Intersrv and Interlnk with Windows 9x
BlueJAMC
is as good a place to try as any...
I have heard that one can use the Intersrv and Interlnk programs to connect two
Windows 9x computers via a serial portt. However, I have run into a problem.
When I try to connect a Windows 98 machine with FAT32 and a Windows 95 machine
with FAT16 with the FAT32 being the server, most of the directory names are
made up of ALT characters and not letters. Is this a compatibility issue with
FAT16 to FAT32, or a problem with Intersrv/lnk, or what? The reason I decided
to ask here is because Intersrv has to be run through DOS.
Thanks for any help you may be able to give, it will truly be appreciated.
Sincerely;
Blue
Allen Barnett
The problem you are seeing seems to be that Interlink / Interserv
uses 8.3 for filenames. The two will work together between FAT
16 and FAT 32 - but your longfilenames will be shortened to 8.3
characters and whatever character(s) is/are truncated will be
replaced by "~". I don't know of a good solution - except to
establish a real network between the two machines. NIC cards are
cheaper now than before and simple networking software is
provided with your op-system.
--
Allen Barnett 23.7 Years in Small Business
A B T E C - Lawrenceville, Georgia USA
{=Commercial Sound & Video Systems=}
http://www.bigfoot.com/~allen_barnett
Jerry Lippey/MVP
running on the FAT32 machine. Making that machine the server won't
work. In fact, I'm told it will destroy the files. But it is perfectly
okay to run Interlnk on the FAT32 machine, making it the client. If
you want to connect two FAT32 machines, don't use InterLink (use
Direct Cable Connection).
I don't understand why (because InterLink predates them), but I'm told
that long file names are not truncated.
--
-Jerry
Allen Barnett
>
> I'm not sure if this is the correct forum for my question, but I suppose this
> is as good a place to try as any...
>
> I have heard that one can use the Intersrv and Interlnk programs to connect two
> Windows 9x computers via a serial portt. However, I have run into a problem.
> When I try to connect a Windows 98 machine with FAT32 and a Windows 95 machine
> with FAT16 with the FAT32 being the server, most of the directory names are
> made up of ALT characters and not letters. Is this a compatibility issue with
> FAT16 to FAT32, or a problem with Intersrv/lnk, or what? The reason I decided
> to ask here is because Intersrv has to be run through DOS.
>
> Thanks for any help you may be able to give, it will truly be appreciated.
>
> Sincerely;
> Blue
I will certainly yield to -Jerry on his fine answer. I tried
something similar to what you stated once - and we were getting
some sort of a transfer - but we noticed that the longfilenames
were being truncated so we stopped. I suppose that the data
within the files was being scrambled as well. The Direct Cable
Connection sounds like a super keen thing to try - and it too
comes with Windows. I noticed that the setup wizard on Win 98
allows you to say 'host or client' during the installation. Our
solution was to go ahead and setup a small network which has
proven to be well worth the investment.
Good job clearing up my confusion [and resulting wrong answer] -
Thanks Jerry.
BlueJAMC
>Direct Cable Connection).
Well, I tried directcc first, but to no avail. I've tried everything in
regards to that...it just doesnt seem to work although I know it's not the
cable and its not the serial port on either computer. I know its a problem
with the FAT32 computer, though, as I can connect a different laptop and the
desktop together without problem.
Sincerely;
Frustrated in SD (aka, Blue)
Jerry Lippey/MVP
the way from a wrong cable to the situation in article below when you
try to connect a Windows 95 and 98 machine.
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q188/1/67.asp
("Unable to Connect Using Direct Cable Connection")
If you will provide more information, maybe I can help. Exactly what
happens? Quote any error message exactly.
--
-Jerry
BlueJAMC
>the way from a wrong cable to the situation in article below when you
>try to connect a Windows 95 and 98 machine.
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q188/1/67.asp
> ("Unable to Connect Using Direct Cable Connection")
Looked at the article and I have all of the specifications there...
>If you will provide more information, maybe I can help. Exactly what
>happens? Quote any error message exactly.
Okay....on the host system the status stays at "Waiting to connect via serial
cable on COM 1" and then after awhile says "Is the guest computer running?" On
the client system the message reads "Connecting via serial cable on COM 1" and
then after a moment a window pops up saying "Cannot connect to the host
computer. Make sure you have run Direct Cable Connection on the host computer
and you have connected your cable to both computers." But I know those aren't
the problems.
Any suggestions?
Sincerely;
Blue
Allen Barnett
Have you somehow 'verified' that the respective ports are
actually working and that they are what you think they are? I
always had a problem with that - until I got a little device for
another project - it is one of the little X-10 technology
transmitters that connects to your computer - called the
'Firecracker'. Software addresses the Com Port [1 to 4] and
fires this little device with various codes - which transmits to
a receiver across the room - which in turn puts the X-10 signal
on the power line to operate 'other' X-10 devices throughout the
house. Anyway - I use this Firecracker module to verify Com Port
validity and assignments. I mean - you can see the connector on
the computer - but how do you know what it is really 'responding'
to without verification? On the back of my IBM - there are two
serial port connectors - the top one is Com 1 and the other one
is Com 4 - [or is that Com 2 on the bottom and Com 3 on top ???].
Jerry Lippey/MVP
> cable on COM 1" and then after awhile says "Is the guest computer running?" On
> the client system the message reads "Connecting via serial cable on COM 1" and
> then after a moment a window pops up saying "Cannot connect to the host
> computer. Make sure you have run Direct Cable Connection on the host computer
> and you have connected your cable to both computers." But I know those aren't
> the problems.
>
> Any suggestions?
Maybe DUN is running? Check this, Blue.
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q140/2/08.asp
("Cannot Use Both Dial-Up Networking and Direct Cable Connection")
--
-Jerry
Allen Barnett
> ...
("Cannot Use Both Dial-Up Networking and Direct Cable
Connection")
That's another good reason to consider a basic LAN. [I know this
may be a hardware cost issue with some laptops] - but with a real
LAN established - you can do DUN and Local Network at the same
time. Here I have WFWG in a machine across the room and Win 98
on this one - and sometimes a laptop too. We share files and
printers - share some applications [Win 98 does most of the 16
bit stuff real good] - and lots of data files - and I have
WinGate installed which allows the WFWG machine to connect to the
Internet over the LAN and use the modem in the Win 98 machine.
Pretty neat really. Win98 SE also includes an application
[Internet Connection Sharing ?] for this same feature.
Rez
> another project - it is one of the little X-10 technology
> transmitters that connects to your computer - called the
> 'Firecracker'. Software addresses the Com Port [1 to 4] and
> fires this little device with various codes - which transmits to
> a receiver across the room - which in turn puts the X-10 signal
> on the power line to operate 'other' X-10 devices throughout the
> house. Anyway - I use this Firecracker module to verify Com Port
> validity and assignments. I mean - you can see the connector on
> the computer - but how do you know what it is really 'responding'
> to without verification? On the back of my IBM - there are two
> serial port connectors - the top one is Com 1 and the other one
> is Com 4 - [or is that Com 2 on the bottom and Com 3 on top ???].
Interesting use for it. I got one of the freebies they were handing out
and now maybe it'll actually be good for something :)
BTW I've heard rumours that this little doodad can be a security risk,
sorta like cable modems. I don't recall the details.
~REZ~
Allen Barnett
Mine was free too. This is not the one that may be a risk - it
only transmits manual commands from your computer to the
associated X-10 transponder receiver - which in turn couples your
one-way command out to other plugged in X-10 modules. The same
company has a more interactive product called 'Active Home' -
that additionally receives and processes incoming data from a
wired module and could possibly receive a signal that changes or
triggers your X-10 settings. I don't think it would go beyond
that.
The problem with cable modems, as I understand it, is that they
are often setup to allow others to see into your computer -via-
the TCP/IP protocol allowances. It may be left turned on by the
technician who installs the equipment. This is as easy to turn
off as it was to turn on. After all - he is just the cable guy.
The fix is to be sure that the NIC connected to the CableModem is
set to inhibit file and printer sharing over the protocol
established for that NIC. A Control Panel item for most users.
BlueJAMC
>actually working and that they are what you think they are?
Yes, I have verified that by using an external modem...it worked perfectly.
Sincerely;
Blue
Sincerely;
[HTML Removed] Blue.
If you want to e-mail me
The solution comes quite easily.
To drop a line, take the "Spam" and the "less"
And remove them from my mail address.
BlueJAMC
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q140/2/08.asp
Hmmm...I may have to try that...if this works, I'll owe you my life...or the 32
cents I have to my name. Whichever is worth more. :-)
Sincerely;
Blue