Re: Best way to transfer files between computers?

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Doc, Jun 8, 2006.

  1. Doc

    Doc Guest

    If I have one machine set up to capture/edit video and another for music
    production, what would be a good way to transfer files between them? Say, a
    musical piece I've created that I want to use in a video.

    If both machines have Firewire or USB 2, can those be used for rapid data
    transmission between machines? If so, how would it be done? Is there more to
    it than simply running a cable between machines?

    The reasons for doing this are if the video machine is rendering, I can
    still be working on recording, and also so I can use the DVD burners in one
    machine for everything.

    Thanks for all input.
     
    Doc, Jun 8, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Doc

    jakdedert Guest

    Doc wrote:
    > If I have one machine set up to capture/edit video and another for music
    > production, what would be a good way to transfer files between them? Say, a
    > musical piece I've created that I want to use in a video.
    >
    > If both machines have Firewire or USB 2, can those be used for rapid data
    > transmission between machines? If so, how would it be done? Is there more to
    > it than simply running a cable between machines?
    >
    > The reasons for doing this are if the video machine is rendering, I can
    > still be working on recording, and also so I can use the DVD burners in one
    > machine for everything.
    >
    > Thanks for all input.
    >
    >
    >

    You need ethernet. Even just an old 10 meg card in both machines with a
    crossover cable will be faster than USB; and most cards today are
    100megs...less than $10 some places.

    You 'could' go gigabaud....

    jak
     
    jakdedert, Jun 8, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Doc

    Doc Guest

    "jakdedert" <> wrote in message
    news:RDOhg.2707$y%...

    > You need ethernet. Even just an old 10 meg card in both machines with a
    > crossover cable will be faster than USB; and most cards today are
    > 100megs...less than $10 some places.


    I'm not real familiar with ethernet, other than having seen the jack on the
    back - looks like a phone jack, correct? What does the meg size indicate? If
    both machines have built-in ethernet connections, should that work okay? Is
    there more to it than simply plugging in the cable?

    And Ethernet is faster than USB 2.0 or Firewire?
     
    Doc, Jun 8, 2006
    #3
  4. Doc

    Grinder Guest

    Doc wrote:
    > "jakdedert" <> wrote in message
    > news:RDOhg.2707$y%...
    >
    >> You need ethernet. Even just an old 10 meg card in both machines with a
    >> crossover cable will be faster than USB; and most cards today are
    >> 100megs...less than $10 some places.

    >
    > I'm not real familiar with ethernet, other than having seen the jack on the
    > back - looks like a phone jack, correct?


    Yes. It's a bit wider that most phone cords -- 8 wires instead of 4.

    > What does the meg size indicate?


    It's the transfer speed. 10/100 megabit (per second) are quite common,
    and you should be able to find one for less than $10. Many PCs come
    with an Ethernet controller standard -- either as a plug-in card, or
    right on the motherboard.

    > If both machines have built-in ethernet connections,
    > should that work okay?


    Yes.

    > Is there more to it than simply plugging in the cable?


    A little bit more. You'll need to make sure that you have a *crossover*
    cable. You should be able to find one from a local supplier for less
    than $10 (more like $3-4.)

    From there the setup is fairly easy, but varies a bit from operating
    system to operating system.

    > And Ethernet is faster than USB 2.0 or Firewire?


    USB 2.0 Hi-Speed is supposed to be 480 megabit/s, which is obviously
    faster than an Ethernet card cranking out 100 megabit/s. There are a
    variety of fireware incarnations, but most of them appear to be *at
    least* 100 megabit/s. So, unless you go with *gigabit* ethernet
    controllers, it will not be faster than USB 2.0 or Firewire.

    That said, though, I would still recommend getting your PCs network
    ready for these reasons:

    1) USB can be kind of finicky. Ethernet, on the other hand,
    is super reliable and super easy to set up.

    2) It will be easier and cheaper to expand an Ethernet network
    to include additional machines.

    3) Having an Ethernet network is a cheap and secure way to
    share a broadband connection amongst multiple machines.


    additional machines than to
     
    Grinder, Jun 8, 2006
    #4
  5. Doc

    GregS Guest

    In article <n5Phg.3036$>, "Doc" <> wrote:
    >
    >"jakdedert" <> wrote in message
    >news:RDOhg.2707$y%...
    >
    >> You need ethernet. Even just an old 10 meg card in both machines with a
    >> crossover cable will be faster than USB; and most cards today are
    >> 100megs...less than $10 some places.

    >
    >I'm not real familiar with ethernet, other than having seen the jack on the
    >back - looks like a phone jack, correct? What does the meg size indicate? If
    >both machines have built-in ethernet connections, should that work okay? Is
    >there more to it than simply plugging in the cable?
    >
    >And Ethernet is faster than USB 2.0 or Firewire?


    Not sure about which is faster. 10mb is pretty fast and 100 mb should
    suit most any needs. You need a crossover cable for the eithernet,
    not just a standard cable.
    I have tried eithernet, USB, and removable hard disks.
    Its still a pain to interface two computers. Perhaps XP is different.
    I bought a USB interface cable, and I could not get it to work.

    greg
     
    GregS, Jun 8, 2006
    #5
  6. Doc

    tony sayer Guest

    In article <e6969s$lh8$>, GregS
    <> writes
    >In article <n5Phg.3036$>, "Doc"
    ><> wrote:
    >>
    >>"jakdedert" <> wrote in message
    >>news:RDOhg.2707$y%...
    >>
    >>> You need ethernet. Even just an old 10 meg card in both machines with a
    >>> crossover cable will be faster than USB; and most cards today are
    >>> 100megs...less than $10 some places.

    >>
    >>I'm not real familiar with ethernet, other than having seen the jack on the
    >>back - looks like a phone jack, correct? What does the meg size indicate? If
    >>both machines have built-in ethernet connections, should that work okay? Is
    >>there more to it than simply plugging in the cable?
    >>
    >>And Ethernet is faster than USB 2.0 or Firewire?

    >
    >Not sure about which is faster. 10mb is pretty fast and 100 mb should
    >suit most any needs. You need a crossover cable for the eithernet,
    >not just a standard cable.
    >I have tried eithernet, USB, and removable hard disks.
    >Its still a pain to interface two computers. Perhaps XP is different.
    >I bought a USB interface cable, and I could not get it to work.
    >
    >greg


    If your on broadband treat yourself to a router with a built in 4 way
    switch and its no problem at all to link your PC's together on a small
    network as well as giving you net access to all.

    Most PC's in recent years have a 10/100 socket built in but a 10/100 PCI
    card shouldn't cost more than say £10, and the CAT5 network stuff isn't
    that expensive either.

    With that format you simply take a lead from each PC to the router
    switch and thats it!...
    --
    Tony Sayer
     
    tony sayer, Jun 8, 2006
    #6
  7. Doc

    Doc Guest

    "Grinder" <> wrote in message
    news:ZrPhg.1010894$xm3.82854@attbi_s21...

    > 1) USB can be kind of finicky. Ethernet, on the other hand,
    > is super reliable and super easy to set up.
    >
    > 2) It will be easier and cheaper to expand an Ethernet network
    > to include additional machines.
    >
    > 3) Having an Ethernet network is a cheap and secure way to
    > share a broadband connection amongst multiple machines.


    Okay. Two of these aren't likely to apply any time soon, I'm on dialup which
    is likely to be the case for some time, and don't foresee ever connecting
    more than the 2 machines.
     
    Doc, Jun 8, 2006
    #7
  8. Doc

    jakdedert Guest

    Doc wrote:
    > "Grinder" <> wrote in message
    > news:ZrPhg.1010894$xm3.82854@attbi_s21...
    >
    >> 1) USB can be kind of finicky. Ethernet, on the other hand,
    >> is super reliable and super easy to set up.
    >>
    >> 2) It will be easier and cheaper to expand an Ethernet network
    >> to include additional machines.
    >>
    >> 3) Having an Ethernet network is a cheap and secure way to
    >> share a broadband connection amongst multiple machines.

    >
    > Okay. Two of these aren't likely to apply any time soon, I'm on dialup which
    > is likely to be the case for some time, and don't foresee ever connecting
    > more than the 2 machines.
    >

    So you have everything you need for a fast connection, save the
    crossover cable (which simply plugs from one machine to the other).
    Google 'DIY networking' and get going.

    BTW, if you have any desire, the crossover cable will allow you to share
    even your dialup connection. OTOH, you say you never foresee having
    more than two computers. Many people say that, then get a laptop (most
    of which also have built in ethernet port). Cool...all you need to
    connect it is a couple more cables and a hub.

    jak
     
    jakdedert, Jun 8, 2006
    #8
  9. Doc

    Paul Guest

    In article <QCVhg.3109$>, "Doc"
    <> wrote:

    > "Grinder" <> wrote in message
    > news:ZrPhg.1010894$xm3.82854@attbi_s21...
    >
    > > 1) USB can be kind of finicky. Ethernet, on the other hand,
    > > is super reliable and super easy to set up.
    > >
    > > 2) It will be easier and cheaper to expand an Ethernet network
    > > to include additional machines.
    > >
    > > 3) Having an Ethernet network is a cheap and secure way to
    > > share a broadband connection amongst multiple machines.

    >
    > Okay. Two of these aren't likely to apply any time soon, I'm on dialup which
    > is likely to be the case for some time, and don't foresee ever connecting
    > more than the 2 machines.


    There is a Gigabit Ethernet card here with a VIA ethernet chip.
    http://www.syba.com/product/42/05/02/index.html

    Available here for $12.50
    http://www.supergooddeal.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=SY-VIA-GA&Click=17583

    A similar product with a VIA chip here $11.00
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16833330001

    The picture of the $11.00 networking card, looks to match the "Velocity"
    chip at the top of this page:

    http://www.vntek.com/en/products/menu_nic.jsp

    There are VT6120/VT6122 VIA drivers at the top of this page (Velocity chip):

    http://www.vntek.com/en/resources/download-center/drivers.jsp

    Then, a cable to connect the two computers together, and you are ready
    for networking. With Gigabit Ethernet cards, there is no difference
    between straight-thru and crossover cables - the hardware automatically
    figures out which cable is being used (I think this is referred to as
    MDI/MDIX). I've certainly used that fact to advantage with my three
    Gigabit equipped computers at home here.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16812189023

    Wire the machines like this:

    <this PC uses ICS>
    +---------------------------------+ +-------------------+
    | | Ethernet | |
    Phone_Line -- Dialup_Modem---PC#1---EthernetCard <-------> EthernetCard---PC#2 |
    | | Cable | |
    +---------------------------------+ +-------------------+
    <dialup_address> 192.168.0.1 192.168.0.2

    By enabling Internet Connection Sharing (ICS), that makes it possible to have
    two networking interfaces on a computer. In your case, the dialup is one
    interface,
    and the new Gigabit Ethernet card will be the other one. The private IP
    addresses 192.168.0.1 and 192.168.0.2 are not routable, and don't show up on
    the Internet. You can surf from either computer, and the outside world only
    sees one IP address in use, and that is the <dialup_address> assigned by the
    modem pool at the other end of the phone line. You should also be able to
    hang up the dialup connection, and still transfer files between the two
    computers (I hope).

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314066/en-us

    I tested a similar configuration, using Win2K as my OS, and the best transfer
    rate I could get (using artificial test conditions) was 40MB/sec. WinXP
    networking
    should be able to do better than that, but you'll have to do your own research
    on the web, to get some benchmarks. Using Windows File Sharing, may not be the
    fastest way to transfer files, and I was using FTP protocol for my testing.

    In any case, two $11 cards and a cheap cable, is a pretty low cost experiment.
    With any luck, it will transfer files as fast as your single target disk
    can manage.

    Firewire 400 and Firewire 800 can be used for networking. In terms of
    transfer rates,
    the theoretical limit would be 50MB/sec and 100MB/sec respectively. The Gigabit
    Ethernet can do 125MB/sec in theory (minus packet overheads and
    interpacket gap).
    You can network with USB, by using a USB2 PCLinq cable (there is a silicon chip
    in the middle of the cable, that isolates the two computers). But the transfer
    rate on that should not be very fast, and will be not even close to the other
    numbers already mentioned. USB2 is 480Mbits/sec, which is 60MB/sec theoretical,
    57MB/sec considering overhead, and a lot less when software intervention
    is needed
    to transfer files via PCLinq.

    Considering the price of some of these technologies, you could practically
    afford
    to try them all out :)

    Paul
     
    Paul, Jun 8, 2006
    #9
  10. Doc

    kony Guest

    On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 12:47:10 GMT, (GregS)
    wrote:

    >In article <n5Phg.3036$>, "Doc" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>"jakdedert" <> wrote in message
    >>news:RDOhg.2707$y%...
    >>
    >>> You need ethernet. Even just an old 10 meg card in both machines with a
    >>> crossover cable will be faster than USB; and most cards today are
    >>> 100megs...less than $10 some places.

    >>
    >>I'm not real familiar with ethernet, other than having seen the jack on the
    >>back - looks like a phone jack, correct? What does the meg size indicate? If
    >>both machines have built-in ethernet connections, should that work okay? Is
    >>there more to it than simply plugging in the cable?
    >>
    >>And Ethernet is faster than USB 2.0 or Firewire?

    >
    >Not sure about which is faster. 10mb is pretty fast and 100 mb should
    >suit most any needs.



    Definitely not.

    Editing audio, video, or burning DVDs is FAR too bandwidth
    intensive for 10Mb. Typically 100Mb realized throughput is
    optimally around 9MB/s, also very slow for DVD or video
    editing, but perhaps enough IF the audio is compressed
    already.

    The best option is to buy two Gigabit ethernet cards and a
    plain (crossover not necessary with GbE) cable. Even the
    cheapest ~ $12 each cards can be expected to perform up to
    the PCI bus and HDD performance limits, over 35MB/s which is
    still a bit on the low side for video editing in many cases
    but if the data has to be transferred, this is probably the
    best long term solution without a lot of cost or effort.
     
    kony, Jun 9, 2006
    #10
  11. Doc

    Doc Guest

    "kony" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Definitely not.
    >
    > Editing audio, video, or burning DVDs is FAR too bandwidth
    > intensive for 10Mb. Typically 100Mb realized throughput is
    > optimally around 9MB/s, also very slow for DVD or video
    > editing, but perhaps enough IF the audio is compressed
    > already.


    Thought I'd clarify something. I'm primarily looking to transfer audio files
    from one machine that's being used to record/mix audio to the machine that's
    being used for video editing. Wouldn't have to be lightning fast since the
    file sizes won't be that huge, maybe a hundred megs or less.
     
    Doc, Jun 9, 2006
    #11
  12. Doc

    Ken Maltby Guest

    "Doc" <> wrote in message
    news:9X7ig.3547$...
    >
    > "kony" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >> Definitely not.
    >>
    >> Editing audio, video, or burning DVDs is FAR too bandwidth
    >> intensive for 10Mb. Typically 100Mb realized throughput is
    >> optimally around 9MB/s, also very slow for DVD or video
    >> editing, but perhaps enough IF the audio is compressed
    >> already.

    >
    > Thought I'd clarify something. I'm primarily looking to transfer audio
    > files
    > from one machine that's being used to record/mix audio to the machine
    > that's
    > being used for video editing. Wouldn't have to be lightning fast since the
    > file sizes won't be that huge, maybe a hundred megs or less.
    >
    >


    Doc;

    You could be right that for the purpose you mention, you won't
    need it very fast; but once you have used a faster interface you
    may feel otherwise. All you may need is a cable, and even a
    Gigabit setup wouldn't cost but a little more. (Nothing more if your
    MB has Gigabit Ethernet already.)

    Kony;

    I routinely edit and transcode from a TeraStation NAS on my
    Gigabit LAN. I am using a SMC SMC8508T Switch, with
    Jumbo Packets enabled.

    Luck;
    Ken
     
    Ken Maltby, Jun 9, 2006
    #12
  13. Doc

    kony Guest

    On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:02:58 -0500, "Ken Maltby"
    <> wrote:

    >


    >Kony;
    >
    > I routinely edit and transcode from a TeraStation NAS on my
    >Gigabit LAN. I am using a SMC SMC8508T Switch, with
    >Jumbo Packets enabled.
    >



    I do over GbE sometimes too, but never 100Mb unless it was
    already compressed on some old archive NAS.
     
    kony, Jun 9, 2006
    #13
  14. Doc

    Ken Maltby Guest

    "kony" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:02:58 -0500, "Ken Maltby"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>

    >
    >>Kony;
    >>
    >> I routinely edit and transcode from a TeraStation NAS on my
    >>Gigabit LAN. I am using a SMC SMC8508T Switch, with
    >>Jumbo Packets enabled.
    >>

    >
    >
    > I do over GbE sometimes too, but never 100Mb unless it was
    > already compressed on some old archive NAS.


    Agreed, the 1000Mbps connection isn't 10x the 100Mbps as
    might be expected; but it is enough faster to allow reading data
    off a remote drive to be practical for a number of functions. I
    don't need to setup a traditional media streaming server to play
    media files, for instance. I can play them off a simple share.

    Luck;
    Ken
     
    Ken Maltby, Jun 9, 2006
    #14
  15. Doc

    Fishface Guest

    Doc wrote:
    > Thought I'd clarify something. I'm primarily looking to transfer audio files
    > from one machine that's being used to record/mix audio to the machine
    > that's being used for video editing. Wouldn't have to be lightning fast
    > since the file sizes won't be that huge, maybe a hundred megs or less.


    Get a USB 2 pen drive, or if you have a digital camera with a flash card
    big enough, you could even use that. For occasional use, only as directed.
    www.newegg.com/ProductSort/SubCategory.asp?SubCategory=522
     
    Fishface, Jun 10, 2006
    #15
  16. Doc

    Bazzer Smith Guest

    "Doc" <> wrote in message
    news:2VNhg.3010$...
    > If I have one machine set up to capture/edit video and another for music
    > production, what would be a good way to transfer files between them? Say,
    > a
    > musical piece I've created that I want to use in a video.
    >
    > If both machines have Firewire or USB 2, can those be used for rapid data
    > transmission between machines? If so, how would it be done? Is there more
    > to
    > it than simply running a cable between machines?
    >
    > The reasons for doing this are if the video machine is rendering, I can
    > still be working on recording, and also so I can use the DVD burners in
    > one
    > machine for everything.
    >
    > Thanks for all input.


    I had the need to do this recently (transfer files) and I just got a
    crossover
    ethernet cable which is about £5 or less.
    I had some probs cos I had a real old machine which had no ethernet
    and I had to install card and I had to upgrade from W98 to W98SE,
    but I expect you have newer machines running XP in which case it should be
    real easy. It was dead easy to use its like you have both drives on the one
    machine.
    >
    >
     
    Bazzer Smith, Jun 13, 2006
    #16
  17. Doc

    kony Guest

    On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:46:16 GMT, "Bazzer Smith"
    <> wrote:


    >I had the need to do this recently (transfer files) and I just got a
    >crossover
    >ethernet cable which is about £5 or less.
    >I had some probs cos I had a real old machine which had no ethernet
    >and I had to install card and I had to upgrade from W98 to W98SE,
    >but I expect you have newer machines running XP in which case it should be
    >real easy. It was dead easy to use its like you have both drives on the one
    >machine.



    Your situation was very odd, there were tons of businesses
    running win98 boxes with 10/100Mb NICs.
     
    kony, Jun 14, 2006
    #17
  18. Doc

    Bazzer Smith Guest

    "kony" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:46:16 GMT, "Bazzer Smith"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I had the need to do this recently (transfer files) and I just got a
    >>crossover
    >>ethernet cable which is about £5 or less.
    >>I had some probs cos I had a real old machine which had no ethernet
    >>and I had to install card and I had to upgrade from W98 to W98SE,
    >>but I expect you have newer machines running XP in which case it should be
    >>real easy. It was dead easy to use its like you have both drives on the
    >>one
    >>machine.

    >
    >
    > Your situation was very odd, there were tons of businesses
    > running win98 boxes with 10/100Mb NICs.


    You can say that again!!
    I think it was the most troublesome problem I have ever had with
    computers!!!
    It would have been easier to manually type the data into a hex editor!
    I had a legion of problems, as soon as I solved one it revealed another
    more difficult one!
    I never use the old computer,or it's data now anyway, I guess it was one
    way of forcing me to dump all the crap it had accumulated over the years.
    Mind you, I can't say the new one is particularly faster in some area's
    I actually think it takes longer to shut down!!!
    I am trying to think of a use for the old machine but I can't.
     
    Bazzer Smith, Jun 15, 2006
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Benthere
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    715
    Benthere
    May 17, 2005
  2. J.H. Holliday

    How to transfer files between networked computers

    J.H. Holliday, May 29, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,062
    Duane ;-\)
    May 30, 2005
  3. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    11,786
    Guest
    Oct 28, 2005
  4. Toby
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    5,743
    ProfGene
    Apr 24, 2004
  5. ArtKramr

    Best way to transfer files

    ArtKramr, Jun 18, 2004, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,822
Loading...

Share This Page