Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

how to network video computers

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 12:28:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I have 3 video computers and I would like to let them share (or have access
to) one A4 and one A3 size printer.
I also have one scanner and would like to be able to share among them, or at
least be able to use it on one computer and then move the scanned files to
another computer.
I would also like to be able to send some larger captured video files from
one computer to another.
Can anyone please advise me on what I need to install and setup to do these
things?
The computers don't currently have any ethernet cards nor are they connected
to the internet. They are standalone workstations for video and they do have
Pyro firewire cards in them. They are running win xp.
Thanks for any advice
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 12:28:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Luis ORTEGA" <lortega@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:K57tc.80$YT4.70@newsfe5-win...
> I have 3 video computers and I would like to let them share (or have
access
> to) one A4 and one A3 size printer.
> I also have one scanner and would like to be able to share among them, or
at
> least be able to use it on one computer and then move the scanned files to
> another computer.
> I would also like to be able to send some larger captured video files from
> one computer to another.
> Can anyone please advise me on what I need to install and setup to do
these
> things?
> The computers don't currently have any ethernet cards nor are they
connected
> to the internet. They are standalone workstations for video and they do
have
> Pyro firewire cards in them. They are running win xp.
> Thanks for any advice

Get ethernet cards for each computer and a 10/100 switch. Hook all that up
and then you'll be ready to ask more questions.
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 12:28:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Hi,
Look here;
http://www.windowsnetworking.com/j_helmig/winxppro.htm
Lots of info and how to.

Matt

Luis ORTEGA wrote:

>I have 3 video computers and I would like to let them share (or have access
>to) one A4 and one A3 size printer.
>I also have one scanner and would like to be able to share among them, or at
>least be able to use it on one computer and then move the scanned files to
>another computer.
>I would also like to be able to send some larger captured video files from
>one computer to another.
>Can anyone please advise me on what I need to install and setup to do these
>things?
>The computers don't currently have any ethernet cards nor are they connected
>to the internet. They are standalone workstations for video and they do have
>Pyro firewire cards in them. They are running win xp.
>Thanks for any advice
>
>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 12:28:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Luis ORTEGA" wrote ...
> I have 3 video computers and I would like to let them share
(or have access to) one A4 and one A3 size printer.

Modern home computer networks support both file sharing
and printer sharing quite easily.

> I also have one scanner and would like to be able to share
> among them, or at least be able to use it on one computer
> and then move the scanned files to another computer.

Because scanning is labor-intensive (compared to printing),
there aren't really any convienent ways of sharing a scanner
over a network. Of course you can use it with which ever PC
it is currently connected to, and then just share the files.

> I would also like to be able to send some larger captured
> video files from one computer to another.

Files is files. Makes no difference if they are "video" or
anything else. Of course video files tend to be much larger
than "average" so you should certainly be sure to buy network
components (interface cards, cabling, hubs/switches, etc.)
that support AT LEAST 100MB. The old original 10Mb
speed is way too slow for sharing video files. If I were
doing a new network today, I'd seriously consider the cost
of doing everything with 1000Mb = 1GB = "gigabyte"
speed components.

> Can anyone please advise me on what I need to install
> and setup to do these things?

Network cards for each computer (compatible with XP).
At least 100MB, and preferably 1000MB (=1GB) speed
for large video file sharing.

Network cabling. Hard to give any more specific advice
without knowing what your situation is. Certainly use wiring
capable of 1GB speed (for future upgrading at least).

Network hub/switch where the cables from all the PCs
(and perhaps printers?) connect to each other. Again,
100MB would be my minimum speed for video use, and
preferably "gigabit" speed.

Consider whether the cost/benefit is positive for getting
network cards (or "server boxes") for the printers so they
can directly connect to the network. Otherwise, you can
use whichever PC(s) they are currently connected to share
them out to the other computers on the network. XP makes
this pretty easy.
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 1:21:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"FLY135" wrote > Get ethernet cards for each computer and a 10/100 switch.
Hook all that up
> and then you'll be ready to ask more questions.

would I connect the computers and the printers to the switch, or would I
connect the printers to the computers and the computers to the switch?
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 1:21:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Luis ORTEGA" <lortega@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:o R7tc.371$44.68@newsfe4-win...
>
> "FLY135" wrote > Get ethernet cards for each computer and a 10/100 switch.
> Hook all that up
> > and then you'll be ready to ask more questions.
>
> would I connect the computers and the printers to the switch, or would I
> connect the printers to the computers and the computers to the switch?

Printers to the computers and the computers to the switch. You then assign
static IP addresses and turn on file and printer sharing.

IP addresses like...

192.168.0.10
192.168.0.11
etc...
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 1:21:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Luis ORTEGA" wrote ...
> would I connect the computers and the printers to the
> switch, or would I connect the printers to the computers
> and the computers to the switch?

You can do it either way. Easier (and cheaper) to just share out
the printers from the computers they are already connected to.
For most users, this is perfectly adequate.

Some printers (generally higher-end lasers) have slots that
allow you to plug in direct networking cards. You can also buy
small external boxes that will share the printer on a network.
For home use, this may very well be useless overkill.
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 1:59:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Thanks a lot for your help.
I'll give this a try.

"FLY135" wrote
> Printers to the computers and the computers to the switch. You then
assign
> static IP addresses and turn on file and printer sharing.
>
> IP addresses like...
>
> 192.168.0.10
> 192.168.0.11
> etc...
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 2:31:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"FLY135" <fly_135(@ hot not not)notmail.com> wrote in message
news:ym6tc.26721$zO3.19862@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Luis ORTEGA" <lortega@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:K57tc.80$YT4.70@newsfe5-win...
> > I have 3 video computers and I would like to let them share (or have
> access
> > to) one A4 and one A3 size printer.
> > I also have one scanner and would like to be able to share among them,
or
> at
> > least be able to use it on one computer and then move the scanned files
to
> > another computer.
> > I would also like to be able to send some larger captured video files
from
> > one computer to another.
> > Can anyone please advise me on what I need to install and setup to do
> these
> > things?
> > The computers don't currently have any ethernet cards nor are they
> connected
> > to the internet. They are standalone workstations for video and they do
> have
> > Pyro firewire cards in them. They are running win xp.
> > Thanks for any advice
>
> Get ethernet cards for each computer and a 10/100 switch. Hook all that
up
> and then you'll be ready to ask more questions.
>
Other options that might be considered at this point is using 1394
for networking, or gigabit networking. I would think either would
be faster than 10-100 Ethernet.
http://www.unibrain.com/1394_products/1394_networking/f...

David
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 2:31:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"david.mccall" wrote ...
> Other options that might be considered at this point is using 1394
> for networking, or gigabit networking. I would think either would
> be faster than 10-100 Ethernet.
> http://www.unibrain.com/1394_products/1394_networking/f...

The graphs on that web page show that "conventional" gigabit
networking is faster than "FireNet" For an application such as
Mr. Ortega proposed, "FireNet" seems significantly less
desirable than conventional networking, (not a minor issue
that Mr. Ortega is a first-time network installer). Besides,
he might be using the firewire ports for video capture, etc.

OTOH, "FireNet" sounds great for portable use.
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 3:15:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Wed, 26 May 2004 20:44:14 GMT, "FLY135" <fly_135(@ hot not
not)notmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> would I connect the computers and the printers to the switch, or would I
>> connect the printers to the computers and the computers to the switch?
>
>Printers to the computers and the computers to the switch. You then assign
>static IP addresses and turn on file and printer sharing.

Unless the printers have network ports, in which case you may as well
have the added flexibility of connecting them directly to the network.
Saves you having to power up the host computer to use that printer.
Somehow, well over 50% of the time I'm working on the "wrong" computer
:-)

Affordable TWAIN-based scanners, unfortunately, are not networkable.

If your computers are relatively new they may have even faster network
ports. 1000 is common now. Hubs supporting that speed are
currently rather expensive, but will drop. Check to see if they have
:-)
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 3:15:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Laurence Payne wrote:

> On Wed, 26 May 2004 20:44:14 GMT, "FLY135" <fly_135(@ hot not
> not)notmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> would I connect the computers and the printers to the switch, or would I
> >> connect the printers to the computers and the computers to the switch?
> >
> >Printers to the computers and the computers to the switch. You then assign
> >static IP addresses and turn on file and printer sharing.
>
> Unless the printers have network ports, in which case you may as well
> have the added flexibility of connecting them directly to the network.
> Saves you having to power up the host computer to use that printer.
> Somehow, well over 50% of the time I'm working on the "wrong" computer
> :-)
>
> Affordable TWAIN-based scanners, unfortunately, are not networkable.
>
> If your computers are relatively new they may have even faster network
> ports. 1000 is common now. Hubs supporting that speed are
> currently rather expensive, but will drop. Check to see if they have
> :-)

You can get gigabit switches for $79 at Frys (outpost.com). That's not terribly
expensive.
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 5:12:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Wed, 26 May 2004 15:50:28 -0700, Keith Clark
<clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> If your computers are relatively new they may have even faster network
>> ports. 1000 is common now. Hubs supporting that speed are
>> currently rather expensive, but will drop. Check to see if they have
>> :-)
>
>You can get gigabit switches for $79 at Frys (outpost.com). That's not terribly
>expensive.

Good. They're coming down :-)
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 5:14:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Thu, 27 May 2004 01:12:41 +0100, Laurence Payne
<l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>>You can get gigabit switches for $79 at Frys (outpost.com). That's not terribly
>>expensive.
>
>Good. They're coming down :-)

But don't worry too much. More speed is always nice. But moving raw
data between the machines isn't likely to be a noticeable bottleneck
at 100. Maybe at 10 :-)
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 1:42:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Laurence Payne wrote:

> On Thu, 27 May 2004 01:12:41 +0100, Laurence Payne
> <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>You can get gigabit switches for $79 at Frys (outpost.com). That's not terribly
> >>expensive.
> >
> >Good. They're coming down :-)
>
> But don't worry too much. More speed is always nice. But moving raw
> data between the machines isn't likely to be a noticeable bottleneck
> at 100. Maybe at 10 :-)

Well it depends on how big the files are, right?

If you're moving say, all the episodes of Band of Brothers, recorded at a high bit
rate in mpeg-2, you're going to waiting a while.

Isn't the maximum throughput of 100 mb in the neighborhood of 8 megabytes per second?
Gigabit would offer a significant advantage over that, or so it would seem to me.

On the other hand, if the machines are close enough and running XP, you can transfer
the files over Firewire...(I'm no fan of XP, I'm just noting that it has a networking
driver for IEEE-1394). So it would still be useful to network the machines over
ethernet for internet connection sharing, print sharing, etc, and use the Firewire
ports for the heavy lifting if you don't have built-in gigabit ports already. Just a
thought...
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 1:48:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Richard Crowley wrote:

>
> Some printers (generally higher-end lasers) have slots that
> allow you to plug in direct networking cards. You can also buy
> small external boxes that will share the printer on a network.
> For home use, this may very well be useless overkill.

Well it might also depend on where you want to put the printers. If
they're noisy, you might not want them in the same room as the PCs,
especially if two people are trying to work at the same time. In that
case a wired or wireless print server will let you easily relocate the
printers elsewhere and the prices are so low these days that they're
commodity items (hard to believe I used to work for a group that sold
print servers for close to $300, and that wasn't all that long ago).
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 1:50:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Richard Crowley wrote:

> "david.mccall" wrote ...
> > Other options that might be considered at this point is using 1394
> > for networking, or gigabit networking. I would think either would
> > be faster than 10-100 Ethernet.
> > http://www.unibrain.com/1394_products/1394_networking/f...
>
> The graphs on that web page show that "conventional" gigabit
> networking is faster than "FireNet" For an application such as
> Mr. Ortega proposed, "FireNet" seems significantly less
> desirable than conventional networking, (not a minor issue
> that Mr. Ortega is a first-time network installer). Besides,
> he might be using the firewire ports for video capture, etc.
>
> OTOH, "FireNet" sounds great for portable use.

Nobody's disputing that Gigabit is a fatter pipe than Firewire - but if
someone already has Firewire, and doesn't have Gigabit ports installed,
then Firenet would be a viable alternative until he can install Gigabit
ports.
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 9:13:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Keith Clark" <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40B61C6B.C6F5CAA1@hotmail.com...
>
> Nobody's disputing that Gigabit is a fatter pipe than Firewire - but if
> someone already has Firewire, and doesn't have Gigabit ports installed,
> then Firenet would be a viable alternative until he can install Gigabit
> ports.
>
Exactly

I was only suggesting that Gigabit and/or 1394 might be worth looking
at before buying into 10/100. I know I would if I was starting from scratch.

Firenet or XPs built in 1394 networking, might make a lot of sense
if you already have firewire ports, and want to wait a bit longer
for the gigabit hardware to come down a little. Plus, many laptops
that we use have 1394 built in, but no gigabit.

I have not used either for networking, so you would be a
far better authority that I am. Thanks for jumping in.

David
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 9:13:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"david.mccall" wrote:

> "Keith Clark" <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:40B61C6B.C6F5CAA1@hotmail.com...
> >
> > Nobody's disputing that Gigabit is a fatter pipe than Firewire - but if
> > someone already has Firewire, and doesn't have Gigabit ports installed,
> > then Firenet would be a viable alternative until he can install Gigabit
> > ports.
> >
> Exactly
>
> I was only suggesting that Gigabit and/or 1394 might be worth looking
> at before buying into 10/100. I know I would if I was starting from scratch.
>
> Firenet or XPs built in 1394 networking, might make a lot of sense
> if you already have firewire ports, and want to wait a bit longer
> for the gigabit hardware to come down a little. Plus, many laptops
> that we use have 1394 built in, but no gigabit.
>
> I have not used either for networking, so you would be a
> far better authority that I am. Thanks for jumping in.
>
> David

I've used gigabit but not Firenet or the XP Firewire driver.
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 9:13:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"david.mccall" wrote:

> "Keith Clark" <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:40B61C6B.C6F5CAA1@hotmail.com...
> >
> > Nobody's disputing that Gigabit is a fatter pipe than Firewire - but if
> > someone already has Firewire, and doesn't have Gigabit ports installed,
> > then Firenet would be a viable alternative until he can install Gigabit
> > ports.
> >
> Exactly
>
> I was only suggesting that Gigabit and/or 1394 might be worth looking
> at before buying into 10/100. I know I would if I was starting from scratch.
>
> Firenet or XPs built in 1394 networking, might make a lot of sense
> if you already have firewire ports, and want to wait a bit longer
> for the gigabit hardware to come down a little. Plus, many laptops
> that we use have 1394 built in, but no gigabit.
>
> I have not used either for networking, so you would be a
> far better authority that I am. Thanks for jumping in.
>
> David

On the other hand, I just saw a Fry's ad in yesterday's paper that had gigabit
ethernet cards for $15. I paid more than that for my first Firewire card. I got
curious and checked their website (www.outpost.com) and found 4 gigabit adapter
cards at under $30. On Pricewatch, I even found Intel gigabit cards in the $30
range at a lot of online stores.
!