Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

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

Last response: in Wireless Networking
Share
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 7, 2004 12:41:33 AM

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)
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 7, 2004 12:59:52 AM

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?
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 7, 2004 1:44:55 AM

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?
>
Related resources
December 7, 2004 2:36:39 AM

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?FamilyI...

I hope this helps. Cheers!
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 7, 2004 7:39:06 AM

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?FamilyI...
>
>I hope this helps. Cheers!
>
What you are saying is true but does not answer his original question
which said they were not networked.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 7, 2004 7:43:14 AM

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?
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 7, 2004 7:43:29 AM

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?
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 7, 2004 4:43:16 PM

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?FamilyI...
b372-8404eeb7f41a&displaylang=en
>
> I hope this helps. Cheers!
>
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 7, 2004 4:43:17 PM

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
December 7, 2004 6:47:23 PM

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?FamilyI...
> 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!
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 8, 2004 5:34:58 AM

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?FamilyI...

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
>
December 8, 2004 7:27:35 AM

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?FamilyI...
>
> 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!
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 8, 2004 7:30:14 AM

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?FamilyI...
>
>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.
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 8, 2004 4:14:12 PM

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?FamilyI...
>>
>>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.
>
December 8, 2004 6:32:59 PM

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?FamilyI...
>>>
>>>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!
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 8, 2004 9:07:54 PM

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!
>
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 19, 2004 11:44:13 PM

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/
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 20, 2004 2:14:13 AM

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/
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 20, 2004 2:52:04 AM

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
Anonymous
a b D Laptop
December 20, 2004 4:06:14 PM

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/
!