Re: Networks

"David Kelsey" <david_kelseyNO@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eDu97XelFHA.4000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hi Kerry - I call it a VPN because that is what the suppliers of the cable
> and software call it, to distinguish it from a file transfer cable which
> they also supply. Who am I to tell them they are wrong?
>
> I didn't say it was an uncommon setup - I just said no-one in the network
> group had any experience of it. But it is presumably one of the purposes
> of USB, isn't it, to link computers together, like the Mac. It should be
> extremely simple. You buy a cable with a dongle in the middle of it for
> £10.15, plug the ends into your two computers, run the short setup prog,
> and Robert is your relative. That gives you a shared connection to the
> net. That takes five minutes, but the first piece of hardware I had was
> faulty, and kept giving failure warnings, and the pidgin English manual
> didn't help. However, the exchange part worked fine. Now why would you
> want to join two computers with a cable? Why, to share files and e-mail
> and stuff, obviously. Even my dumb old Sinclair QL understood that. So
> why is there not a default that says 'Click here to set up USB 2 network'?
> You should be able to unshare any you want to keep secret from your four
> year old daughter. It was only when I got involved with the network
> wizard, as Chuck demonstrates here, that my troubles began. Still,
> computers wouldn't be half as much fun if they 'just worked', would they?
>
> The system probably wouldn't have worked very well with USB 1.1, which may
> be why it is not all that well known, and it only works over five metres,
> which rules out most two-room setups.
>
> As for developments over twenty five years, as I said here, my 1984 Mac,
> which I still have and use occasionally, (because I have hundreds of
> drawings done on it on file) simply used cables in and out of as many
> machines as you wished, within reason, with no other setup, while my
> Sinclair, also 1984, used audio jackplugs on cables to do the same thing.
> Its entire Qdos operating system was contained within a pair of 16k ROMs,
> so I guess that wouldn't have added too much to Windows' bloat. But it
> wasn't as [pretty as Windows, and I took it out of commission after 96,000
> hours of continuous running apart from mains failures.
>
> David
>

LOL, that brought back memories. I had several Sinclair and Timex/Sinclair
computers. I loved Qdos but the whole cassette tape storage was very flakey.
When the Commodore 64 came our with a floppy drive that was the end of my
Sinclairs :-)

I work on computers for a living. Everything from home computers to medium
size networks. I have never encountered a USB network setup. I know it
exists but when I have a need to connect two computers I use a crossover
ethernet cable. The fact that no one in the network group, I'm assuming you
mean this newsgroup, knows about it should be a hint that it's not very
common. If you would have used the far more common ethernet crossover cable
I'm sure you would have had less problems. Most computers have an ethernet
port now. If not the cards are very cheap and easily added to a PC. I'm not
getting on your case just trying to make a point that what you are doing,
USB networking, isn't that common. It's unlikely to get better support in
Windows unless it does become common. Because of the limitations you mention
it's unlikely it will become common.

Kerry


> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*a*m> wrote in message
> news:eoiow5SlFHA.3692@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> "David Kelsey" <david_kelseyNO@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:OatKHASlFHA.1608@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>I did have a problem with setting up a USB2 VPN, but no-one in this group
>>>had had any experience with this, so I struggled with trial and error
>>>until eventually I have a two-computer network that works, albeit rather
>>>slowly sometimes. The point I am making is that if I, a 75-year-old user
>>>with 25 years of experience of computing, but no experience of networks,
>>>can set it up, it ought to be a piece of cake for a computer, don't you
>>>think? They do much more complicated things than that, surely, like word
>>>processing, and spreadsheets and so on, which just work when you install
>>>them, and continue to work for years. And yes, I am venting, because
>>>there is no other way that I know of to express an opinion or seek an
>>>improvement. I used to send stuff to the MS wishlist, but that is like
>>>the Bermuda Triangle. I can't e-mail Bill, because I gather he gets 4
>>>million mails a day, and he might not have time to read mine. I just
>>>hope that someone from MS will read this stuff and push for something to
>>>be done. There must be some way in which they can respond to users'
>>>feelings and opinions. Maybe they should add a group for venting (barred
>>>to Linux and Mac users of course, or it would end up like ZD Net.)
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>
>> By your own admission this is a very uncommon setup. Windows is bloated
>> enough without MS trying to forsee every conceivable option and making
>> sure it works automatically. If you have 25 years experience with
>> computers you have seen all the improvements along the way and must
>> realise that although computers are easier to use than 25 years ago they
>> are still not at the appliance level. There are many ways that Windows
>> could be improved and made easier for the general public. Somehow I think
>> that setting up a VPN over USB is not at the top of the list. By the way
>> if you are only networking two computers why is a VPN needed? I think you
>> may have your terms confused. A VPN is a Virtual Private Network usually
>> set up for private communications over a larger public network (i.e. the
>> Internet).
>>
>>
>> Kerry
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "Malke" <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:u01dvdRlFHA.1416@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> David Kelsey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I know this is strictly not the right place to ask this, but does
>>>>> anyone know why Microsoft seem to give us so much trouble in setting
>>>>> up a network? Is there some overwhelming issue that prevents this task
>>>>> being just a matter
>>>>> of a few mouse clicks? I have never seen so many similar problems in
>>>>> one
>>>>> newsgroup before, not since the days of SP1. Doesn't this indicate a
>>>>> distinct failure in programming skills by the huge brains at MS? At
>>>>> the end of the day, people sort out the problems in the field, so why
>>>>> can't our computers sort them out for us?
>>>>>
>>>>> David Kelsey
>>>>
>>>> You have to remember that this is a tech support newsgroup and so you
>>>> aren't seeing posts about how great someone's computer works. If you go
>>>> to a hospital, you'll see a lot of sick people. Does that mean
>>>> everybody in town is sick?
>>>>
>>>> I can't answer your question about why it isn't more brain-dead-easy to
>>>> set up networking in XP because I'm not a programmer and I don't work
>>>> for Microsoft. However, I can tell you that it isn't that hard to do
>>>> either, although many people seem to think computers should be as easy
>>>> to operate as toasters. Computers are marketed like that, but it isn't
>>>> true. Computers are complex and powerful machines that require a little
>>>> more knowledge to use than is required to toast bread.
>>>>
>>>> Are you having a problem you'd like help with or are you just venting?
>>>>
>>>> Malke
>>>> --
>>>> Elephant Boy Computers
>>>> www.elephantboycomputers.com
>>>> "Don't Panic!"
>>>> MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


.