Need help: Peer-to-peer network between Win7 and Vista

Hello,


I want to share files between my Vista notebook and my Win7 netbook. I
also want to share the notebook's DVD drive with the netbook. Both
computers have a wired and a wireless network interface. I would prefer
(although it's not required) to use the wireless for Internet and wired to
join the two computers together.

So far I was able to connect the two. Both computers see the other, but
are not sharing files or resources. I cannot map a network drive to the
shared directories. The computers are not visible in the dialog.

How do I network the Vista and Win7 boxes together to share files and the
notebook's CD drive? Thank you kindly.


Have a great day.

"TC" <> wrote in message
news:jalimf$utu$...

> I want to share files between my Vista notebook and my Win7 netbook. I
> also want to share the notebook's DVD drive with the netbook. Both
> computers have a wired and a wireless network interface. I would prefer
> (although it's not required) to use the wireless for Internet and wired to
> join the two computers together.



http://www.ezlan.net/index.html#Wireless

JS

In the time of Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:08:19 -0500, thus spoke Peter Foldes:
>
>
> http://www.ezlan.net/index.html#Wireless
>
> JS

Thank you. That's some useful info. Meanwhile I figured out my
mistake. I was making networks on both computers and using each to
connect. Finally, I created an ad-hoc network on Vista then connected
using Win7 and was able to access shares. Cheers.

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 14:48:41 +0000 (UTC), TC
<> wrote:

>In the time of Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:08:19 -0500, thus spoke Peter Foldes:
>>
>>
>> http://www.ezlan.net/index.html#Wireless
>>
>> JS
>
>Thank you. That's some useful info. Meanwhile I figured out my
>mistake. I was making networks on both computers and using each to
>connect. Finally, I created an ad-hoc network on Vista then connected
>using Win7 and was able to access shares. Cheers.

If file transfer speed and reliability are important considerations,
and if a wired connection is practical, you'll definitely want to use
that rather than going wireless. A wired connection should give you at
least 3x the transfer speed, if not more.

--

Char Jackson

On 11/26/2011 9:42 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 14:48:41 +0000 (UTC), TC
> <> wrote:
>
>> In the time of Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:08:19 -0500, thus spoke Peter Foldes:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.ezlan.net/index.html#Wireless
>>>
>>> JS
>>
>> Thank you. That's some useful info. Meanwhile I figured out my
>> mistake. I was making networks on both computers and using each to
>> connect. Finally, I created an ad-hoc network on Vista then connected
>> using Win7 and was able to access shares. Cheers.
>
> If file transfer speed and reliability are important considerations,
> and if a wired connection is practical, you'll definitely want to use
> that rather than going wireless. A wired connection should give you at
> least 3x the transfer speed, if not more.

I have various laptops in different rooms acting as DVRs. And what is
interesting about recording in the WMV format, as you can play it with
another application while it is in the process of recording by another.
Thus I can stream this video to any other computer on the (W)LAN. That
works fine.

Although moving GBs from one computer to another in a speedy manner,
neither WLAN or LAN impresses me very much. Here I much prefer good old
faithful sneakernet. As it is so much faster. Has anybody else came to
the same conclusion?

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

BillW50 wrote:
> On 11/26/2011 9:42 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 14:48:41 +0000 (UTC), TC
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> In the time of Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:08:19 -0500, thus spoke Peter Foldes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ezlan.net/index.html#Wireless
>>>>
>>>> JS
>>>
>>> Thank you. That's some useful info. Meanwhile I figured out my
>>> mistake. I was making networks on both computers and using each to
>>> connect. Finally, I created an ad-hoc network on Vista then connected
>>> using Win7 and was able to access shares. Cheers.
>>
>> If file transfer speed and reliability are important considerations,
>> and if a wired connection is practical, you'll definitely want to use
>> that rather than going wireless. A wired connection should give you at
>> least 3x the transfer speed, if not more.
>
> I have various laptops in different rooms acting as DVRs. And what is
> interesting about recording in the WMV format, as you can play it with
> another application while it is in the process of recording by another.
> Thus I can stream this video to any other computer on the (W)LAN. That
> works fine.
>
> Although moving GBs from one computer to another in a speedy manner,
> neither WLAN or LAN impresses me very much. Here I much prefer good old
> faithful sneakernet. As it is so much faster. Has anybody else came to
> the same conclusion?
>

Sure, sneakernet can be faster. A USB3 pen drive. ESATA SSD.

In terms of wired LAN, in my testing with GbE, I find some NICs (Intel
brand, Marvell, maybe a Broadcom) are capable of benching at 117MB/sec
out of a possible 125MB/sec. (I presume the difference between theoretical
and achieved, is header overhead.) I think at the time, I was using
something like "rcp" or remote copy, in an attempt to keep the
protocol lightweight. A number of years ago, my favorite method
was FTP for doing the testing.

I have one NIC though, with a RealTek chip on it (8169), which only
does 70MB/sec using the same test methods. After more testing, it
seemed to be quite processor intensive, and by extrapolation, would
need a Core2 processor running at 4GHz, to catch up with the other
NICs.

I've heard, you can use "teaming" with NICs, to combine the bandwidth,
but I don't know if a single connection with a naive protocol, can
take advantage of both NICs at the same time. That would mean using
more than one Ethernet cable between computers. I've never tried that. While
I have motherboards with dual LAN, they're using different brands of
NIC chip.
NIC1 -------------- NIC1
computer NIC2 -------------- NIC2 computer #2

There are some near field wireless technologies (UWB), that could probably
beat all of that, but they're quite restrictive on usage. That would
probably work, between two computers in the same room. Once you
move away a bit, throughput drops to more "normal" (i.e. useless) levels.
In this graph, you can see UWB and Wifi compared, The FSO in this graph,
is free-space-optical, which would be line of sight only and would
not pass through walls. For generic wireless operation, Wifi is
cheap and most likely to do a little bit for you, within the
same premise.

http://www.cse.lehigh.edu/~jcd6/fso/...throughput.gif

There's always ten gigabit Ethernet, but the price still isn't
low enough. You'll need a good slot in the motherboard, for one
of these. I like how I can't find any customer feedback
for these products :-) Just too expensive.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16833708013

I presume that's using a PCI Express x8 interface. You may not have
enough good spare slots to add it. (There are a few commodity
motherboards out there, with x16 plus x4 for example, and the
video card would take the x16 slot.)

http://images17.newegg.com/is/image/newegg/33-708-013-Z03?$S640W$

For a price, I'm sure someone offers faster than that.

If you try hard enough, you may be able to engineer a situation,
where the storage subsystem can't keep up.

Paul