Wifi's on 2 Laptops don't detect each other even with nets..

Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

Getting ready for my first try at peer to peer on my 2 laptops, one older
and one brand new. Both with XP Pro. Thought that each wifi should be able
to see the other computer, even if not yet networked. Also have netstumbler
on both machines and it doesn't see the other computer's wifi.
Why not?

--
Tom M
(To reply, remove *deletenospam* from my address)
19 answers Last reply
More about wifi laptops detect nets
  1. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Because neither laptop is "broadcasting" a signal. They are receivers,
    just like desktops and servers. You should only pick up Routers and
    Access Points with Net Stumbler.

    On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 21:41:33 GMT, "Tom M"
    <TM@nospam.escapees.com.nospam> wrote:

    >Getting ready for my first try at peer to peer on my 2 laptops, one older
    >and one brand new. Both with XP Pro. Thought that each wifi should be able
    >to see the other computer, even if not yet networked. Also have netstumbler
    >on both machines and it doesn't see the other computer's wifi.
    >Why not?
  2. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    OK,thanks. But when I do hook them together, peer to peer, aren't they then
    both transmitters and receivers? Will netstumbler as well as the wifi
    themselves then be able to 'see' each other then?

    --
    Tom M
    (To reply, remove *deletenospam* from my address)
    "f/f george" <george@yourplace.com> wrote in message
    news:tfl9r0taapkobo2n3659kisf2pevnijg87@4ax.com...
    > Because neither laptop is "broadcasting" a signal. They are receivers,
    > just like desktops and servers. You should only pick up Routers and
    > Access Points with Net Stumbler.
    >
    > On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 21:41:33 GMT, "Tom M"
    > <TM@nospam.escapees.com.nospam> wrote:
    >
    > >Getting ready for my first try at peer to peer on my 2 laptops, one older
    > >and one brand new. Both with XP Pro. Thought that each wifi should be
    able
    > >to see the other computer, even if not yet networked. Also have
    netstumbler
    > >on both machines and it doesn't see the other computer's wifi.
    > >Why not?
    >
  3. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "f/f george" <george@yourplace.com> wrote in message
    news:tfl9r0taapkobo2n3659kisf2pevnijg87@4ax.com...
    > Because neither laptop is "broadcasting" a signal. They are receivers,
    > just like desktops and servers. You should only pick up Routers and
    > Access Points with Net Stumbler.
    >
    > On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 21:41:33 GMT, "Tom M"
    > <TM@nospam.escapees.com.nospam> wrote:
    >
    >>Getting ready for my first try at peer to peer on my 2 laptops, one older
    >>and one brand new. Both with XP Pro. Thought that each wifi should be
    >>able
    >>to see the other computer, even if not yet networked. Also have
    >>netstumbler
    >>on both machines and it doesn't see the other computer's wifi.
    >>Why not?

    Actually that is not true. You can create an "ad hoc" network on one laptop.
    That laptop WILL broadcast, and your other laptop will be able to connect to
    it. That's what I do at home, with Windows XP Pro SP2.

    Follow the steps on this microsoft publication to setup your ad hoc network:

    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=fac8708e-3762-4e78-b372-8404eeb7f41a&displaylang=en

    I hope this helps. Cheers!
  4. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 23:36:39 GMT, "Bendit" <NOSPAM@JustSayNo.com>
    wrote:

    >"f/f george" <george@yourplace.com> wrote in message
    >news:tfl9r0taapkobo2n3659kisf2pevnijg87@4ax.com...
    >> Because neither laptop is "broadcasting" a signal. They are receivers,
    >> just like desktops and servers. You should only pick up Routers and
    >> Access Points with Net Stumbler.
    >>
    >> On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 21:41:33 GMT, "Tom M"
    >> <TM@nospam.escapees.com.nospam> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Getting ready for my first try at peer to peer on my 2 laptops, one older
    >>>and one brand new. Both with XP Pro. Thought that each wifi should be
    >>>able
    >>>to see the other computer, even if not yet networked. Also have
    >>>netstumbler
    >>>on both machines and it doesn't see the other computer's wifi.
    >>>Why not?
    >
    >Actually that is not true. You can create an "ad hoc" network on one laptop.
    >That laptop WILL broadcast, and your other laptop will be able to connect to
    >it. That's what I do at home, with Windows XP Pro SP2.
    >
    >Follow the steps on this microsoft publication to setup your ad hoc network:
    >
    >http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=fac8708e-3762-4e78-b372-8404eeb7f41a&displaylang=en
    >
    >I hope this helps. Cheers!
    >
    What you are saying is true but does not answer his original question
    which said they were not networked.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Only if you do as the other poster said to do. You then in effect are
    making one a router or AP.
    Just networking then thru a cable or wirelessly so they see each other
    thru a network, no Net Stumbler will not pick that up.

    On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 22:44:55 GMT, "Tom M"
    <TM@nospam.escapees.com.nospam> wrote:

    >OK,thanks. But when I do hook them together, peer to peer, aren't they then
    >both transmitters and receivers? Will netstumbler as well as the wifi
    >themselves then be able to 'see' each other then?
  6. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    I think you are over thinking the transmiting part, they are
    transmitting but ONLY if they get a response from a Router or AP.
    And then only to the Router or AP. Not a pure broadcast.
    Otherwise it is so small a transmission it won't be detected.

    On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 22:44:55 GMT, "Tom M"
    <TM@nospam.escapees.com.nospam> wrote:

    >OK,thanks. But when I do hook them together, peer to peer, aren't they then
    >both transmitters and receivers? Will netstumbler as well as the wifi
    >themselves then be able to 'see' each other then?
  7. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Thanks, guys.
    I think I understand it better now. They will transmit, but only when
    networked.

    I also appreciate the link given. That MS document, which I just
    downloaded but haven't read yet, implies something that I had been told
    could not be done. And that is to have an ad-hoc network AND also share an
    internet connection. I thought I would have to go the way of a router or
    cat 5 crossover to network and connect both to internet. If this ad-hoc and
    IC works, I'll be very happy.
    Thanks again ;-)

    --
    Tom M
    (To reply, remove *deletenospam* from my address)
    "Bendit" <NOSPAM@JustSayNo.com> wrote in message
    news:b26td.454702$wV.169176@attbi_s54...
    > "f/f george" <george@yourplace.com> wrote in message
    > news:tfl9r0taapkobo2n3659kisf2pevnijg87@4ax.com...
    > > Because neither laptop is "broadcasting" a signal. They are receivers,
    > > just like desktops and servers. You should only pick up Routers and
    > > Access Points with Net Stumbler.
    > >
    > > On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 21:41:33 GMT, "Tom M"
    > > <TM@nospam.escapees.com.nospam> wrote:
    > >
    > >>Getting ready for my first try at peer to peer on my 2 laptops, one
    older
    > >>and one brand new. Both with XP Pro. Thought that each wifi should be
    > >>able
    > >>to see the other computer, even if not yet networked. Also have
    > >>netstumbler
    > >>on both machines and it doesn't see the other computer's wifi.
    > >>Why not?
    >
    > Actually that is not true. You can create an "ad hoc" network on one
    laptop.
    > That laptop WILL broadcast, and your other laptop will be able to connect
    to
    > it. That's what I do at home, with Windows XP Pro SP2.
    >
    > Follow the steps on this microsoft publication to setup your ad hoc
    network:
    >
    >
    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=fac8708e-3762-4e78-
    b372-8404eeb7f41a&displaylang=en
    >
    > I hope this helps. Cheers!
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "Tom M" <TM@nospam.escapees.com.nospam> wrote in message
    news:Uritd.1047631$Gx4.585820@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > Thanks, guys.
    > I think I understand it better now. They will transmit,
    > but only when
    > networked.
    >
    > I also appreciate the link given. That MS document,
    > which I just
    > downloaded but haven't read yet, implies something that I
    > had been told
    > could not be done. And that is to have an ad-hoc network
    > AND also share an
    > internet connection. I thought I would have to go the way
    > of a router or
    > cat 5 crossover to network and connect both to internet.
    > If this ad-hoc and
    > IC works, I'll be very happy.
    > Thanks again ;-)


    Please let the rest of us know if it does work. TIA

    The Amazing Seismo
  9. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "Tom M" <TM@nospam.escapees.com.nospam> wrote in message
    news:Uritd.1047631$Gx4.585820@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > Thanks, guys.
    > I think I understand it better now. They will transmit, but only when
    > networked.
    >
    > I also appreciate the link given. That MS document, which I just
    > downloaded but haven't read yet, implies something that I had been told
    > could not be done. And that is to have an ad-hoc network AND also share
    > an
    > internet connection. I thought I would have to go the way of a router or
    > cat 5 crossover to network and connect both to internet. If this ad-hoc
    > and
    > IC works, I'll be very happy.
    > Thanks again ;-)
    >
    > --
    > Tom M
    > (To reply, remove *deletenospam* from my address)
    > "Bendit" <NOSPAM@JustSayNo.com> wrote in message
    > news:b26td.454702$wV.169176@attbi_s54...
    >> "f/f george" <george@yourplace.com> wrote in message
    >> news:tfl9r0taapkobo2n3659kisf2pevnijg87@4ax.com...
    >> > Because neither laptop is "broadcasting" a signal. They are receivers,
    >> > just like desktops and servers. You should only pick up Routers and
    >> > Access Points with Net Stumbler.
    >> >
    >> > On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 21:41:33 GMT, "Tom M"
    >> > <TM@nospam.escapees.com.nospam> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>Getting ready for my first try at peer to peer on my 2 laptops, one
    > older
    >> >>and one brand new. Both with XP Pro. Thought that each wifi should be
    >> >>able
    >> >>to see the other computer, even if not yet networked. Also have
    >> >>netstumbler
    >> >>on both machines and it doesn't see the other computer's wifi.
    >> >>Why not?
    >>
    >> Actually that is not true. You can create an "ad hoc" network on one
    > laptop.
    >> That laptop WILL broadcast, and your other laptop will be able to connect
    > to
    >> it. That's what I do at home, with Windows XP Pro SP2.
    >>
    >> Follow the steps on this microsoft publication to setup your ad hoc
    > network:
    >>
    >>
    > http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=fac8708e-3762-4e78-
    > b372-8404eeb7f41a&displaylang=en
    >>
    >> I hope this helps. Cheers!
    >>
    >>

    Tom, I am using an AD HOC network at home with 2 wireless cards. I am NOT
    using a router or dedicated access point. I am also using ICS which works
    fine. I can share my broaband internet connection through the AD HOC
    network, that's the whole point! Also, I don't know why certain people are
    saying that netstumbler will not pickup "small" transmissions. I can tell
    you that your ad hoc network (the wireless card broadcasting as the host)
    WILL SHOW UP ON NETSTUMBLER. It works fine with my equipment, and my
    wireless network does show up on netstumbler, as if it was an access point
    (there is no difference in the protocol between a broadcast from a dedicated
    access point and a broadcast from an ad hoc network I think, and I you can
    confirm that with netestumbler!). I hope this helps. Cheers!
  10. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Well, it's been a long day. First I put XP SP2 on my old machine (500MHz)
    and 3 hours later it was done. Then on to Internet Connection Sharing and
    ad_hoc between 2 laptops. It was a bit of a scrimmage for a while, but
    eventually I got it up and running. Two laptops sharing a USB connected
    cable internet, via wifi. Got printer sharing working after a couple of
    attempts. File sharing is tomorrows project.
    The link that Bendit provided:
    Follow the steps on this Microsoft publication to setup your ad hoc network:

    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=fac8708e-3762-4e78-b372-8404eeb7f41a&displaylang=en

    was excellent. However, be advised that it is written and seems to work,
    only with MS Firewall. Some of the screen options you need to have and
    change are not available if you have MS Firewall turned off. So, my Zone
    Alarms (free) are for now turned off and MS Fire is on.
    PS. Now that the wifi network is operational, netstumbler sees all, as you
    guys predicted.
    --
    Tom M
    (To reply, remove *deletenospam* from my address)
    "The Amazing Seismo" <amazing_seismo@hotmail.com> wrote in message >
    >
    > Please let the rest of us know if it does work. TIA
    >
    > The Amazing Seismo
    >
  11. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "Tom M" <TM@nospam.escapees.com.nospam> wrote in message
    news:mLttd.101364$7i4.33817@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > Well, it's been a long day. First I put XP SP2 on my old machine (500MHz)
    > and 3 hours later it was done. Then on to Internet Connection Sharing and
    > ad_hoc between 2 laptops. It was a bit of a scrimmage for a while, but
    > eventually I got it up and running. Two laptops sharing a USB connected
    > cable internet, via wifi. Got printer sharing working after a couple of
    > attempts. File sharing is tomorrows project.
    > The link that Bendit provided:
    > Follow the steps on this Microsoft publication to setup your ad hoc
    > network:
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=fac8708e-3762-4e78-b372-8404eeb7f41a&displaylang=en
    >
    > was excellent. However, be advised that it is written and seems to work,
    > only with MS Firewall. Some of the screen options you need to have and
    > change are not available if you have MS Firewall turned off. So, my Zone
    > Alarms (free) are for now turned off and MS Fire is on.
    > PS. Now that the wifi network is operational, netstumbler sees all, as you
    > guys predicted.
    > --
    > Tom M
    > (To reply, remove *deletenospam* from my address)
    > "The Amazing Seismo" <amazing_seismo@hotmail.com> wrote in message >
    >>
    >> Please let the rest of us know if it does work. TIA
    >>
    >> The Amazing Seismo
    >>
    >

    Glad things are working out for you! Also glad I could assist. CHEERS!
  12. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    So you did this without a router?
    Why?
    A router provides both connectivity for both computers, you can get
    them with BOTH wired and wireless ports, AND a router has a built in
    firewall. The firewall is NOT as good as a software or even better yet
    a hardware one.

    On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 02:34:58 GMT, "Tom M"
    <TM@nospam.escapees.com.nospam> wrote:

    >Well, it's been a long day. First I put XP SP2 on my old machine (500MHz)
    >and 3 hours later it was done. Then on to Internet Connection Sharing and
    >ad_hoc between 2 laptops. It was a bit of a scrimmage for a while, but
    >eventually I got it up and running. Two laptops sharing a USB connected
    >cable internet, via wifi. Got printer sharing working after a couple of
    >attempts. File sharing is tomorrows project.
    >The link that Bendit provided:
    >Follow the steps on this Microsoft publication to setup your ad hoc network:
    >
    >http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=fac8708e-3762-4e78-b372-8404eeb7f41a&displaylang=en
    >
    >was excellent. However, be advised that it is written and seems to work,
    >only with MS Firewall. Some of the screen options you need to have and
    >change are not available if you have MS Firewall turned off. So, my Zone
    >Alarms (free) are for now turned off and MS Fire is on.
    >PS. Now that the wifi network is operational, netstumbler sees all, as you
    >guys predicted.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    HI George,
    Well, it partly has to do with my lifestyle. Right now, I'm at home and
    have a cable modem at my disposal, but I'm retired and spend about 8 months
    traveling the country in an RV. My normal means of internet connection
    while traveling, is via a cell phone in the evenings and weekends, with an
    occasional hot spot thrown in.
    What I primarily wanted to do was link my wife's new computer for file
    sharing, as well as internet. All the while keep the power draw as low as
    possible. Most of the camping I do is in the boonies so my only source of
    power is my set of solar panels and my batteries. So a router isn't much
    power or money, but I figured I didn't really need it.
    I can't argue with you about the router firewall protection as I have no
    experience there. However my computers are always software firewall
    protected. The default is Zone Alarm free, unless I connect the ad-hoc,
    then I must turn off Zone Alarm and activate MS firewall. Also the wifi
    link is running WEP.

    I really wish someone could tell me how or if I can operate Ad-Hoc ICS with
    Zone Alarm Free on all the time in place of MS. I prefer the two way
    firewall.

    --
    Tom M
    (To reply, remove *deletenospam* from my address)
    "f/f george" <george@yourplace.com> wrote in message
    news:5j0dr0p09i85g7uk4u2iogoopgv36p3q9u@4ax.com...
    > So you did this without a router?
    > Why?
    > A router provides both connectivity for both computers, you can get
    > them with BOTH wired and wireless ports, AND a router has a built in
    > firewall. The firewall is NOT as good as a software or even better yet
    > a hardware one.
    >
    > On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 02:34:58 GMT, "Tom M"
    > <TM@nospam.escapees.com.nospam> wrote:
    >
    >>Well, it's been a long day. First I put XP SP2 on my old machine (500MHz)
    >>and 3 hours later it was done. Then on to Internet Connection Sharing and
    >>ad_hoc between 2 laptops. It was a bit of a scrimmage for a while, but
    >>eventually I got it up and running. Two laptops sharing a USB connected
    >>cable internet, via wifi. Got printer sharing working after a couple of
    >>attempts. File sharing is tomorrows project.
    >>The link that Bendit provided:
    >>Follow the steps on this Microsoft publication to setup your ad hoc
    >>network:
    >>
    >>http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=fac8708e-3762-4e78-b372-8404eeb7f41a&displaylang=en
    >>
    >>was excellent. However, be advised that it is written and seems to work,
    >>only with MS Firewall. Some of the screen options you need to have and
    >>change are not available if you have MS Firewall turned off. So, my Zone
    >>Alarms (free) are for now turned off and MS Fire is on.
    >>PS. Now that the wifi network is operational, netstumbler sees all, as you
    >>guys predicted.
    >
  14. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "Tom M" <TM@nospam.escapees.com.nospam> wrote in message
    news:E6Dtd.1053998$Gx4.321155@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > HI George,
    > Well, it partly has to do with my lifestyle. Right now, I'm at home and
    > have a cable modem at my disposal, but I'm retired and spend about 8
    > months traveling the country in an RV. My normal means of internet
    > connection while traveling, is via a cell phone in the evenings and
    > weekends, with an occasional hot spot thrown in.
    > What I primarily wanted to do was link my wife's new computer for file
    > sharing, as well as internet. All the while keep the power draw as low as
    > possible. Most of the camping I do is in the boonies so my only source of
    > power is my set of solar panels and my batteries. So a router isn't much
    > power or money, but I figured I didn't really need it.
    > I can't argue with you about the router firewall protection as I have no
    > experience there. However my computers are always software firewall
    > protected. The default is Zone Alarm free, unless I connect the ad-hoc,
    > then I must turn off Zone Alarm and activate MS firewall. Also the wifi
    > link is running WEP.
    >
    > I really wish someone could tell me how or if I can operate Ad-Hoc ICS
    > with Zone Alarm Free on all the time in place of MS. I prefer the two way
    > firewall.
    >
    > --
    > Tom M
    > (To reply, remove *deletenospam* from my address)
    > "f/f george" <george@yourplace.com> wrote in message
    > news:5j0dr0p09i85g7uk4u2iogoopgv36p3q9u@4ax.com...
    >> So you did this without a router?
    >> Why?
    >> A router provides both connectivity for both computers, you can get
    >> them with BOTH wired and wireless ports, AND a router has a built in
    >> firewall. The firewall is NOT as good as a software or even better yet
    >> a hardware one.
    >>
    >> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 02:34:58 GMT, "Tom M"
    >> <TM@nospam.escapees.com.nospam> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Well, it's been a long day. First I put XP SP2 on my old machine
    >>>(500MHz)
    >>>and 3 hours later it was done. Then on to Internet Connection Sharing
    >>>and
    >>>ad_hoc between 2 laptops. It was a bit of a scrimmage for a while, but
    >>>eventually I got it up and running. Two laptops sharing a USB connected
    >>>cable internet, via wifi. Got printer sharing working after a couple of
    >>>attempts. File sharing is tomorrows project.
    >>>The link that Bendit provided:
    >>>Follow the steps on this Microsoft publication to setup your ad hoc
    >>>network:
    >>>
    >>>http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=fac8708e-3762-4e78-b372-8404eeb7f41a&displaylang=en
    >>>
    >>>was excellent. However, be advised that it is written and seems to work,
    >>>only with MS Firewall. Some of the screen options you need to have and
    >>>change are not available if you have MS Firewall turned off. So, my Zone
    >>>Alarms (free) are for now turned off and MS Fire is on.
    >>>PS. Now that the wifi network is operational, netstumbler sees all, as
    >>>you
    >>>guys predicted.
    >>

    Tom, the Windows XP SP2 firewall IS two way. It will notify you (by a popup
    window) if a program tries to access the internet. You can program
    exceptions (it will not warn you and will allow outbound traffic for that
    program) in the firewall control panel. I have been running it since it came
    out, and I think it is pretty stable and sturdy. I ONLY run that firewall
    and nothing else, just in case you'd like to ditch your Zone Alarm.

    Also, some people claim that HARDWARE firewalls are better (the ones found
    in cheap routers and access point). This is not entirely true. Those devices
    at heart run software also (that you can flash to upgrade with patches from
    their manufacturer). If you look at netgear routers for example, go online
    and check out their patch logs. Some of them had severe problems with their
    internal softwares that allowed possible attacks. My point is that software
    is software, and Microsoft has regular patches coming out from its testing
    team. Now which testing team is bigger? Netgear's or Microsoft's? Just a
    different angle here. CHEERS!
  15. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    Thanks for the feedback, Bendit,
    I feel better about having to run MS Firewall when networking. But I'm
    still not sure it is 2 way... So I did an experiment. With ZA in charge, I
    open my Quicken program and downloaded some Quotes. Zone Alarm interrupted
    and asked for permission for Quicken Launcher. Then with MS Firewall on and
    ZA off, I again opened Quicken and repeated the same test. MS did not
    notify me of anything and made the connection. To complete the test, I
    activated ZA again (which automatically appears to turn MS Firewall off).
    Again ran the Quicken test. ZA again challenged the Quicken Launcher.
    I can only make 2 conclusions from this:
    1. ZA does monitor outgoing communications, and allows me to control them.
    2. MS Firewall doesn't notify me of an attempt at outgoing communications.
    Thus I have to assume that MS Firewall is not controlling outgoing and thus
    must be one way Firewall (inbound)
    Help...???

    --
    Tom M
    (To reply, remove *deletenospam* from my address)
    "Bendit" <NOSPAM@JustSayNo.com> wrote in message >
    > Tom, the Windows XP SP2 firewall IS two way. It will notify you (by a
    > popup window) if a program tries to access the internet. You can program
    > exceptions (it will not warn you and will allow outbound traffic for that
    > program) in the firewall control panel. I have been running it since it
    > came out, and I think it is pretty stable and sturdy. I ONLY run that
    > firewall and nothing else, just in case you'd like to ditch your Zone
    > Alarm.
    >
    > Also, some people claim that HARDWARE firewalls are better (the ones found
    > in cheap routers and access point). This is not entirely true. Those
    > devices at heart run software also (that you can flash to upgrade with
    > patches from their manufacturer). If you look at netgear routers for
    > example, go online and check out their patch logs. Some of them had severe
    > problems with their internal softwares that allowed possible attacks. My
    > point is that software is software, and Microsoft has regular patches
    > coming out from its testing team. Now which testing team is bigger?
    > Netgear's or Microsoft's? Just a different angle here. CHEERS!
    >
  16. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    I didn't find the xp firewall easy to deal with on the work computers
    when i networked them and i don't bother with them at home (as i also
    use zone alarm). i think ms has enough issues and should focus more on
    fixing the problems with their operating systems and such rather then
    expanding into other areas. my zone alarm worked fine with my wireless
    setup, but the somethings were still wrong and i've even purchased more
    than one 802.11g usb network adapter (for which both worked for a short
    period and then didn't all of a sudden).

    I've also gotten strange error messages of all kinds from microsoft
    who's sent their retarded no use reports to themselves (maybe they do
    have a use, but they don't seem to ever solve the ones i've had a work;
    i just work around them).
    C:\DOCUME~1\Babs\LOCALS~1\Temp\WERd70b.dir00\Mini121404-01.dmp

    C:\DOCUME~1\Babs\LOCALS~1\Temp\WERd70b.dir00\sysdata.xml

    those would be the latest error messages. have no clue what they mean.
    can't find them here either. i've now uninstalled my belkin to return
    it and reinstalled my hawking (yes, i'd rather have the belkin, but
    they didn't have any and i'm stuck for the money with the hawking). My
    hawking now has a very strong signal and doesn't get online, but used
    to get online and have a weak signal. go figure. that's before of
    course, it quite working all together for the most part. the strong
    signal now is due to my changing the settings to the ad-hoc (glad they
    put that nifty info into the manuals for me...NOT). i'm not a computer
    idiot (nor genius, but i do network 9 computers - laptops, vidoe
    editing systems, graphics, administrative, printshared, etc. windows
    98, ME, XPs and mac osXs together just fine) and i can't seem to fix my
    single user home computer for the wireless that's available to our
    condo building. apparently i'm the only dork having a problem with it
    also.

    i did have some issues with my aol interfering and fixed that all up
    and a new modem (also presumably fixed). waiting impatiently for some
    assistance from my neighbor who does computers, but his priorities and
    mine aren't the same and i'm busy fixing my own issues as best i can.
    I never have any issues with my zone alarm though. they've always been
    top notch and easy to work with. I even had a difficult time with the
    laptop xps firewalls at work because they are so hard to find in order
    to change the settings and they default back several times before you
    can get them to remain the way you set them up. when my co-workers
    can't network that's the first place i look.

    both home and work are on dchp. although i couldn't tell you much else
    about my wirless connection (except i'm thinking maybe there is a mac
    involved somewhere). I don't know anything about wireless yet really.
    we have a T1 at work. i'm online the old fashioned way right now (with
    my dial up aol).
    babs


    --
    mediadarling
    brought to you by http://www.wifi-forum.com/
  17. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    ok, i'm on! woo hoo!

    nope, zone alarm doesn't differentiate my wireless from other networks,
    it just auto adds the ip and submask info.

    you are correct, after some more research i am on an infrastructure. i
    had to investigate that because it said peer-to-peer and i know i
    shouldn't be on that. i had a few other names coming up at different
    times today so maybe i was picking up someone else's channels? i don't
    know. however, my last problem (at the moment; crossing my fingers) was
    as usual, a windows default back to something i was sure i already
    reset before - unchecking the windows wireless network configuration
    (and hence no other names or defaults come up now on my available
    networks screen like before).

    now, about security...dare i try messing with that or do i need to?

    yes, i think our condo has dhcp or whatever type does that for wireless
    as the ip changes.
    babs


    --
    mediadarling
    brought to you by http://www.wifi-forum.com/
  18. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    "mediadarling" <mediadarling.1hjayy@WiFi-Forum_dot_com> wrote
    > now, about security...dare i try messing with that or do i need to?
    >
    > yes, i think our condo has dhcp or whatever type does that for wireless
    > as the ip changes.
    > babs

    Well apart from local pc security such as a firewall I think other security
    options are setup on the access point, the fact you can connect without
    selecting any, suggests there is no network security. So there should be no
    other configuration required, unless other people have suggestions for how
    to make your pc a little more secure on an insecure network.(Or even if its
    worth the bother)

    Daniel
  19. Archived from groups: alt.internet.wireless (More info?)

    and of course, it now doesn't work again. <sigh>


    --
    mediadarling
    brought to you by http://www.wifi-forum.com/
Ask a new question

Read More

Laptops WiFi and Home Networking Computers Wireless Networking