OT: networking question
05-22-2003, 03:42 PM
#16
Race Director
"you guys make it so hard by adding external hardware on a simple peer to peer network. XP will support 10 clients out of the box..i.e."
But that would require leaving that box on all the time.
"When i open the adapter properties and click the "repair" button it just freezes up and i ahve to ctr alt del ro else after like 10 minutes it will finaly say it timed out."
AH HAH!!! There's the clue! You might have a driver problem. Can you see the WinME computer on the network if you browse for it? Could be that your network card isn't even working regardless of what the router or modem is doing.
"WinXP works fine as a router itself- put in a second network card on the XP box and use the PC AS a router.."
Yeah, make sure your WinXP machine isn't working as a router as well. And turn OFF DHCP on your modem if it's ON. Most of them are shipped with it ON. DHCP should be ON in the router box.
But that would require leaving that box on all the time.
"When i open the adapter properties and click the "repair" button it just freezes up and i ahve to ctr alt del ro else after like 10 minutes it will finaly say it timed out."
AH HAH!!! There's the clue! You might have a driver problem. Can you see the WinME computer on the network if you browse for it? Could be that your network card isn't even working regardless of what the router or modem is doing.
"WinXP works fine as a router itself- put in a second network card on the XP box and use the PC AS a router.."
Yeah, make sure your WinXP machine isn't working as a router as well. And turn OFF DHCP on your modem if it's ON. Most of them are shipped with it ON. DHCP should be ON in the router box.
05-22-2003, 05:02 PM
#17
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: LA, Calif., USA
Posts: 1,887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Deni, I've been running KDE...
If you can tell me a simple, no fuss no hassle way to setup linux networking so that it uses DHCP to connect to my router...I'll start using it when I'm bored again. It seems you have a good handle on most OS's..</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">I was going to suggest linuxconf as well, since that's what i always use, but if you want a direct command line method that will work virtually fool-proof no matter what window management system you are currently using, then read the directions <a href="http://www.linuxheadquarters.com/howto/networking/networkconfig.shtml" target="_blank">here</a>. Good luck.
If you can tell me a simple, no fuss no hassle way to setup linux networking so that it uses DHCP to connect to my router...I'll start using it when I'm bored again. It seems you have a good handle on most OS's..</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">I was going to suggest linuxconf as well, since that's what i always use, but if you want a direct command line method that will work virtually fool-proof no matter what window management system you are currently using, then read the directions <a href="http://www.linuxheadquarters.com/howto/networking/networkconfig.shtml" target="_blank">here</a>. Good luck.
05-22-2003, 05:42 PM
#18
Instructor
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I would recommend Suse 8.1 because of its easy to use configuration program (Yast2), also because I have it set up running IP Masquerading (linux way of acting as a router) and it has been fast and stable (ip68-12-52-4:~ # uptime
3:34pm up 81 days, 14:18, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
ip68-12-52-4:~ # ). Yes I know its bad to show other people my IP address, but Im running linux so im not feeling threatend.
Back to your problem, try seeing if you can ping any other computer on your network (ex. the ME comp), go to start menu -> run -> cmd (if in XP) or command (in 98,ME) -> then type "ping theothermachinesipaddress". If you dont know how to get the IP address of the windows ME box, type ipconfig in the dos prompt.
If you cant ping the other computers on your network, then there is no way your going to have any internet.
Danno could definately be onto something with the drivers suggestion, also make sure that the network cable is securely plugged into the back of the computer/router.
3:34pm up 81 days, 14:18, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
ip68-12-52-4:~ # ). Yes I know its bad to show other people my IP address, but Im running linux so im not feeling threatend.
Back to your problem, try seeing if you can ping any other computer on your network (ex. the ME comp), go to start menu -> run -> cmd (if in XP) or command (in 98,ME) -> then type "ping theothermachinesipaddress". If you dont know how to get the IP address of the windows ME box, type ipconfig in the dos prompt.
If you cant ping the other computers on your network, then there is no way your going to have any internet.
Danno could definately be onto something with the drivers suggestion, also make sure that the network cable is securely plugged into the back of the computer/router.
05-22-2003, 05:53 PM
#19
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: kenosha WI
Posts: 3,227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the adapter in the XP machine is right in the motherboard. Its a sony vaio. This is all happening at my girlfriends house. I have a fully functional ICS connection from my XP pc to my dads laptop at my house so i knwo how to use the pc as a router but to do that in my girlfriend case would mean running another wire down to the basement. If i could get ICS to work on the ME computer (which was my original idea) then i wouldnt need to use the router. but i couldnt get that to work.
05-22-2003, 06:15 PM
#20
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by adrial:
<strong>Funny, I configured my computer to work with my router at home in no more than 5-10 seconds...
I have linux installed too...Mandrake 9.1...I've yet to bother reconfiguring it for home (just came back from college a week ago)....you know why?
1) Windows works better...My computer is rock solid stable...I've had it on for weeks at a time with no problems..
2) Too much hassle to do it in Linux...The only easy way I know of doing it is to boot up off the mandrake CD and use their fancy configurator tool. Yes, there's is netconfig...but thats such a huge hassle...there's no reason to bother futzing with it.
There's no reason to use linux for the average home user...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">five to ten seconds is pretty fast. It takes me longer than that to move the mouse from button to button.
I've never used mandrake. But under Debian and Gentoo, setup is as simple as typing in some numbers when I set the computer up, and never touching it again. Just because you don't know the easy way to do it, or mandrake hides it from the user (mandrake emulates windows in its 'simplicity'), doesn't mean it's difficult.
Here's a fun situation. Install a network card under winxp, configure it for a static ip (my lan gaming friends and I use statics), turn the computer off and move the card to a new slot, and reboot. It "discovers" a new card and configures it. All the settings for the same card in a different slot are locked into the old configuration, so you can't use the same ip again. A friend of mine has three network cards "installed" on his wxp computer.
It also takes us a few minutes to get our computers talking to each other, usually requiring somebody reenter network settings (not change, enter the same numbers and restart the networking daemon).
The driver logic for windows sucks, the actual tcp networking once configured is pretty good (the code for it was all taken from NetBSD).
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by deni durrell:
<strong>by saying that, it sounds like you: a. are a neophyte; b. don't know how to network; and c. or don't know computers operating systems well enough. i used to say that about macintosh computers (os 8,9,10) until i familiarised myself with them, as time went by. now they are just as easy to network, even if it takes me a couple extra seconds to figure out where the networking options are located. other than that, they are better running linux...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Yeah...does writing network drivers and creating a tcp based protocol for a grad-level networking class make me a neophyte who doesn't know OSs or networking? Or does it give me a better insight as to why windows networking is low quality?
I know how to network under windows, I know how to trouble shoot the problems. I learned how because there always seems to be a problem.
<strong>Funny, I configured my computer to work with my router at home in no more than 5-10 seconds...
I have linux installed too...Mandrake 9.1...I've yet to bother reconfiguring it for home (just came back from college a week ago)....you know why?
1) Windows works better...My computer is rock solid stable...I've had it on for weeks at a time with no problems..
2) Too much hassle to do it in Linux...The only easy way I know of doing it is to boot up off the mandrake CD and use their fancy configurator tool. Yes, there's is netconfig...but thats such a huge hassle...there's no reason to bother futzing with it.
There's no reason to use linux for the average home user...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">five to ten seconds is pretty fast. It takes me longer than that to move the mouse from button to button.
I've never used mandrake. But under Debian and Gentoo, setup is as simple as typing in some numbers when I set the computer up, and never touching it again. Just because you don't know the easy way to do it, or mandrake hides it from the user (mandrake emulates windows in its 'simplicity'), doesn't mean it's difficult.
Here's a fun situation. Install a network card under winxp, configure it for a static ip (my lan gaming friends and I use statics), turn the computer off and move the card to a new slot, and reboot. It "discovers" a new card and configures it. All the settings for the same card in a different slot are locked into the old configuration, so you can't use the same ip again. A friend of mine has three network cards "installed" on his wxp computer.
It also takes us a few minutes to get our computers talking to each other, usually requiring somebody reenter network settings (not change, enter the same numbers and restart the networking daemon).
The driver logic for windows sucks, the actual tcp networking once configured is pretty good (the code for it was all taken from NetBSD).
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by deni durrell:
<strong>by saying that, it sounds like you: a. are a neophyte; b. don't know how to network; and c. or don't know computers operating systems well enough. i used to say that about macintosh computers (os 8,9,10) until i familiarised myself with them, as time went by. now they are just as easy to network, even if it takes me a couple extra seconds to figure out where the networking options are located. other than that, they are better running linux...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Yeah...does writing network drivers and creating a tcp based protocol for a grad-level networking class make me a neophyte who doesn't know OSs or networking? Or does it give me a better insight as to why windows networking is low quality?
I know how to network under windows, I know how to trouble shoot the problems. I learned how because there always seems to be a problem.
05-22-2003, 10:08 PM
#21
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does your cable modem support NAT? If it does is the DHCP turned on? If not, where is the ME machine getting an IP?
I personally find XP confusing, but I'm more of a NT kind of person. You should also try to ping the modem from the XP machine. That'll tell you the network wires are working correctly. After that, it's an XP problem. You might try going through the network connection wizard a few times.
I personally find XP confusing, but I'm more of a NT kind of person. You should also try to ping the modem from the XP machine. That'll tell you the network wires are working correctly. After that, it's an XP problem. You might try going through the network connection wizard a few times.
05-22-2003, 10:29 PM
#22
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Blacksburg, Va
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Ag951:
<strong>
The driver logic for windows sucks, the actual tcp networking once configured is pretty good (the code for it was all taken from NetBSD).
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Ag951:
<strong>
Yeah...does writing network drivers and creating a tcp based protocol for a grad-level networking class make me a neophyte who doesn't know OSs or networking? Or does it give me a better insight as to why windows networking is low quality?
</strong>
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">It seems to me that you're contradicting yourself, intentional or not. You may want to rephrase your argument to state that the setup and driver/hardware configuration aspects of windows networking sucks, not that their entire networking system including their IP stack (which as you said is largely from BSD code) is "low quality". Nit-picky as it may be, succinctly stating your argument would help fight off the flames
<strong>
The driver logic for windows sucks, the actual tcp networking once configured is pretty good (the code for it was all taken from NetBSD).
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Ag951:
<strong>
Yeah...does writing network drivers and creating a tcp based protocol for a grad-level networking class make me a neophyte who doesn't know OSs or networking? Or does it give me a better insight as to why windows networking is low quality?
</strong>
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">It seems to me that you're contradicting yourself, intentional or not. You may want to rephrase your argument to state that the setup and driver/hardware configuration aspects of windows networking sucks, not that their entire networking system including their IP stack (which as you said is largely from BSD code) is "low quality". Nit-picky as it may be, succinctly stating your argument would help fight off the flames
05-22-2003, 11:00 PM
#23
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Amherst, NH
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're still having problems tomorrow - email me. I'll get you working pretty fast.
I think you did mention that you had ICS working - if you're running ICS then you have 2 DHCP servers on the network - meaning that you'll need to configure one of them to turn off.
Let me know.
I think you did mention that you had ICS working - if you're running ICS then you have 2 DHCP servers on the network - meaning that you'll need to configure one of them to turn off.
Let me know.
05-23-2003, 02:39 AM
#24
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Tadi:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Ag951:
<strong>
The driver logic for windows sucks, the actual tcp networking once configured is pretty good (the code for it was all taken from NetBSD).
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Ag951:
<strong>
Yeah...does writing network drivers and creating a tcp based protocol for a grad-level networking class make me a neophyte who doesn't know OSs or networking? Or does it give me a better insight as to why windows networking is low quality?
</strong>
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">It seems to me that you're contradicting yourself, intentional or not. You may want to rephrase your argument to state that the setup and driver/hardware configuration aspects of windows networking sucks, not that their entire networking system including their IP stack (which as you said is largely from BSD code) is "low quality". Nit-picky as it may be, succinctly stating your argument would help fight off the flames </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Not at all. The networking is the sum of the interface, 'wizard', driver, driver configuration, and half a dozen protocols.
The stack doesn't suck. The sum of the parts does.
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Ag951:
<strong>
The driver logic for windows sucks, the actual tcp networking once configured is pretty good (the code for it was all taken from NetBSD).
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Ag951:
<strong>
Yeah...does writing network drivers and creating a tcp based protocol for a grad-level networking class make me a neophyte who doesn't know OSs or networking? Or does it give me a better insight as to why windows networking is low quality?
</strong>
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">It seems to me that you're contradicting yourself, intentional or not. You may want to rephrase your argument to state that the setup and driver/hardware configuration aspects of windows networking sucks, not that their entire networking system including their IP stack (which as you said is largely from BSD code) is "low quality". Nit-picky as it may be, succinctly stating your argument would help fight off the flames
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Not at all. The networking is the sum of the interface, 'wizard', driver, driver configuration, and half a dozen protocols.The stack doesn't suck. The sum of the parts does.
05-23-2003, 03:06 AM
#25
Hey Cass944, is it working yet? If you are still having problems e-mail me. The only thing I can say after all the posts on here is your configuration should work, period. Therefore something is wrong and can be made right.
Good Luck
Good Luck
05-23-2003, 03:16 AM
#26
Nordschleife Master
Ag951,
The initial setup for Mandrake is great...easy as pie...just plug in the numbers as you said...the problem comes when I move the computer somewhere and want to reconfigure TCP/IP easily without sticking the mandrake CD in again...
Linux has come a long way though...I remember Redhat 5.2...man...what a pain in the @$$ compared to the current release...If I had to pick between windows 98 and Linux...the decision would be a lot more difficult...
The initial setup for Mandrake is great...easy as pie...just plug in the numbers as you said...the problem comes when I move the computer somewhere and want to reconfigure TCP/IP easily without sticking the mandrake CD in again...
Linux has come a long way though...I remember Redhat 5.2...man...what a pain in the @$$ compared to the current release...If I had to pick between windows 98 and Linux...the decision would be a lot more difficult...