«

We currently use dial-up at home on two computers. We are looking to
buy broadband and are looking into the options of getting this to work
on two computers.

Having ruled out a wireless network on cost (it's not worth it as one
computer is away at university for more than half the year), we think
simply connecting the computer in a simple network will be the simplest
(without a router).

I use Windows 98 SE and the other computer operates on Windows XP. The
Windows 98 SE machine operates fine on the College network at
university, but will the two machines be able to communicate using the
two different OS?

Is it simple to set up on 98?

Thanks.

On 26 Jun 2005 12:32:22 -0700, A strange species called "pgjonesuk"
<> wrote:

>We currently use dial-up at home on two computers. We are looking to
>buy broadband and are looking into the options of getting this to work
>on two computers.
>
>Having ruled out a wireless network on cost (it's not worth it as one
>computer is away at university for more than half the year), we think
>simply connecting the computer in a simple network will be the simplest
>(without a router).

What kind of broadband are you getting? Cable or ADSL? I take it you
are in the UK?

If you are thinking of Cable, if it's Blueyonder that is good. If you
are in an NTL region though, I'd advise you to avoid it big time. If
you are going for ADSL you have numerous choices. There is lots of
competition.

If you are not using a router then one of the systems will have to
connect directly to the broadband modem. The other computer will need
to connect to the internet through the first computer directly
connected to the net. This means for the second computer to be able
to connect to the internet this way, the first computer will always
need to be switched on.

I also ruled out a wireless broadband system two years back because it
was too expensive at the time, and a wired one was easier to
configure. I believe costs have come down quite a bit now for
wireless broadband so you may want to double check into this.

It would be a lot easier IMHO for you to get a router. If you are
getting broadband via ADSL you can get a combined ADSL modem/router.
These are quite cheap now. You can get 4 port ones for future
expansion, or you can get ones that come with an ethernet and usb
connection so you can connect one computer through ethernet and one
through USB.

>I use Windows 98 SE and the other computer operates on Windows XP. The
>Windows 98 SE machine operates fine on the College network at
>university, but will the two machines be able to communicate using the
>two different OS?

Yes they should be able to.

At the moment I have two machines. One XP Pro the other Windows 98SE.
They are both set up to connect to a 4 port ADSL modem/router to share
a 1MB broadband connection. I also have the computer connected on a
network. I can access anywhere on the Windows 98 machine. The Windows
98 machine can just access one of my CD/DVD drives, as well as the
shared folders. The 98 machine doesn't have a disc drive that works,
so it accesses mine if needed.

>Is it simple to set up on 98?

It isn't too difficult. You should be able to do this. I would advise
against connecting via USB for a Windows 98 machine. Connect the 98
machine through Ethernet. I think both on Ethernet would be a lot
better than a USB connection.

I went to Practically Networked for a lot of help when I first set
everything up how I wanted.

http://www.practicallynetworked.com/sharing/xp_ics/

HTH

John

"pgjonesuk" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
> We currently use dial-up at home on two computers. We are looking to
> buy broadband and are looking into the options of getting this to work
> on two computers.
>
> Having ruled out a wireless network on cost (it's not worth it as one
> computer is away at university for more than half the year), we think
> simply connecting the computer in a simple network will be the simplest
> (without a router).
>
> I use Windows 98 SE and the other computer operates on Windows XP. The
> Windows 98 SE machine operates fine on the College network at
> university, but will the two machines be able to communicate using the
> two different OS?
>
> Is it simple to set up on 98?

Do yourself a favor and get yourself a NAT router.

AIthough I have never attempted a connection between XP and Win 9'x O/S(s),
it seems to be a PITA when it comes to networking.

http://www.wown.com/j_helmig/guidshrh.htm

The NAT router provides better protection from the Internet too.

http://www.homenethelp.com/web/explain/about-NAT.asp

Duane

"pgjonesuk" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
> We currently use dial-up at home on two computers. We are looking to
> buy broadband and are looking into the options of getting this to
> work
> on two computers.
>
> Having ruled out a wireless network on cost (it's not worth it as
> one
> computer is away at university for more than half the year), we
> think
> simply connecting the computer in a simple network will be the
> simplest
> (without a router).
>
>
> Thanks.
>
Wireless networking works, it's easy to install and configure and is
getting cheaper all the time.

Nowadays everything you need is available in one box in the shape of a
combination ADSL modem/Wi-Fi router. Gadgets like these maintain the
broadband connection without the need for a PC and make it available
to any wirelessly enabled PC. There are several models from the likes
of Netgear, 3 Com, US Robotics and so on.

You can't buy a SOHO router that doesn't do NAT. They just don't make them.

Duane Arnold wrote:
> "pgjonesuk" <> wrote in message
> news: ups.com...
>
>>We currently use dial-up at home on two computers. We are looking to
>>buy broadband and are looking into the options of getting this to work
>>on two computers.
>>
>>Having ruled out a wireless network on cost (it's not worth it as one
>>computer is away at university for more than half the year), we think
>>simply connecting the computer in a simple network will be the simplest
>>(without a router).
>>
>>I use Windows 98 SE and the other computer operates on Windows XP. The
>>Windows 98 SE machine operates fine on the College network at
>>university, but will the two machines be able to communicate using the
>>two different OS?
>>
>>Is it simple to set up on 98?
>
>
> Do yourself a favor and get yourself a NAT router.
>
> AIthough I have never attempted a connection between XP and Win 9'x O/S(s),
> it seems to be a PITA when it comes to networking.
>
> http://www.wown.com/j_helmig/guidshrh.htm
>
> The NAT router provides better protection from the Internet too.
>
> http://www.homenethelp.com/web/explain/about-NAT.asp
>
> Duane
>
>

Yes, but it'll never be as fast as wired networking. Never.

If you're doing any kind of file sharing between the 2 computers you
will really notice the speed difference. If you're not, then go ahead
and use wireless. But who doesn't share files between their computers
on their network? I've never known anyone to not...

Boscoe Pertwee wrote:
> "pgjonesuk" <> wrote in message
> news: ups.com...
>
>>We currently use dial-up at home on two computers. We are looking to
>>buy broadband and are looking into the options of getting this to
>>work
>>on two computers.
>>
>>Having ruled out a wireless network on cost (it's not worth it as
>>one
>>computer is away at university for more than half the year), we
>>think
>>simply connecting the computer in a simple network will be the
>>simplest
>>(without a router).
>>
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>
> Wireless networking works, it's easy to install and configure and is
> getting cheaper all the time.
>
> Nowadays everything you need is available in one box in the shape of a
> combination ADSL modem/Wi-Fi router. Gadgets like these maintain the
> broadband connection without the need for a PC and make it available
> to any wirelessly enabled PC. There are several models from the likes
> of Netgear, 3 Com, US Robotics and so on.
>
>

Fakename wrote:

> You can't buy a SOHO router that doesn't do NAT. They just don't make
> them.
>
And your point here is what?

Duane

Fakename wrote:

> Yes, but it'll never be as fast as wired networking. Never.
>
> If you're doing any kind of file sharing between the 2 computers you
> will really notice the speed difference. If you're not, then go ahead
> and use wireless. But who doesn't share files between their computers
> on their network? I've never known anyone to not...
>

If the person wants wireless than he or she deals with it. One is not
sharing resources between machines that much. And if one gets into a
situation where speed is a concern, the one connects using a wire
connection and be done with it.

Duane

My point is that there is no other kind. It's like saying get yourself
a driving car, or a drinking mug, or some wearing pants. I was just
clarifying that.

Duane Arnold wrote:
> Fakename wrote:
>
>
>>You can't buy a SOHO router that doesn't do NAT. They just don't make
>>them.
>>
>
> And your point here is what?
>
> Duane

If someone has desktop/tower computers the best solution is a hard-wired
network because you dont' need mobility so there's no need to sacrifice
the speed. This applies to 99% of people out there.

The exception being places that are hard or cost prohibitive to hard-wire.

Duane Arnold wrote:
> Fakename wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, but it'll never be as fast as wired networking. Never.
>>
>>If you're doing any kind of file sharing between the 2 computers you
>>will really notice the speed difference. If you're not, then go ahead
>>and use wireless. But who doesn't share files between their computers
>>on their network? I've never known anyone to not...
>>
>
>
> If the person wants wireless than he or she deals with it. One is not
> sharing resources between machines that much. And if one gets into a
> situation where speed is a concern, the one connects using a wire
> connection and be done with it.
>
> Duane
>