can ping the ubuntu machine okay, and from Ubuntu can ping both this
SARPC and the router.
--
Dave Triffid
Dave Symes
> Dave
This is bloody idiotic... I've been plagued by this all week and about 30
seconds after posting the above I thought one last try before I do
something seriously Grumpy...
In LM98 in Server: instead of the Ubuntu name that it sometimes can't seem
to find, I put the address instead... 192.168.1.8
The heap of brown stuff has now connected okay.
I'm now going to shut down all the machines as I'm in a really foul, foul
mood and I wouldn't want you folks to get the resulting Grump Master. ;-)
Dave
--
Dave Triffid
Steve Fryatt
<50bcd75...@triffid.co.uk>:
> On 19 Nov, da...@triffid.co.uk wrote:
>
> > Unable to resolve address dave-desktop (that *is* what the ubuntu
> > install is called).
>
> > I can ping the ubuntu machine okay, and from Ubuntu can ping both this
> > SARPC and the router.
>
> This is bloody idiotic... I've been plagued by this all week and about 30
> seconds after posting the above I thought one last try before I do
> something seriously Grumpy...
>
> In LM98 in Server: instead of the Ubuntu name that it sometimes can't seem
> to find, I put the address instead... 192.168.1.8
>
> The heap of brown stuff has now connected okay.
How does the RISC OS box know that 'dave-deskop' is 192.168.1.8? Is it in
the local hosts file?
--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England
Dave Symes
Steve Fryatt <ne...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> How does the RISC OS box know that 'dave-deskop' is 192.168.1.8? Is it
> in the local hosts file?
That Mr F. is a very good question,I'll look into it.
I've been concentrating my limited brain space to fiddling with Linux
RPCEmu, I've kinda lost track of other things.
Back in a while...
Good catch Mr F.
I must engage brain, differentiate...
The machine "Fan" running XP is 192.168.1.4 (Which is in the "Hosts"
database of this RO machine) and using VRPC-SA on (Fan) it works okay.
Also on that machine, a dual boot via GRUB, is the Ubuntu install, and my
brain is in VRPC emulation mode, forgetting that Ubuntu Linux is an OS in
its own right, not an emulation... Yada yada...
I've now put a new Host in the Hosts database and it works correctly.
Good catch, and thanks for the prompt.
Dave
Mind you, it's weird that occasionally it did connect okay despite...
D.
--
Dave Triffid
Jess
Alex Cessford <al...@cessford.org.uk> wrote:
> So, having been reassured that LM98 works fine with Windows 7, and
> that Windows 7 itself is a worthwhile improvement on my existing
> Vista, I am seeking further reassurance that the actual installation
Windows 7 is quite good, I've been running the trial version for
months, and I haven't got annoyed with it. (I don't think it's
actually good enough to pay for when it runs out however, I shall move
to Linux at that point.)
> process when upgrading from Vista Home Premium to Windows 7 Home
> Premium before finally parting with my cash.
I think Microsoft have a cheek asking anyone who paid for vista to pay
for windows 7.
I personally would never use any version with the word home in it
(hence why it is far too pricey for me.)
The higher end versions have remote desktop server built in. This
means I can run a windows 7 session remotely on my iyonix, (it even
works on a Risc PC and looks quite reasonable despite the reduced
colours available in big screen modes.)
Note RDP is fast enough for general use, not like VNC.
This would be the only reason I would choose Windows 7 over a free
linux system. However the price isn't right at present.
> Anyone had problems with this? Anything to watch out for or be aware
> of?
Upgrading as opposed to wiping and starting again is usually to be
avoided on windows, however Windows 7 is just vista that has been made
to work the way it should have in the first place, so an upgrade
should be fine. (Assuming the installation is running smoothly to
start with.)
--
Jess Iyonix
martin
> Hi all,
>
> The subject says it all really.
>
> I remember it was a fair while before LM98 was able to catch up with
> Vista which I currently suffer under on the dark side but it has
> worked fine linking my Iyonix to PC-land ever since 2.00 was released.
>
> I'm getting lots of comments from both RISC OS and Windows users to
> the effect that Windows 7 is much better than Vista and definitely
> worth upgrading to. Snag is, I am never going to abandon my Iyo unless
> forced, I need it so much as my primary machine.
>
> I do however do a lot of file-transferring between the two machines.
> It wasn't overly arduous, but still quite a pain when I was forced to
> swap files via usb pen-drive before 2.00 came along, so a lack of LM98
> compatibility with Windows 7 means that Bill G ain't gonna get my
> cash.
>
> Anyone tried it yet?
>
> --
> Alex.
Another twist. LanMan 2 allows me to move files between my Kinetic
4.03 & an XP machine but my W7 will only allow moving from not to. I
have set lots of shares & permissions on the W7. What have I missed ?
Martin
Dave Symes
Jess <phant...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snippy]
> Windows 7 is quite good, I've been running the trial version for
> months, and I haven't got annoyed with it. (I don't think it's
> actually good enough to pay for when it runs out however, I shall move
> to Linux at that point.)
Linux... You really must be a masochist then. ;-)
Dave
--
Dave Triffid
Steve Fryatt
<50bed5e...@triffid.co.uk>:
> Linux... You really must be a masochist then. ;-)
No more so than those of us who still battle to do useful stuff with
RISC OS.
;-)
Richard Torrens (News)
Dr Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> > CJE seem to be handling updates.
> And he has them in stock.
Surprise!
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Torrens. News email address is valid - for a limited time only.
http://www.Torrens.org.uk for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats
and more!
David Lamle
"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <a515c4b85...@cessford.org.uk>,
> Alex Cessford <al...@cessford.org.uk> wrote:
>> I do however do a lot of file-transferring between the two machines.
>> It wasn't overly arduous, but still quite a pain when I was forced to
>> swap files via usb pen-drive before 2.00 came along, so a lack of LM98
>> compatibility with Windows 7 means that Bill G ain't gonna get my
>> cash.
>> Anyone tried it yet?
> Just had my 'free' upgrade to Win7 for a recently purchased laptop and it
> seems to work ok here. Only just done a test, though.
Which Version of Window7 did you use I am thing of getting the
Professional and is that the 64 bit one
David
--
RISC PC Select 6.06 - Kinetic Card - Messenger Pro
David S Lamle email: ds.l...@ntlworld.com
Chris Hughes
David Lamle <ds.l...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> In message <50b8fd2...@davenoise.co.uk>
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <a515c4b85...@cessford.org.uk>,
>> Alex Cessford <al...@cessford.org.uk> wrote:
>>> I do however do a lot of file-transferring between the two machines.
>>> It wasn't overly arduous, but still quite a pain when I was forced to
>>> swap files via usb pen-drive before 2.00 came along, so a lack of LM98
>>> compatibility with Windows 7 means that Bill G ain't gonna get my
>>> cash.
>>> Anyone tried it yet?
>> Just had my 'free' upgrade to Win7 for a recently purchased laptop and it
>> seems to work ok here. Only just done a test, though.
> Which Version of Window7 did you use I am thing of getting the
> Professional and is that the 64 bit one
They have both 32 bit or 64 bit on the same DVD for Home Premium,
Professional and Ultimate versions.
Out of interest why do you want professional? You don't need it to run
the majority of XP programs which work fine on Win7 Home Premium.
--
Chris Hughes