The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Hi,
My Bro got back from Uni at the weekend and I though I would network his Laptop (running XP) and My PC (running ME). So, armed with a network cable (not a crossover but my bros laptop shouldauto dectect and change the way it send signals), I started the network wizard on his Laptop and finished that fine. Then, as instructed I inserted the XP disk and upgraded ME's networking support to XP's. After this the LAN on XP was active and sending and reciving packets of data, and both PC were shown on the network, fine and dandy. But, on the ME PC only the PC itself was shown on the network, and when the XP Laptop tried to access the ME PC it said it was not avalible.
Anyone know what the problem is? I've tried redoing the whole process but that hasn't worked. If its any help the network adapter on the PC is a built in Realtek RTL8139(A) Fast Ethernet Adapter on a GA-8SIMLH-P Motherboard and the Laptops Adapter is a Broadcom 440x 10/100 Intergrated controler.
Cheers
S.A.
My Bro got back from Uni at the weekend and I though I would network his Laptop (running XP) and My PC (running ME). So, armed with a network cable (not a crossover but my bros laptop shouldauto dectect and change the way it send signals), I started the network wizard on his Laptop and finished that fine. Then, as instructed I inserted the XP disk and upgraded ME's networking support to XP's. After this the LAN on XP was active and sending and reciving packets of data, and both PC were shown on the network, fine and dandy. But, on the ME PC only the PC itself was shown on the network, and when the XP Laptop tried to access the ME PC it said it was not avalible.
Anyone know what the problem is? I've tried redoing the whole process but that hasn't worked. If its any help the network adapter on the PC is a built in Realtek RTL8139(A) Fast Ethernet Adapter on a GA-8SIMLH-P Motherboard and the Laptops Adapter is a Broadcom 440x 10/100 Intergrated controler.
Cheers
S.A.
Page:
All changed, and on XP the ping is being recieved back fine, but on the ME I am just getting Request Timed Out. Does anyone know why this is?
To get to TCP/IP settings on XP you do the following.
Right click on My Network Places and select Properties
From the box that appears, right click on Local Area Connection and select properties.
From the middle box, double click Internet Protocol [TCP/IP] and from there you can configure you IP settings.
In ME, I think from memory you do the following.
Right click on Network Neighbourhood and select properties.
From the box that appears you just double click TCP/IP and configure with another unique address.
Suggest the following as has already been mentioned
XP machine, 192.168.0.10
ME machine, 192.168.0.20
Both with a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0
Once they've both been set, you shouldn't have to reboot the XP computer but may have to with ME....not sure.
Run up a DOS prompt on both machines and type the following on each machine.
XP type the following : ping 192.168.0.20 -t
ME type the following : ping 192.168.0.10 -t
On the XP machine your sending continuous packets of info to the ME comp and vica versa, you should see in the DOS box, Reply from 192.168.0.10 or 20 depending on computer your looking at, and this should repeat over and over again, if it doesn't say reply then your connection isn't working.
Post back if you've got any more probs.
Right click on My Network Places and select Properties
From the box that appears, right click on Local Area Connection and select properties.
From the middle box, double click Internet Protocol [TCP/IP] and from there you can configure you IP settings.
In ME, I think from memory you do the following.
Right click on Network Neighbourhood and select properties.
From the box that appears you just double click TCP/IP and configure with another unique address.
Suggest the following as has already been mentioned
XP machine, 192.168.0.10
ME machine, 192.168.0.20
Both with a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0
Once they've both been set, you shouldn't have to reboot the XP computer but may have to with ME....not sure.
Run up a DOS prompt on both machines and type the following on each machine.
XP type the following : ping 192.168.0.20 -t
ME type the following : ping 192.168.0.10 -t
On the XP machine your sending continuous packets of info to the ME comp and vica versa, you should see in the DOS box, Reply from 192.168.0.10 or 20 depending on computer your looking at, and this should repeat over and over again, if it doesn't say reply then your connection isn't working.
Post back if you've got any more probs.
Bonus wrote:
> taka-Q, welcome to the crappy worl of windows networking :D
>
> Try assigning your own IP addresses to the systems rather than
> letting windows do it, might help.
Not quite sure how to do this, as XP and ME have different ways to get to the network settings and the options are different in windows which have the same content. How would I do this?
> Also try setting up just one network protocol first, TCP/IP and use
> the same client on both systems.
Again, ME and XP are hurting my head with there different layouts. So as above, how would I do this?
> Another thing is to make sure that file and print sharing is enabled
> on both systems, and that they are operating on the same workgroup.
Both systems have file and print sharing enabled, and are on the same workgroup (MSHOME, didn't want to change it to anything different with the troubles I'm having).
> taka-Q, welcome to the crappy worl of windows networking :D
>
> Try assigning your own IP addresses to the systems rather than
> letting windows do it, might help.
Not quite sure how to do this, as XP and ME have different ways to get to the network settings and the options are different in windows which have the same content. How would I do this?
> Also try setting up just one network protocol first, TCP/IP and use
> the same client on both systems.
Again, ME and XP are hurting my head with there different layouts. So as above, how would I do this?
> Another thing is to make sure that file and print sharing is enabled
> on both systems, and that they are operating on the same workgroup.
Both systems have file and print sharing enabled, and are on the same workgroup (MSHOME, didn't want to change it to anything different with the troubles I'm having).
taka-Q, welcome to the crappy worl of windows networking :D
Try assigning your own IP addresses to the systems rather than letting windows do it, might help.
Also try setting up just one network protocol first, TCP/IP and use the same client on both systems.
Another thing is to make sure that file and print sharing is enabled on both systems, and that they are operating on the same workgroup.
All these are fairly basic things, so they are really easy to overlook when you think you've got a bigger problem.
Try assigning your own IP addresses to the systems rather than letting windows do it, might help.
Also try setting up just one network protocol first, TCP/IP and use the same client on both systems.
Another thing is to make sure that file and print sharing is enabled on both systems, and that they are operating on the same workgroup.
All these are fairly basic things, so they are really easy to overlook when you think you've got a bigger problem.
gamezfreak wrote:
> On the topic of networking, What cable do I need?
>
> I've been puzzling over this all day, All I want to do is attach one
> end of the cable to my NTL cable modem, And the other to the back of
> my motherboard (has a LAN port).
>
> Looking on ebuyer is scary, Patch UTP cables, Crossover cables, Cat5e
> cables, RJ11 cables! ARG
>
> Which one would I need?
You want a straight through Ethernet cable. Also called a LAN cable. Or RJ 45. Or a patch UTP or a cat5e. All the same thing. Crossover means the wires in side are rearranged so that PC's can be connected directly. To connect to a cable modem you want just a normal straight through cable. RJ11 is something else, it is a phone lead. Like between the phone base and the wall.
I bought a few Belkin cables off Ebuyer a fortnight ago for £2 or so. Great so far.
> On the topic of networking, What cable do I need?
>
> I've been puzzling over this all day, All I want to do is attach one
> end of the cable to my NTL cable modem, And the other to the back of
> my motherboard (has a LAN port).
>
> Looking on ebuyer is scary, Patch UTP cables, Crossover cables, Cat5e
> cables, RJ11 cables! ARG
>
> Which one would I need?
You want a straight through Ethernet cable. Also called a LAN cable. Or RJ 45. Or a patch UTP or a cat5e. All the same thing. Crossover means the wires in side are rearranged so that PC's can be connected directly. To connect to a cable modem you want just a normal straight through cable. RJ11 is something else, it is a phone lead. Like between the phone base and the wall.
I bought a few Belkin cables off Ebuyer a fortnight ago for £2 or so. Great so far.
*modems
NTL cables can be connected via USB.
On the topic of networking, What cable do I need?
I've been puzzling over this all day, All I want to do is attach one end of the cable to my NTL cable modem, And the other to the back of my motherboard (has a LAN port).
Looking on ebuyer is scary, Patch UTP cables, Crossover cables, Cat5e cables, RJ11 cables! ARG
Which one would I need?
I've been puzzling over this all day, All I want to do is attach one end of the cable to my NTL cable modem, And the other to the back of my motherboard (has a LAN port).
Looking on ebuyer is scary, Patch UTP cables, Crossover cables, Cat5e cables, RJ11 cables! ARG
Which one would I need?
When I networked my new PC with the family one downstairs back in June, we ran into one major problem: Firewalls.
Not only did we have to configure NIS, but Xp's built-in firewall stopped the PC's from seeing eachother.
Does ME have one built in?
Not only did we have to configure NIS, but Xp's built-in firewall stopped the PC's from seeing eachother.
Does ME have one built in?
It also seems I can administrate either PC.
This is most strange...
This is most strange...
Page: