[pchelpers] Re: Networking - Calling on all computer gurus for help

Hi Ekhart,

Tuesday, December 30, 2003, 4:45:33 AM, you wrote:

>> It IS easy. Try it in DOS, Win 3.1, or original Win 95 and you'll
>> understand in a hurry! :)

EGlnl> Yes, you're right, but having the cheek to call something good
EGlnl> or excellent when it is (or recently became) only better than
EGlnl> bad is the basis of all M$ lies, and typical of all monopolies
EGlnl> and lack of freedom in society in general too.

Depending upon the situation, it really IS simple. For instance, at
one location that I do work at, I used to be able to take a
fresh-loaded Win2K system, plug in a network cable, and get internet
access.  It's not so simple anymore, for various reasons, but that's
because of the need to improve security, keep people from hitting porn
sites, etc.


EGlnl> I've heard that networking was a cinch with Macs right from the
EGlnl> start, entailing literally no more than plugging a wire into
EGlnl> another one. Is that true?

The network adapter is built in on them nowadays, and have been for a
while, as I recall. Having them come up with TCP/IP already installed
and configured with DHCP and "detect network settings" enabled is
fairly easy, and that's what WinXP does by default nowadays, as I
recall, as well as Win2K and maybe WinME. Perhaps the Macs just have a
bit more "auto-Wizard" built in. I haven't had that close a look at
one, so I can't say for sure.


EGlnl> I find it incredible that MS doesn't offer NetBEUI on their Web site
EGlnl> since it's not in laptops and these are apparently usually (always?)
EGlnl> sold without a CD.

Well, they DO want you to pay extra money for the Pro version. And if
the laptop comes with Pro, but NetBEUI isn't on the drive or any of
the CDs, then that's between you and he laptop vendor.


EGlnl> If i've understood correctly the compatibility needs of older MS(!)
EGlnl> computers and the security issues involved, NetBEUI should be 
EGlnl> automatically installed as the default home network protocol in all
EGlnl> computers sold to normal consumers.

MS has a noticeable lead time beween deciding upon goals for a project
and putting the finished product on the market. Apple has it easy;
they only have to support a very limited number of platforms. MS has
to support several different CPU, motherboard, video card, network
card, etc., brands and many models, many different kinds of
interfaces, including ISA, VESA, and MCA, etc.  Apple supports a very
limied set of platforms which makes things vastly easier for them.


EGlnl> Although i'm no expert, i'm quite sure it would be possible to program
EGlnl> computers in such a way that a normal consumer wouldn't have to do more
EGlnl> than plug a cable into two computers to have them recognize each other
EGlnl> and wouldn't have to do more than plug one of them into a phone jack and
EGlnl> type in a phone number to get Internet connectivity.

This is entirely up to the ISP.  Many ISPs *are* that easy; plug phone
line in, start the dial-up networking wizard, enter phone #, username
and password, and you're off.  It's plug-it-in-and-go for cable
internet, too.  Much of the extra work comes from fine-tuning,
home networking concerns, etc.


>> You can also use IPX/SPX instead, although I don't like it as well as
>> NetBEUI.

EGlnl> I'm curious to know what's not so good about it -- if you have the time.

More of a lack of warm fuzzy, than anything else.  When I first met
it, it was part of Novell, which was another pain in the butt at the
time.


EGlnl> But aren't home networks becoming very common due to almost everybody
EGlnl> having several MS machines standing around due to both forced 
EGlnl> "obsolescence" and increased need? I mean, no honest company would think
EGlnl> of selling any other consumer article with that kind of a severe but
EGlnl> hidden security risk, and the regulating government bodies would be up
EGlnl> in arms, requiring public info campaigns, callbacks, and free repair
EGlnl> jobs (that wouldn't be mislabeled "updates"!)

What?  You want to kill the firewall market?  :)


>> EGlnl> Before you do anything else, make sure you always restart *all*
>> EGlnl> computers *individually* even if you changed a setting on only
>> 
>> If getting ghost computers (names that no longer exist because you
>> renamed then, or names that have the wrong IP address associated with
>> them, due to network caches remembering the names), you should make
>> sure that they're all off at the same time. Either that or be prepared
>> to wait for an uncertain length of time for the problem to go away
>> when the caches expire. I ran into a cacheing problem just Friday
>> night.

EGlnl> Are you saying "all off at the same time" is enough, or is this in
EGlnl> addition to the homenethelp advice "all off one at a time"?

It probably doesn't matter, but on the other hand, I may have just
never run into a situation where it DOES matter.

As an example of the cacheing problem, I was helping a co-worker with
one of his after-hours customers, and I hooked up a computer that he'd
brought from his house, and I could see, in Network Neighborhood,
icons for the computers that he has at home. The computers talk to
each other using the IP address (on a TCP/IP network), which means
that the IP address is remembered also. If you assume that one or more
of the computers at the customers' location have the same names as his
computers at home, but different IP addresses, you'll be able to see
the problem that cacheing can cause.


>> Most definitely shut down everything and then restart everything,
>> before you assume that you're done.... it's not so bad with Win2K/XP,
>> but with Win95/98, you could sometimes change something, and it would
>> NOT ask you to reboot, but the change could kill something later on
>> when you DID reboot.  Note that a change to a system may require that
>> OTHER systems be rebooted; that's probably the problem that you had
>> that you mention in the PracticallyNetworked thread.

EGlnl> Yes, that's what i explained there, and the "expert" didn't even say
EGlnl> thank you for the heads up. I mean he's wasting his own time and that of
EGlnl> many others by not telling them the two most important basic things
EGlnl> about setting up a home network, and spending hours beating around the
EGlnl> bush with long, obtuse, and complicated sidetracks, excuses, and silly
EGlnl> accusations.

I've run into the same restart problem enough times, one would think
that I would remember it better, but I don't.  :(


EGlnl> So is it as dangerous to use them with TCP for file sharing as my combo
EGlnl> box? Why did the practicallynetworked forum's expert keep claiming i've
EGlnl> got a rare case and that almost nobody else needs to use NetBEUI or
EGlnl> anything else except the dangerous TCP?

I don't see why having them separate should be different from having
them merged. Perhaps you should ask him.

A cable/DSL modem basically converts an internet connection from one
medium (cable/DSL) to another one (CAT5/USB).  If you're going
directly from a cable/DSL modem to your computer, you definitely need
a firewall.

A router converts from one network to another, so that, for example, a local
(home) network with multiple IP addresses can connect to the outside
world via a single IP address (which acts as an inbound firewall; many
firewalls work in exactly this way).

And while we're on the subject:

A hub connects multiple computers indiscriminately, so that whatever
is sent by one system is relayed to all of the others on the hub, even
if the packets are only aimed at one system. Thus, a 100Mb hub has a
maximum throughput of only 100Mb.

Most hubs plug into an electrical outlet for power, but you can find
what look like phone line splitters, but which RJ45 plugs will fit
into, which are passive hubs. All of the cable connected to these
passive hubs count as a single segment when calculating cable length.

A switch is much the same as a hub, but packets that are aimed at a
specific system are only relayed to that system. A good switch will
let multiple computers talk to each other at full speed. Thus, if half
of the systems on a good 8-port switch are talking to the other half
at full speed, you'd have 4 ports talking at 100Mbs (=400Mbs). If full
duplex is used, and all systems are talking to each other
simultaneously, you'd get up to 800Mbs. Better switches will also
block bad packets, so that a bad network card or cable on a hub can
bring down the entire network, but if you replace the hub with a
switch that can drop bad packets, the network will run just fine, with
only the computer with the bad card or cable having trouble.

--Scott.


Regards, John Durham (list moderator) <http://modecideas.com/contact.html?sig>
Freelists login at http://www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/lsg2.cgi
List archives at http://www.freelists.org/archives/pchelpers
PC-HELPERS list subscribe/unsub at http://modecideas.com/discuss.htm?sig
Good advice is like good paint- it only works if applied.

Other related posts: