Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

XP remote connect to Win2K PC?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 7:48:42 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

I have a broadband connection at work and home and I'd like to get access to
my data partition at work (3 PCs on a Win2K PTP LAN) from my home PC
(running XP Pro).

I need to get read/write access to the shared partition where all my data
files are held. I don't mind if I have to have a duplicate set of data
files at home and sync the files/folders.

I understand that XP has a sync folders facility, but suspect that both ends
need to be running XP for this to work. Is this so?

What other options do I have to achieve this?

--

Jonathan Finney

More about : remote connect win2k

Anonymous
October 11, 2004 7:48:43 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

Jonathan Finney wrote:
> I have a broadband connection at work and home and I'd like to get
> access to my data partition at work (3 PCs on a Win2K PTP LAN) from
> my home PC (running XP Pro).
>
> I need to get read/write access to the shared partition where all my
> data files are held. I don't mind if I have to have a duplicate set
> of data files at home and sync the files/folders.
>
> I understand that XP has a sync folders facility, but suspect that
> both ends need to be running XP for this to work. Is this so?
>
> What other options do I have to achieve this?

You'll need a VPN connection from home to one of the W2k PCs or firewall on
your work LAN. Once you get connectivity, you can use various means to
copy/access/sync data....I personally like SecondCopy (www.centered.com)
better than the native offline files (and XP Home doesn't offer offline
files anyway).
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 7:55:34 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

Offline files works with any source offering SMB networking--this includes
the 9.x versions of Windows, and, I suspect, Linux implementations of SMB.

As Lanwench mentions, it isn't available in XP Home, but that isn't what you
have at home.

I don't have experience with trying to use this feature in a situation where
you are only connecting via a slow VPN link, but you can definitely try it
out.

You might want to try both mechanisms--the third-party one and the native
one. I don't have a strong opinion about this--they both look well designed
to me, and I haven't had a lot of complaint about the offline files
feature--I use it mainly with laptop users who grab a machine and take it
off-network for periods of time, though.

"Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
news:416a9d4a$0$110$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
>I have a broadband connection at work and home and I'd like to get access
>to
> my data partition at work (3 PCs on a Win2K PTP LAN) from my home PC
> (running XP Pro).
>
> I need to get read/write access to the shared partition where all my data
> files are held. I don't mind if I have to have a duplicate set of data
> files at home and sync the files/folders.
>
> I understand that XP has a sync folders facility, but suspect that both
> ends
> need to be running XP for this to work. Is this so?
>
> What other options do I have to achieve this?
>
> --
>
> Jonathan Finney
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 8:15:05 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

Bill Sanderson wrote:
> Offline files works with any source offering SMB networking--this
> includes the 9.x versions of Windows, and, I suspect, Linux
> implementations of SMB.
>
> As Lanwench mentions, it isn't available in XP Home, but that isn't
> what you have at home.

Whoops - had it backwards. :-)
>
> I don't have experience with trying to use this feature in a
> situation where you are only connecting via a slow VPN link, but you
> can definitely try it out.
>
> You might want to try both mechanisms--the third-party one and the
> native one. I don't have a strong opinion about this--they both look
> well designed to me, and I haven't had a lot of complaint about the
> offline files feature--I use it mainly with laptop users who grab a
> machine and take it off-network for periods of time, though.

I've seen a lot of people lose data, esp.when they've set up many
folders/drives for offline use. YMMV, of course. I don't think I'll touch
offline files again, myself. I'm a SecondCopy girl.
>
> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
> news:416a9d4a$0$110$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
>> I have a broadband connection at work and home and I'd like to get
>> access to
>> my data partition at work (3 PCs on a Win2K PTP LAN) from my home PC
>> (running XP Pro).
>>
>> I need to get read/write access to the shared partition where all my
>> data files are held. I don't mind if I have to have a duplicate set
>> of data files at home and sync the files/folders.
>>
>> I understand that XP has a sync folders facility, but suspect that
>> both ends
>> need to be running XP for this to work. Is this so?
>>
>> What other options do I have to achieve this?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jonathan Finney
October 13, 2004 3:13:56 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

Another option is to use remote access software to access file
directly via the Web. I used it for my connection from home to work. I
can access and even edit files on my work computer. Setting up is
pretty straight forward. WebEx ( http://www.webex.com/go?accessone )
now is having a promotion to use it free until 2005. You may want to
give it a try and if it doesn't meet your needs, you can always
cancel.

Just another option to setting up VPN and doing file sync.

Jason

"Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message news:<416a9d4a$0$110$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net>...
> I have a broadband connection at work and home and I'd like to get access to
> my data partition at work (3 PCs on a Win2K PTP LAN) from my home PC
> (running XP Pro).
>
> I need to get read/write access to the shared partition where all my data
> files are held. I don't mind if I have to have a duplicate set of data
> files at home and sync the files/folders.
>
> I understand that XP has a sync folders facility, but suspect that both ends
> need to be running XP for this to work. Is this so?
>
> What other options do I have to achieve this?
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 6:44:00 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

Thanks LW!

Second Copy looks good and it's reasonable at $30 (Iassume I'll only need
the one license to sync the two folders/partitions?).

However, if it's possible to do this with features already in XP/Win2k, I'm
tempted to give this a try. Can you point me in the right direction?

What are the main advantages offered by SC?

--

Jonathan Finney


"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
<lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.atyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e1HQne6rEHA.1152@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Jonathan Finney wrote:
> > I have a broadband connection at work and home and I'd like to get
> > access to my data partition at work (3 PCs on a Win2K PTP LAN) from
> > my home PC (running XP Pro).
> >
> > I need to get read/write access to the shared partition where all my
> > data files are held. I don't mind if I have to have a duplicate set
> > of data files at home and sync the files/folders.
> >
> > I understand that XP has a sync folders facility, but suspect that
> > both ends need to be running XP for this to work. Is this so?
> >
> > What other options do I have to achieve this?
>
> You'll need a VPN connection from home to one of the W2k PCs or firewall
on
> your work LAN. Once you get connectivity, you can use various means to
> copy/access/sync data....I personally like SecondCopy (www.centered.com)
> better than the native offline files (and XP Home doesn't offer offline
> files anyway).
>
>
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 6:46:16 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

Sorry, Bill.

I've heard of VPN, but didn't know it was slow. Where can I read more about
this?

What's SMB?

--

Jonathan Finney

"Bill Sanderson" <Bill_Sanderson@msn.com.plugh.org> wrote in message
news:e7JMGx8rEHA.3728@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Offline files works with any source offering SMB networking--this includes
> the 9.x versions of Windows, and, I suspect, Linux implementations of SMB.
>
> As Lanwench mentions, it isn't available in XP Home, but that isn't what
you
> have at home.
>
> I don't have experience with trying to use this feature in a situation
where
> you are only connecting via a slow VPN link, but you can definitely try it
> out.
>
> You might want to try both mechanisms--the third-party one and the native
> one. I don't have a strong opinion about this--they both look well
designed
> to me, and I haven't had a lot of complaint about the offline files
> feature--I use it mainly with laptop users who grab a machine and take it
> off-network for periods of time, though.
>
> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
> news:416a9d4a$0$110$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
> >I have a broadband connection at work and home and I'd like to get access
> >to
> > my data partition at work (3 PCs on a Win2K PTP LAN) from my home PC
> > (running XP Pro).
> >
> > I need to get read/write access to the shared partition where all my
data
> > files are held. I don't mind if I have to have a duplicate set of data
> > files at home and sync the files/folders.
> >
> > I understand that XP has a sync folders facility, but suspect that both
> > ends
> > need to be running XP for this to work. Is this so?
> >
> > What other options do I have to achieve this?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Jonathan Finney
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 6:46:17 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

SMB is Server Message Block, apparently invented by IBM:

http://www.javvin.com/protocolSMB.html

It is what any windows networking implementation has used since time
immemorial.

The current standard is CIFS which is also mentioned in this definition.

VPN is not necessarily slow--the speed depends on the infrastructure you are
connecting across.

If you have a 100mbps full duplex ethernet, and use a VPN connection across
that, for security, the speed difference may be negligable, I suspect, but
haven't tested. There's processor power going into the
encryption/decryption at both ends, but if more than enough of that is
available, it shouldn't impact speed. I haven't looked up the details of
the overhead in individual packets--versus unencrypted traffic. I'm sure
there's some.

What I meant by slow is that if you are connecting across the Internet, many
common connection types these days are not equally fast in both directions.
The "A" in ADSL is for assymetric, meaning that the connection is faster in
one direction than in the other. The same is true for common cable
connections, as I understand it.

So--the speed of your connection may be limited by the uplink speed at the
site the data is flowing from. Using Remote Desktop, for example, speed
issues are almost unnoticable--because of compression and great care
bandwidth use. However, when you are using normal networking protocols over
that same connection and moving large amounts of data--as you may be in
doing an initial synch on offline files, the basic link speed is going to
limit how fast things go. If you are lucky, and the source is a workplace
with a large upload speed to the Internet, this may not be a problem.

Many here are accustomed to the speeds that RDP achieves over such
connections and are startled when they try an actual file transfer or other
bulk data movement over the same underlying connection and are bitten by the
relative speed (or lack thereof!) of the link--so I try to remind folks.

"Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
news:416d31ac$0$112$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
> Sorry, Bill.
>
> I've heard of VPN, but didn't know it was slow. Where can I read more
> about
> this?
>
> What's SMB?
>
> --
>
> Jonathan Finney
>
> "Bill Sanderson" <Bill_Sanderson@msn.com.plugh.org> wrote in message
> news:e7JMGx8rEHA.3728@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Offline files works with any source offering SMB networking--this
>> includes
>> the 9.x versions of Windows, and, I suspect, Linux implementations of
>> SMB.
>>
>> As Lanwench mentions, it isn't available in XP Home, but that isn't what
> you
>> have at home.
>>
>> I don't have experience with trying to use this feature in a situation
> where
>> you are only connecting via a slow VPN link, but you can definitely try
>> it
>> out.
>>
>> You might want to try both mechanisms--the third-party one and the native
>> one. I don't have a strong opinion about this--they both look well
> designed
>> to me, and I haven't had a lot of complaint about the offline files
>> feature--I use it mainly with laptop users who grab a machine and take it
>> off-network for periods of time, though.
>>
>> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
>> news:416a9d4a$0$110$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
>> >I have a broadband connection at work and home and I'd like to get
>> >access
>> >to
>> > my data partition at work (3 PCs on a Win2K PTP LAN) from my home PC
>> > (running XP Pro).
>> >
>> > I need to get read/write access to the shared partition where all my
> data
>> > files are held. I don't mind if I have to have a duplicate set of data
>> > files at home and sync the files/folders.
>> >
>> > I understand that XP has a sync folders facility, but suspect that both
>> > ends
>> > need to be running XP for this to work. Is this so?
>> >
>> > What other options do I have to achieve this?
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Jonathan Finney
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 11:27:32 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

Jonathan Finney wrote:
> Thanks LW!
>
> Second Copy looks good and it's reasonable at $30 (Iassume I'll only
> need the one license to sync the two folders/partitions?).

Yep...try the free 30 day eval (fully functional - you can license it later)
and see what you think.

>
> However, if it's possible to do this with features already in
> XP/Win2k, I'm tempted to give this a try. Can you point me in the
> right direction?

Offline files, if you have XP Pro....
>
> What are the main advantages offered by SC?

I haven't gotten any calls from frustrated clients saying they lost data,
which I used to get when they used offline files.
>
>
> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
> <lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.atyahoo.com> wrote in
> message news:e1HQne6rEHA.1152@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> Jonathan Finney wrote:
>>> I have a broadband connection at work and home and I'd like to get
>>> access to my data partition at work (3 PCs on a Win2K PTP LAN) from
>>> my home PC (running XP Pro).
>>>
>>> I need to get read/write access to the shared partition where all my
>>> data files are held. I don't mind if I have to have a duplicate set
>>> of data files at home and sync the files/folders.
>>>
>>> I understand that XP has a sync folders facility, but suspect that
>>> both ends need to be running XP for this to work. Is this so?
>>>
>>> What other options do I have to achieve this?
>>
>> You'll need a VPN connection from home to one of the W2k PCs or
>> firewall on your work LAN. Once you get connectivity, you can use
>> various means to copy/access/sync data....I personally like
>> SecondCopy (www.centered.com) better than the native offline files
>> (and XP Home doesn't offer offline files anyway).
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 8:53:33 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

Thanks again.

SC looks good, but I'll check out the Offline Files first. I have been
warned!!

I'd just like to ask a little more about the instances of 'data loss' you
mention. Assuming that there are two copies of my data folder and contents
located at two different locations, the majority of files will be that same,
the differences existing in those files that had changed since the last
sync. Is it correct to say that the instances of data loss were restricted
to the files that had changed or was it more serious than that?

I could tolerate the temporary inconvenience of not having had a sync
performed correctly, but if files had become corrupted at both ends, this
could be disastrous!

--

Jonathan Finney

"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
<lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.atyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eujAG88rEHA.2732@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Bill Sanderson wrote:
> > Offline files works with any source offering SMB networking--this
> > includes the 9.x versions of Windows, and, I suspect, Linux
> > implementations of SMB.
> >
> > As Lanwench mentions, it isn't available in XP Home, but that isn't
> > what you have at home.
>
> Whoops - had it backwards. :-)
> >
> > I don't have experience with trying to use this feature in a
> > situation where you are only connecting via a slow VPN link, but you
> > can definitely try it out.
> >
> > You might want to try both mechanisms--the third-party one and the
> > native one. I don't have a strong opinion about this--they both look
> > well designed to me, and I haven't had a lot of complaint about the
> > offline files feature--I use it mainly with laptop users who grab a
> > machine and take it off-network for periods of time, though.
>
> I've seen a lot of people lose data, esp.when they've set up many
> folders/drives for offline use. YMMV, of course. I don't think I'll touch
> offline files again, myself. I'm a SecondCopy girl.
> >
> > "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
> > news:416a9d4a$0$110$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
> >> I have a broadband connection at work and home and I'd like to get
> >> access to
> >> my data partition at work (3 PCs on a Win2K PTP LAN) from my home PC
> >> (running XP Pro).
> >>
> >> I need to get read/write access to the shared partition where all my
> >> data files are held. I don't mind if I have to have a duplicate set
> >> of data files at home and sync the files/folders.
> >>
> >> I understand that XP has a sync folders facility, but suspect that
> >> both ends
> >> need to be running XP for this to work. Is this so?
> >>
> >> What other options do I have to achieve this?
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Jonathan Finney
>
>
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 8:53:34 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

Jonathan Finney wrote:
> Thanks again.
>
> SC looks good, but I'll check out the Offline Files first. I have
> been warned!!
>
> I'd just like to ask a little more about the instances of 'data loss'
> you mention. Assuming that there are two copies of my data folder
> and contents located at two different locations, the majority of
> files will be that same, the differences existing in those files that
> had changed since the last sync. Is it correct to say that the
> instances of data loss were restricted to the files that had changed
> or was it more serious than that?
>
> I could tolerate the temporary inconvenience of not having had a sync
> performed correctly, but if files had become corrupted at both ends,
> this could be disastrous!

I've seen several instances of clients working offline on many files all
weekend on their laptops, coming in, and losing any changes they made, files
they created. I wasn't there looking over their shoulders, mind, and note
that these were also clients syncing large amounts of data - several server
folders, multiple subfolders. I really prefer SC, but see what you think.
Other people love offline files.

The other issue with offline files is that if you have clients who use VPN,
they'll still show up as working offline, which is kind of a pain.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q290523

>
>
> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
> <lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.atyahoo.com> wrote in
> message news:eujAG88rEHA.2732@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Bill Sanderson wrote:
>>> Offline files works with any source offering SMB networking--this
>>> includes the 9.x versions of Windows, and, I suspect, Linux
>>> implementations of SMB.
>>>
>>> As Lanwench mentions, it isn't available in XP Home, but that isn't
>>> what you have at home.
>>
>> Whoops - had it backwards. :-)
>>>
>>> I don't have experience with trying to use this feature in a
>>> situation where you are only connecting via a slow VPN link, but you
>>> can definitely try it out.
>>>
>>> You might want to try both mechanisms--the third-party one and the
>>> native one. I don't have a strong opinion about this--they both
>>> look well designed to me, and I haven't had a lot of complaint
>>> about the offline files feature--I use it mainly with laptop users
>>> who grab a machine and take it off-network for periods of time,
>>> though.
>>
>> I've seen a lot of people lose data, esp.when they've set up many
>> folders/drives for offline use. YMMV, of course. I don't think I'll
>> touch offline files again, myself. I'm a SecondCopy girl.
>>>
>>> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
>>> news:416a9d4a$0$110$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
>>>> I have a broadband connection at work and home and I'd like to get
>>>> access to
>>>> my data partition at work (3 PCs on a Win2K PTP LAN) from my home
>>>> PC (running XP Pro).
>>>>
>>>> I need to get read/write access to the shared partition where all
>>>> my data files are held. I don't mind if I have to have a
>>>> duplicate set of data files at home and sync the files/folders.
>>>>
>>>> I understand that XP has a sync folders facility, but suspect that
>>>> both ends
>>>> need to be running XP for this to work. Is this so?
>>>>
>>>> What other options do I have to achieve this?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan Finney
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 9:00:33 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

Thanks for a very comprehensive explanation, Bill.

I can see that this could be an issue where large amounts of data had to be
transferred, but once the initial copy of several GB of data had been
performed, hopefully the relatively small number of files changed within a
day would not present too much of a problem.

I'm concerned about the instances of data loss mentioned by Lanwench and
have asked her for more details. Have you heard of similar occurrences? If
we're talking about the possibility of files at both ends becoming damaged,
I'll pay the $30 and go for the SC option. It also sounds like it might be
easier to set up and manage with a dedicated application as a front end.
Would you agree?

--

Jonathan Finney

"Bill Sanderson" <Bill_Sanderson@msn.com.plugh.org> wrote in message
news:eSfvXbTsEHA.2632@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> SMB is Server Message Block, apparently invented by IBM:
>
> http://www.javvin.com/protocolSMB.html
>
> It is what any windows networking implementation has used since time
> immemorial.
>
> The current standard is CIFS which is also mentioned in this definition.
>
> VPN is not necessarily slow--the speed depends on the infrastructure you
are
> connecting across.
>
> If you have a 100mbps full duplex ethernet, and use a VPN connection
across
> that, for security, the speed difference may be negligable, I suspect, but
> haven't tested. There's processor power going into the
> encryption/decryption at both ends, but if more than enough of that is
> available, it shouldn't impact speed. I haven't looked up the details of
> the overhead in individual packets--versus unencrypted traffic. I'm sure
> there's some.
>
> What I meant by slow is that if you are connecting across the Internet,
many
> common connection types these days are not equally fast in both
directions.
> The "A" in ADSL is for assymetric, meaning that the connection is faster
in
> one direction than in the other. The same is true for common cable
> connections, as I understand it.
>
> So--the speed of your connection may be limited by the uplink speed at the
> site the data is flowing from. Using Remote Desktop, for example, speed
> issues are almost unnoticable--because of compression and great care
> bandwidth use. However, when you are using normal networking protocols
over
> that same connection and moving large amounts of data--as you may be in
> doing an initial synch on offline files, the basic link speed is going to
> limit how fast things go. If you are lucky, and the source is a workplace
> with a large upload speed to the Internet, this may not be a problem.
>
> Many here are accustomed to the speeds that RDP achieves over such
> connections and are startled when they try an actual file transfer or
other
> bulk data movement over the same underlying connection and are bitten by
the
> relative speed (or lack thereof!) of the link--so I try to remind folks.
>
> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
> news:416d31ac$0$112$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
> > Sorry, Bill.
> >
> > I've heard of VPN, but didn't know it was slow. Where can I read more
> > about
> > this?
> >
> > What's SMB?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Jonathan Finney
> >
> > "Bill Sanderson" <Bill_Sanderson@msn.com.plugh.org> wrote in message
> > news:e7JMGx8rEHA.3728@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> Offline files works with any source offering SMB networking--this
> >> includes
> >> the 9.x versions of Windows, and, I suspect, Linux implementations of
> >> SMB.
> >>
> >> As Lanwench mentions, it isn't available in XP Home, but that isn't
what
> > you
> >> have at home.
> >>
> >> I don't have experience with trying to use this feature in a situation
> > where
> >> you are only connecting via a slow VPN link, but you can definitely try
> >> it
> >> out.
> >>
> >> You might want to try both mechanisms--the third-party one and the
native
> >> one. I don't have a strong opinion about this--they both look well
> > designed
> >> to me, and I haven't had a lot of complaint about the offline files
> >> feature--I use it mainly with laptop users who grab a machine and take
it
> >> off-network for periods of time, though.
> >>
> >> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
> >> news:416a9d4a$0$110$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
> >> >I have a broadband connection at work and home and I'd like to get
> >> >access
> >> >to
> >> > my data partition at work (3 PCs on a Win2K PTP LAN) from my home PC
> >> > (running XP Pro).
> >> >
> >> > I need to get read/write access to the shared partition where all my
> > data
> >> > files are held. I don't mind if I have to have a duplicate set of
data
> >> > files at home and sync the files/folders.
> >> >
> >> > I understand that XP has a sync folders facility, but suspect that
both
> >> > ends
> >> > need to be running XP for this to work. Is this so?
> >> >
> >> > What other options do I have to achieve this?
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > Jonathan Finney
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 9:13:40 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

Thanks Jason.

I have contacted their UK office and am awaiting some more information.

I assume in this situation, I'd be working directly with the files on my
work data folder rather than working on local copies and keeping the two
folders in sync. Is this correct? I must admit I'd prefer to have the two
copies as it adds an extra level of safety.

--

Jonathan Finney

"Jason" <jasony@webex.com> wrote in message
news:ef983b38.0410131013.1418a76e@posting.google.com...
> Another option is to use remote access software to access file
> directly via the Web. I used it for my connection from home to work. I
> can access and even edit files on my work computer. Setting up is
> pretty straight forward. WebEx ( http://www.webex.com/go?accessone )
> now is having a promotion to use it free until 2005. You may want to
> give it a try and if it doesn't meet your needs, you can always
> cancel.
>
> Just another option to setting up VPN and doing file sync.
>
> Jason
>
> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
news:<416a9d4a$0$110$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net>...
> > I have a broadband connection at work and home and I'd like to get
access to
> > my data partition at work (3 PCs on a Win2K PTP LAN) from my home PC
> > (running XP Pro).
> >
> > I need to get read/write access to the shared partition where all my
data
> > files are held. I don't mind if I have to have a duplicate set of data
> > files at home and sync the files/folders.
> >
> > I understand that XP has a sync folders facility, but suspect that both
ends
> > need to be running XP for this to work. Is this so?
> >
> > What other options do I have to achieve this?
Anonymous
October 15, 2004 2:55:46 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

I've a user who keeps a laptop at home and only brings it to the office to
synch every few months. She'd like to use a (1 gig) USB key to do the
synching by carrying that back and forth.

I'm looking at SC for that functionality. I see that some USB key vendors
have (usually extra cost) apps to do this job that are tied to their
hardware.

It seems to me that the devil is in the details in this kind of an app--and
I don't have a solid enough feeling for how SC works to be unequivocally
positive. Lanwench does have that level of experience, I believe!

The strength I see in Offline Files is that they've made it simple--very
little user interface--no complicated sets of options to set, etc. Because
the underlying process is, in fact, rather complex, this can lead to some
issues which are hard to manage--although the number of tools needed are
quite small--there's a KB article on how to blow away and reestablish the
cache if there are issues of corruption with it, and there's a Windows
Server 2003 Resource Kit applet that allows for manual control of several
crucial details of the cache behavior which is sometimes useful.

I haven't seen the data loss issues directly, but I've only a few users
using the feature--I have cetainly seen threads here with such issues, but
don't have a clear fix on what went wrong. For example, the cache files are
tied to a serial number for the user in a domain, and if the domain changes
(as with a neighbor who changed jobs)--the cache becomes inaccessable. He
was sure he was OK because he synched carefully before leaving the job, but,
in fact, the files were inaccessable. I now suspect this could have been
fixed with the Resource Kit applet, but I didn't know about that at the
time, and he was able to get the old job to send him the files. So--there
are "legitimate" causes for the cache becoming inaccessable, and then there
are the other kind--which I haven't followed the feature in enough depth to
try to pin down.

I like offline files--it is dead simple to use, and the users find it easy
to understand. However, if I'd been having data lost issues, I'd go
elsewhere quickly, or if I needed more flexibility--as with the USB key
transfer system.


"Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
news:416ea2a1$0$103$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
> Thanks for a very comprehensive explanation, Bill.
>
> I can see that this could be an issue where large amounts of data had to
> be
> transferred, but once the initial copy of several GB of data had been
> performed, hopefully the relatively small number of files changed within a
> day would not present too much of a problem.
>
> I'm concerned about the instances of data loss mentioned by Lanwench and
> have asked her for more details. Have you heard of similar occurrences?
> If
> we're talking about the possibility of files at both ends becoming
> damaged,
> I'll pay the $30 and go for the SC option. It also sounds like it might
> be
> easier to set up and manage with a dedicated application as a front end.
> Would you agree?
>
> --
>
> Jonathan Finney
>
> "Bill Sanderson" <Bill_Sanderson@msn.com.plugh.org> wrote in message
> news:eSfvXbTsEHA.2632@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> SMB is Server Message Block, apparently invented by IBM:
>>
>> http://www.javvin.com/protocolSMB.html
>>
>> It is what any windows networking implementation has used since time
>> immemorial.
>>
>> The current standard is CIFS which is also mentioned in this definition.
>>
>> VPN is not necessarily slow--the speed depends on the infrastructure you
> are
>> connecting across.
>>
>> If you have a 100mbps full duplex ethernet, and use a VPN connection
> across
>> that, for security, the speed difference may be negligable, I suspect,
>> but
>> haven't tested. There's processor power going into the
>> encryption/decryption at both ends, but if more than enough of that is
>> available, it shouldn't impact speed. I haven't looked up the details of
>> the overhead in individual packets--versus unencrypted traffic. I'm sure
>> there's some.
>>
>> What I meant by slow is that if you are connecting across the Internet,
> many
>> common connection types these days are not equally fast in both
> directions.
>> The "A" in ADSL is for assymetric, meaning that the connection is faster
> in
>> one direction than in the other. The same is true for common cable
>> connections, as I understand it.
>>
>> So--the speed of your connection may be limited by the uplink speed at
>> the
>> site the data is flowing from. Using Remote Desktop, for example, speed
>> issues are almost unnoticable--because of compression and great care
>> bandwidth use. However, when you are using normal networking protocols
> over
>> that same connection and moving large amounts of data--as you may be in
>> doing an initial synch on offline files, the basic link speed is going to
>> limit how fast things go. If you are lucky, and the source is a
>> workplace
>> with a large upload speed to the Internet, this may not be a problem.
>>
>> Many here are accustomed to the speeds that RDP achieves over such
>> connections and are startled when they try an actual file transfer or
> other
>> bulk data movement over the same underlying connection and are bitten by
> the
>> relative speed (or lack thereof!) of the link--so I try to remind folks.
>>
>> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
>> news:416d31ac$0$112$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
>> > Sorry, Bill.
>> >
>> > I've heard of VPN, but didn't know it was slow. Where can I read more
>> > about
>> > this?
>> >
>> > What's SMB?
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Jonathan Finney
>> >
>> > "Bill Sanderson" <Bill_Sanderson@msn.com.plugh.org> wrote in message
>> > news:e7JMGx8rEHA.3728@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> >> Offline files works with any source offering SMB networking--this
>> >> includes
>> >> the 9.x versions of Windows, and, I suspect, Linux implementations of
>> >> SMB.
>> >>
>> >> As Lanwench mentions, it isn't available in XP Home, but that isn't
> what
>> > you
>> >> have at home.
>> >>
>> >> I don't have experience with trying to use this feature in a situation
>> > where
>> >> you are only connecting via a slow VPN link, but you can definitely
>> >> try
>> >> it
>> >> out.
>> >>
>> >> You might want to try both mechanisms--the third-party one and the
> native
>> >> one. I don't have a strong opinion about this--they both look well
>> > designed
>> >> to me, and I haven't had a lot of complaint about the offline files
>> >> feature--I use it mainly with laptop users who grab a machine and take
> it
>> >> off-network for periods of time, though.
>> >>
>> >> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:416a9d4a$0$110$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
>> >> >I have a broadband connection at work and home and I'd like to get
>> >> >access
>> >> >to
>> >> > my data partition at work (3 PCs on a Win2K PTP LAN) from my home PC
>> >> > (running XP Pro).
>> >> >
>> >> > I need to get read/write access to the shared partition where all my
>> > data
>> >> > files are held. I don't mind if I have to have a duplicate set of
> data
>> >> > files at home and sync the files/folders.
>> >> >
>> >> > I understand that XP has a sync folders facility, but suspect that
> both
>> >> > ends
>> >> > need to be running XP for this to work. Is this so?
>> >> >
>> >> > What other options do I have to achieve this?
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> >
>> >> > Jonathan Finney
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
October 15, 2004 8:38:43 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

Thanks again, Bill.

I have read some MS articles on using Offline Files and have also downloaded
and installed the Second Copy trial. The problem with both is that they
assume that you already have access to the other computer and refer to the
different locations a if they were connected via a LAN. This is not the
case and I have no idea how to set this up or where to find help with this.
My ISP was not much help - he was able to show me where to enter the IP
addresses and port numbers to program my Zyxel router, but wasn't able to
tell me what they should be.

Since this is obviously a very common need, I assume I must have been asking
the wrong questions because I have seen nothing that begins to cover the
procedure for setting up the connection in the first place (VPN tunnel?).

Any ideas how I find help on this?

--

Jonathan Finney


"Bill Sanderson" <Bill_Sanderson@msn.com.plugh.org> wrote in message
news:o 7euLcssEHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I've a user who keeps a laptop at home and only brings it to the office to
> synch every few months. She'd like to use a (1 gig) USB key to do the
> synching by carrying that back and forth.
>
> I'm looking at SC for that functionality. I see that some USB key vendors
> have (usually extra cost) apps to do this job that are tied to their
> hardware.
>
> It seems to me that the devil is in the details in this kind of an
app--and
> I don't have a solid enough feeling for how SC works to be unequivocally
> positive. Lanwench does have that level of experience, I believe!
>
> The strength I see in Offline Files is that they've made it simple--very
> little user interface--no complicated sets of options to set, etc.
Because
> the underlying process is, in fact, rather complex, this can lead to some
> issues which are hard to manage--although the number of tools needed are
> quite small--there's a KB article on how to blow away and reestablish the
> cache if there are issues of corruption with it, and there's a Windows
> Server 2003 Resource Kit applet that allows for manual control of several
> crucial details of the cache behavior which is sometimes useful.
>
> I haven't seen the data loss issues directly, but I've only a few users
> using the feature--I have cetainly seen threads here with such issues, but
> don't have a clear fix on what went wrong. For example, the cache files
are
> tied to a serial number for the user in a domain, and if the domain
changes
> (as with a neighbor who changed jobs)--the cache becomes inaccessable. He
> was sure he was OK because he synched carefully before leaving the job,
but,
> in fact, the files were inaccessable. I now suspect this could have been
> fixed with the Resource Kit applet, but I didn't know about that at the
> time, and he was able to get the old job to send him the files. So--there
> are "legitimate" causes for the cache becoming inaccessable, and then
there
> are the other kind--which I haven't followed the feature in enough depth
to
> try to pin down.
>
> I like offline files--it is dead simple to use, and the users find it easy
> to understand. However, if I'd been having data lost issues, I'd go
> elsewhere quickly, or if I needed more flexibility--as with the USB key
> transfer system.
>
>
> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
> news:416ea2a1$0$103$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
> > Thanks for a very comprehensive explanation, Bill.
> >
> > I can see that this could be an issue where large amounts of data had to
> > be
> > transferred, but once the initial copy of several GB of data had been
> > performed, hopefully the relatively small number of files changed within
a
> > day would not present too much of a problem.
> >
> > I'm concerned about the instances of data loss mentioned by Lanwench and
> > have asked her for more details. Have you heard of similar occurrences?
> > If
> > we're talking about the possibility of files at both ends becoming
> > damaged,
> > I'll pay the $30 and go for the SC option. It also sounds like it might
> > be
> > easier to set up and manage with a dedicated application as a front end.
> > Would you agree?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Jonathan Finney
> >
> > "Bill Sanderson" <Bill_Sanderson@msn.com.plugh.org> wrote in message
> > news:eSfvXbTsEHA.2632@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> SMB is Server Message Block, apparently invented by IBM:
> >>
> >> http://www.javvin.com/protocolSMB.html
> >>
> >> It is what any windows networking implementation has used since time
> >> immemorial.
> >>
> >> The current standard is CIFS which is also mentioned in this
definition.
> >>
> >> VPN is not necessarily slow--the speed depends on the infrastructure
you
> > are
> >> connecting across.
> >>
> >> If you have a 100mbps full duplex ethernet, and use a VPN connection
> > across
> >> that, for security, the speed difference may be negligable, I suspect,
> >> but
> >> haven't tested. There's processor power going into the
> >> encryption/decryption at both ends, but if more than enough of that is
> >> available, it shouldn't impact speed. I haven't looked up the details
of
> >> the overhead in individual packets--versus unencrypted traffic. I'm
sure
> >> there's some.
> >>
> >> What I meant by slow is that if you are connecting across the Internet,
> > many
> >> common connection types these days are not equally fast in both
> > directions.
> >> The "A" in ADSL is for assymetric, meaning that the connection is
faster
> > in
> >> one direction than in the other. The same is true for common cable
> >> connections, as I understand it.
> >>
> >> So--the speed of your connection may be limited by the uplink speed at
> >> the
> >> site the data is flowing from. Using Remote Desktop, for example,
speed
> >> issues are almost unnoticable--because of compression and great care
> >> bandwidth use. However, when you are using normal networking protocols
> > over
> >> that same connection and moving large amounts of data--as you may be in

> >> doing an initial synch on offline files, the basic link speed is going
to
> >> limit how fast things go. If you are lucky, and the source is a
> >> workplace
> >> with a large upload speed to the Internet, this may not be a problem.
> >>
> >> Many here are accustomed to the speeds that RDP achieves over such
> >> connections and are startled when they try an actual file transfer or
> > other
> >> bulk data movement over the same underlying connection and are bitten
by
> > the
> >> relative speed (or lack thereof!) of the link--so I try to remind
folks.
> >>
> >> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
> >> news:416d31ac$0$112$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
> >> > Sorry, Bill.
> >> >
> >> > I've heard of VPN, but didn't know it was slow. Where can I read
more
> >> > about
> >> > this?
> >> >
> >> > What's SMB?
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > Jonathan Finney
> >> >
> >> > "Bill Sanderson" <Bill_Sanderson@msn.com.plugh.org> wrote in message
> >> > news:e7JMGx8rEHA.3728@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> >> Offline files works with any source offering SMB networking--this
> >> >> includes
> >> >> the 9.x versions of Windows, and, I suspect, Linux implementations
of
> >> >> SMB.
> >> >>
> >> >> As Lanwench mentions, it isn't available in XP Home, but that isn't
> > what
> >> > you
> >> >> have at home.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't have experience with trying to use this feature in a
situation
> >> > where
> >> >> you are only connecting via a slow VPN link, but you can definitely
> >> >> try
> >> >> it
> >> >> out.
> >> >>
> >> >> You might want to try both mechanisms--the third-party one and the
> > native
> >> >> one. I don't have a strong opinion about this--they both look well
> >> > designed
> >> >> to me, and I haven't had a lot of complaint about the offline files
> >> >> feature--I use it mainly with laptop users who grab a machine and
take
> > it
> >> >> off-network for periods of time, though.
> >> >>
> >> >> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:416a9d4a$0$110$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
> >> >> >I have a broadband connection at work and home and I'd like to get
> >> >> >access
> >> >> >to
> >> >> > my data partition at work (3 PCs on a Win2K PTP LAN) from my home
PC
> >> >> > (running XP Pro).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I need to get read/write access to the shared partition where all
my
> >> > data
> >> >> > files are held. I don't mind if I have to have a duplicate set of
> > data
> >> >> > files at home and sync the files/folders.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I understand that XP has a sync folders facility, but suspect that
> > both
> >> >> > ends
> >> >> > need to be running XP for this to work. Is this so?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What other options do I have to achieve this?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Jonathan Finney
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
October 15, 2004 8:48:49 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

Hi Lanwench.

I downloaded and installed SC, but there's nothing about connecting to a
remote computer, only to network drives, so it assumes I've already got the
connection between the two sites set up.

See my last reply to Bill Sanderson on this topic.

Any suggestions top help set up the connection (VPN?).

--

Jonathan Finney


"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
<lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.atyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o 1KVpIhsEHA.3556@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Jonathan Finney wrote:
> > Thanks again.
> >
> > SC looks good, but I'll check out the Offline Files first. I have
> > been warned!!
> >
> > I'd just like to ask a little more about the instances of 'data loss'
> > you mention. Assuming that there are two copies of my data folder
> > and contents located at two different locations, the majority of
> > files will be that same, the differences existing in those files that
> > had changed since the last sync. Is it correct to say that the
> > instances of data loss were restricted to the files that had changed
> > or was it more serious than that?
> >
> > I could tolerate the temporary inconvenience of not having had a sync
> > performed correctly, but if files had become corrupted at both ends,
> > this could be disastrous!
>
> I've seen several instances of clients working offline on many files all
> weekend on their laptops, coming in, and losing any changes they made,
files
> they created. I wasn't there looking over their shoulders, mind, and note
> that these were also clients syncing large amounts of data - several
server
> folders, multiple subfolders. I really prefer SC, but see what you think.
> Other people love offline files.
>
> The other issue with offline files is that if you have clients who use
VPN,
> they'll still show up as working offline, which is kind of a pain.
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q290523
>
> >
> >
> > "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
> > <lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.atyahoo.com> wrote in
> > message news:eujAG88rEHA.2732@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> Bill Sanderson wrote:
> >>> Offline files works with any source offering SMB networking--this
> >>> includes the 9.x versions of Windows, and, I suspect, Linux
> >>> implementations of SMB.
> >>>
> >>> As Lanwench mentions, it isn't available in XP Home, but that isn't
> >>> what you have at home.
> >>
> >> Whoops - had it backwards. :-)
> >>>
> >>> I don't have experience with trying to use this feature in a
> >>> situation where you are only connecting via a slow VPN link, but you
> >>> can definitely try it out.
> >>>
> >>> You might want to try both mechanisms--the third-party one and the
> >>> native one. I don't have a strong opinion about this--they both
> >>> look well designed to me, and I haven't had a lot of complaint
> >>> about the offline files feature--I use it mainly with laptop users
> >>> who grab a machine and take it off-network for periods of time,
> >>> though.
> >>
> >> I've seen a lot of people lose data, esp.when they've set up many
> >> folders/drives for offline use. YMMV, of course. I don't think I'll
> >> touch offline files again, myself. I'm a SecondCopy girl.
> >>>
> >>> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:416a9d4a$0$110$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
> >>>> I have a broadband connection at work and home and I'd like to get
> >>>> access to
> >>>> my data partition at work (3 PCs on a Win2K PTP LAN) from my home
> >>>> PC (running XP Pro).
> >>>>
> >>>> I need to get read/write access to the shared partition where all
> >>>> my data files are held. I don't mind if I have to have a
> >>>> duplicate set of data files at home and sync the files/folders.
> >>>>
> >>>> I understand that XP has a sync folders facility, but suspect that
> >>>> both ends
> >>>> need to be running XP for this to work. Is this so?
> >>>>
> >>>> What other options do I have to achieve this?
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> Jonathan Finney
>
>
October 15, 2004 10:20:04 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

Jonathan,

The offering of standalone access anywhere is new so I am not sure if
UK office has latest information. Check out the web site
http://www.webex.com/go?accessone
It gives a lot of information. Let me know what kind of information
you need that are not there.

Yes. You can work directory on the remote copy. You can also work on
the local copy and transfer it between your local machine and remote
machine. Actually, what I usually do is do majority of editing on the
local machine, and then transfer it to remote machine and if I have a
last minute edit, I can just edit on the remote machine.

Actually I found one unexpected benefit of editing on the remote
machine. I was in China this summer and I was editing a document using
access anywhere. And suddenly the power went out. I was panic for a
moment. When the power came back on, I log back on to remote computer,
I went back to exactly where I was.

Pretty cool.

Jason

"Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message news:<416ea5b5$0$116$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net>...
> Thanks Jason.
>
> I have contacted their UK office and am awaiting some more information.
>
> I assume in this situation, I'd be working directly with the files on my
> work data folder rather than working on local copies and keeping the two
> folders in sync. Is this correct? I must admit I'd prefer to have the two
> copies as it adds an extra level of safety.
>
> --
>
> Jonathan Finney
>
> "Jason" <jasony@webex.com> wrote in message
> news:ef983b38.0410131013.1418a76e@posting.google.com...
> > Another option is to use remote access software to access file
> > directly via the Web. I used it for my connection from home to work. I
> > can access and even edit files on my work computer. Setting up is
> > pretty straight forward. WebEx ( http://www.webex.com/go?accessone )
> > now is having a promotion to use it free until 2005. You may want to
> > give it a try and if it doesn't meet your needs, you can always
> > cancel.
> >
> > Just another option to setting up VPN and doing file sync.
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
> news:<416a9d4a$0$110$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net>...
> > > I have a broadband connection at work and home and I'd like to get
> access to
> > > my data partition at work (3 PCs on a Win2K PTP LAN) from my home PC
> > > (running XP Pro).
> > >
> > > I need to get read/write access to the shared partition where all my
> data
> > > files are held. I don't mind if I have to have a duplicate set of data
> > > files at home and sync the files/folders.
> > >
> > > I understand that XP has a sync folders facility, but suspect that both
> ends
> > > need to be running XP for this to work. Is this so?
> > >
> > > What other options do I have to achieve this?
Anonymous
October 15, 2004 11:34:54 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

Jonathan Finney wrote:
> Hi Lanwench.
>
> I downloaded and installed SC, but there's nothing about connecting
> to a remote computer, only to network drives, so it assumes I've
> already got the connection between the two sites set up.

You can use a UNC path.... you would have to have something setup to connect
such as VPN even for offline file syncing. Or sync while on the LAN and work
on the local copies, then sync again.
>
> See my last reply to Bill Sanderson on this topic.
>
> Any suggestions top help set up the connection (VPN?).


>
>
> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
> <lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.atyahoo.com> wrote in
> message news:o 1KVpIhsEHA.3556@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Jonathan Finney wrote:
>>> Thanks again.
>>>
>>> SC looks good, but I'll check out the Offline Files first. I have
>>> been warned!!
>>>
>>> I'd just like to ask a little more about the instances of 'data
>>> loss' you mention. Assuming that there are two copies of my data
>>> folder and contents located at two different locations, the
>>> majority of files will be that same, the differences existing in
>>> those files that had changed since the last sync. Is it correct to
>>> say that the instances of data loss were restricted to the files
>>> that had changed or was it more serious than that?
>>>
>>> I could tolerate the temporary inconvenience of not having had a
>>> sync performed correctly, but if files had become corrupted at both
>>> ends, this could be disastrous!
>>
>> I've seen several instances of clients working offline on many files
>> all weekend on their laptops, coming in, and losing any changes they
>> made, files they created. I wasn't there looking over their
>> shoulders, mind, and note that these were also clients syncing large
>> amounts of data - several server folders, multiple subfolders. I
>> really prefer SC, but see what you think. Other people love offline
>> files.
>>
>> The other issue with offline files is that if you have clients who
>> use VPN, they'll still show up as working offline, which is kind of
>> a pain.
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q290523
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
>>> <lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.atyahoo.com> wrote in
>>> message news:eujAG88rEHA.2732@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>> Bill Sanderson wrote:
>>>>> Offline files works with any source offering SMB networking--this
>>>>> includes the 9.x versions of Windows, and, I suspect, Linux
>>>>> implementations of SMB.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Lanwench mentions, it isn't available in XP Home, but that
>>>>> isn't what you have at home.
>>>>
>>>> Whoops - had it backwards. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have experience with trying to use this feature in a
>>>>> situation where you are only connecting via a slow VPN link, but
>>>>> you can definitely try it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> You might want to try both mechanisms--the third-party one and the
>>>>> native one. I don't have a strong opinion about this--they both
>>>>> look well designed to me, and I haven't had a lot of complaint
>>>>> about the offline files feature--I use it mainly with laptop users
>>>>> who grab a machine and take it off-network for periods of time,
>>>>> though.
>>>>
>>>> I've seen a lot of people lose data, esp.when they've set up many
>>>> folders/drives for offline use. YMMV, of course. I don't think I'll
>>>> touch offline files again, myself. I'm a SecondCopy girl.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:416a9d4a$0$110$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
>>>>>> I have a broadband connection at work and home and I'd like to
>>>>>> get access to
>>>>>> my data partition at work (3 PCs on a Win2K PTP LAN) from my home
>>>>>> PC (running XP Pro).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I need to get read/write access to the shared partition where all
>>>>>> my data files are held. I don't mind if I have to have a
>>>>>> duplicate set of data files at home and sync the files/folders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand that XP has a sync folders facility, but suspect
>>>>>> that both ends
>>>>>> need to be running XP for this to work. Is this so?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What other options do I have to achieve this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonathan Finney
Anonymous
October 16, 2004 12:45:15 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

Hmm - let's start over--can you describe the basic thing you are planning to
do from scratch?

My vision so far is that you have a workgroup of two phyically separated (by
the Internet) machines on which you wish to keep a set of files in synch for
some purpose.

These machines don't travel, they'll never be on a direct high-speed
connection with each other--the "network" will be a VPN connection between
them?

Am I close?
(and I'm not sure I know the answer, although I could try it as an
experiment and see how it works.)

"Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
news:416fef02$0$109$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
> Thanks again, Bill.
>
> I have read some MS articles on using Offline Files and have also
> downloaded
> and installed the Second Copy trial. The problem with both is that they
> assume that you already have access to the other computer and refer to the
> different locations a if they were connected via a LAN. This is not the
> case and I have no idea how to set this up or where to find help with
> this.
> My ISP was not much help - he was able to show me where to enter the IP
> addresses and port numbers to program my Zyxel router, but wasn't able to
> tell me what they should be.
>
> Since this is obviously a very common need, I assume I must have been
> asking
> the wrong questions because I have seen nothing that begins to cover the
> procedure for setting up the connection in the first place (VPN tunnel?).
>
> Any ideas how I find help on this?
>
> --
>
> Jonathan Finney
>
>
> "Bill Sanderson" <Bill_Sanderson@msn.com.plugh.org> wrote in message
> news:o 7euLcssEHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> I've a user who keeps a laptop at home and only brings it to the office
>> to
>> synch every few months. She'd like to use a (1 gig) USB key to do the
>> synching by carrying that back and forth.
>>
>> I'm looking at SC for that functionality. I see that some USB key
>> vendors
>> have (usually extra cost) apps to do this job that are tied to their
>> hardware.
>>
>> It seems to me that the devil is in the details in this kind of an
> app--and
>> I don't have a solid enough feeling for how SC works to be unequivocally
>> positive. Lanwench does have that level of experience, I believe!
>>
>> The strength I see in Offline Files is that they've made it simple--very
>> little user interface--no complicated sets of options to set, etc.
> Because
>> the underlying process is, in fact, rather complex, this can lead to some
>> issues which are hard to manage--although the number of tools needed are
>> quite small--there's a KB article on how to blow away and reestablish the
>> cache if there are issues of corruption with it, and there's a Windows
>> Server 2003 Resource Kit applet that allows for manual control of several
>> crucial details of the cache behavior which is sometimes useful.
>>
>> I haven't seen the data loss issues directly, but I've only a few users
>> using the feature--I have cetainly seen threads here with such issues,
>> but
>> don't have a clear fix on what went wrong. For example, the cache files
> are
>> tied to a serial number for the user in a domain, and if the domain
> changes
>> (as with a neighbor who changed jobs)--the cache becomes inaccessable.
>> He
>> was sure he was OK because he synched carefully before leaving the job,
> but,
>> in fact, the files were inaccessable. I now suspect this could have been
>> fixed with the Resource Kit applet, but I didn't know about that at the
>> time, and he was able to get the old job to send him the files.
>> So--there
>> are "legitimate" causes for the cache becoming inaccessable, and then
> there
>> are the other kind--which I haven't followed the feature in enough depth
> to
>> try to pin down.
>>
>> I like offline files--it is dead simple to use, and the users find it
>> easy
>> to understand. However, if I'd been having data lost issues, I'd go
>> elsewhere quickly, or if I needed more flexibility--as with the USB key
>> transfer system.
>>
>>
>> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
>> news:416ea2a1$0$103$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
>> > Thanks for a very comprehensive explanation, Bill.
>> >
>> > I can see that this could be an issue where large amounts of data had
>> > to
>> > be
>> > transferred, but once the initial copy of several GB of data had been
>> > performed, hopefully the relatively small number of files changed
>> > within
> a
>> > day would not present too much of a problem.
>> >
>> > I'm concerned about the instances of data loss mentioned by Lanwench
>> > and
>> > have asked her for more details. Have you heard of similar
>> > occurrences?
>> > If
>> > we're talking about the possibility of files at both ends becoming
>> > damaged,
>> > I'll pay the $30 and go for the SC option. It also sounds like it
>> > might
>> > be
>> > easier to set up and manage with a dedicated application as a front
>> > end.
>> > Would you agree?
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Jonathan Finney
>> >
>> > "Bill Sanderson" <Bill_Sanderson@msn.com.plugh.org> wrote in message
>> > news:eSfvXbTsEHA.2632@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> >> SMB is Server Message Block, apparently invented by IBM:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.javvin.com/protocolSMB.html
>> >>
>> >> It is what any windows networking implementation has used since time
>> >> immemorial.
>> >>
>> >> The current standard is CIFS which is also mentioned in this
> definition.
>> >>
>> >> VPN is not necessarily slow--the speed depends on the infrastructure
> you
>> > are
>> >> connecting across.
>> >>
>> >> If you have a 100mbps full duplex ethernet, and use a VPN connection
>> > across
>> >> that, for security, the speed difference may be negligable, I suspect,
>> >> but
>> >> haven't tested. There's processor power going into the
>> >> encryption/decryption at both ends, but if more than enough of that is
>> >> available, it shouldn't impact speed. I haven't looked up the details
> of
>> >> the overhead in individual packets--versus unencrypted traffic. I'm
> sure
>> >> there's some.
>> >>
>> >> What I meant by slow is that if you are connecting across the
>> >> Internet,
>> > many
>> >> common connection types these days are not equally fast in both
>> > directions.
>> >> The "A" in ADSL is for assymetric, meaning that the connection is
> faster
>> > in
>> >> one direction than in the other. The same is true for common cable
>> >> connections, as I understand it.
>> >>
>> >> So--the speed of your connection may be limited by the uplink speed at
>> >> the
>> >> site the data is flowing from. Using Remote Desktop, for example,
> speed
>> >> issues are almost unnoticable--because of compression and great care
>> >> bandwidth use. However, when you are using normal networking
>> >> protocols
>> > over
>> >> that same connection and moving large amounts of data--as you may be
>> >> in
>
>> >> doing an initial synch on offline files, the basic link speed is going
> to
>> >> limit how fast things go. If you are lucky, and the source is a
>> >> workplace
>> >> with a large upload speed to the Internet, this may not be a problem.
>> >>
>> >> Many here are accustomed to the speeds that RDP achieves over such
>> >> connections and are startled when they try an actual file transfer or
>> > other
>> >> bulk data movement over the same underlying connection and are bitten
> by
>> > the
>> >> relative speed (or lack thereof!) of the link--so I try to remind
> folks.
>> >>
>> >> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:416d31ac$0$112$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
>> >> > Sorry, Bill.
>> >> >
>> >> > I've heard of VPN, but didn't know it was slow. Where can I read
> more
>> >> > about
>> >> > this?
>> >> >
>> >> > What's SMB?
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> >
>> >> > Jonathan Finney
>> >> >
>> >> > "Bill Sanderson" <Bill_Sanderson@msn.com.plugh.org> wrote in message
>> >> > news:e7JMGx8rEHA.3728@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> >> >> Offline files works with any source offering SMB networking--this
>> >> >> includes
>> >> >> the 9.x versions of Windows, and, I suspect, Linux implementations
> of
>> >> >> SMB.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As Lanwench mentions, it isn't available in XP Home, but that isn't
>> > what
>> >> > you
>> >> >> have at home.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I don't have experience with trying to use this feature in a
> situation
>> >> > where
>> >> >> you are only connecting via a slow VPN link, but you can definitely
>> >> >> try
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> out.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You might want to try both mechanisms--the third-party one and the
>> > native
>> >> >> one. I don't have a strong opinion about this--they both look well
>> >> > designed
>> >> >> to me, and I haven't had a lot of complaint about the offline files
>> >> >> feature--I use it mainly with laptop users who grab a machine and
> take
>> > it
>> >> >> off-network for periods of time, though.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:416a9d4a$0$110$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
>> >> >> >I have a broadband connection at work and home and I'd like to get
>> >> >> >access
>> >> >> >to
>> >> >> > my data partition at work (3 PCs on a Win2K PTP LAN) from my home
> PC
>> >> >> > (running XP Pro).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I need to get read/write access to the shared partition where all
> my
>> >> > data
>> >> >> > files are held. I don't mind if I have to have a duplicate set
>> >> >> > of
>> > data
>> >> >> > files at home and sync the files/folders.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I understand that XP has a sync folders facility, but suspect
>> >> >> > that
>> > both
>> >> >> > ends
>> >> >> > need to be running XP for this to work. Is this so?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What other options do I have to achieve this?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Jonathan Finney
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 10:44:49 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

Spot on, Bill.

My work network is a Win2k peer-to-peer network, so there's no server,
although one machine is not worked on and acts as a server as the 'data'
drive is on this machine and printers etc. are connected to it. It also
remains on all the time to receive faxes.

It's not strictly necessary to have a copy of the data folder on my home
machine, although an extra copy of valuable data is always a good idea. I
could just work on the data files directly, but it could be desirable to
have simultaneous access to the same file and the 'two copies sync' scenario
would avoid problems.

I've posted newsgroups and read help files and MS KB articles it seems like
a common enough need with many features such as Briefcase, Sync Folders,
Offline Folders and programs such as Second Copy all of which will achieve
something like I need, but all take for granted that a connection between
the 2 machines already exists. At this point I get drowned in articles
about VPN tunnels and servers none of which seems to be aimed at the likes
of me.

Thanks for your continued patience and attention. There must be many people
in this position. I hope they can benefit from this.

--

Jonathan Finney

"Bill Sanderson" <Bill_Sanderson@msn.com.plugh.org> wrote in message
news:e1s$plxsEHA.2136@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hmm - let's start over--can you describe the basic thing you are planning
to
> do from scratch?
>
> My vision so far is that you have a workgroup of two phyically separated
(by
> the Internet) machines on which you wish to keep a set of files in synch
for
> some purpose.
>
> These machines don't travel, they'll never be on a direct high-speed
> connection with each other--the "network" will be a VPN connection between
> them?
>
> Am I close?
> (and I'm not sure I know the answer, although I could try it as an
> experiment and see how it works.)
>
> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
> news:416fef02$0$109$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
> > Thanks again, Bill.
> >
> > I have read some MS articles on using Offline Files and have also
> > downloaded
> > and installed the Second Copy trial. The problem with both is that they
> > assume that you already have access to the other computer and refer to
the
> > different locations a if they were connected via a LAN. This is not the
> > case and I have no idea how to set this up or where to find help with
> > this.
> > My ISP was not much help - he was able to show me where to enter the IP
> > addresses and port numbers to program my Zyxel router, but wasn't able
to
> > tell me what they should be.
> >
> > Since this is obviously a very common need, I assume I must have been
> > asking
> > the wrong questions because I have seen nothing that begins to cover the
> > procedure for setting up the connection in the first place (VPN
tunnel?).
> >
> > Any ideas how I find help on this?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Jonathan Finney
> >
> >
> > "Bill Sanderson" <Bill_Sanderson@msn.com.plugh.org> wrote in message
> > news:o 7euLcssEHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> >> I've a user who keeps a laptop at home and only brings it to the office
> >> to
> >> synch every few months. She'd like to use a (1 gig) USB key to do the
> >> synching by carrying that back and forth.
> >>
> >> I'm looking at SC for that functionality. I see that some USB key
> >> vendors
> >> have (usually extra cost) apps to do this job that are tied to their
> >> hardware.
> >>
> >> It seems to me that the devil is in the details in this kind of an
> > app--and
> >> I don't have a solid enough feeling for how SC works to be
unequivocally
> >> positive. Lanwench does have that level of experience, I believe!
> >>
> >> The strength I see in Offline Files is that they've made it
simple--very
> >> little user interface--no complicated sets of options to set, etc.
> > Because
> >> the underlying process is, in fact, rather complex, this can lead to
some
> >> issues which are hard to manage--although the number of tools needed
are
> >> quite small--there's a KB article on how to blow away and reestablish
the
> >> cache if there are issues of corruption with it, and there's a Windows
> >> Server 2003 Resource Kit applet that allows for manual control of
several
> >> crucial details of the cache behavior which is sometimes useful.
> >>
> >> I haven't seen the data loss issues directly, but I've only a few users
> >> using the feature--I have cetainly seen threads here with such issues,
> >> but
> >> don't have a clear fix on what went wrong. For example, the cache
files
> > are
> >> tied to a serial number for the user in a domain, and if the domain
> > changes
> >> (as with a neighbor who changed jobs)--the cache becomes inaccessable.
> >> He
> >> was sure he was OK because he synched carefully before leaving the job,
> > but,
> >> in fact, the files were inaccessable. I now suspect this could have
been
> >> fixed with the Resource Kit applet, but I didn't know about that at the
> >> time, and he was able to get the old job to send him the files.
> >> So--there
> >> are "legitimate" causes for the cache becoming inaccessable, and then
> > there
> >> are the other kind--which I haven't followed the feature in enough
depth
> > to
> >> try to pin down.
> >>
> >> I like offline files--it is dead simple to use, and the users find it
> >> easy
> >> to understand. However, if I'd been having data lost issues, I'd go
> >> elsewhere quickly, or if I needed more flexibility--as with the USB key
> >> transfer system.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
> >> news:416ea2a1$0$103$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
> >> > Thanks for a very comprehensive explanation, Bill.
> >> >
> >> > I can see that this could be an issue where large amounts of data had
> >> > to
> >> > be
> >> > transferred, but once the initial copy of several GB of data had been
> >> > performed, hopefully the relatively small number of files changed
> >> > within
> > a
> >> > day would not present too much of a problem.
> >> >
> >> > I'm concerned about the instances of data loss mentioned by Lanwench
> >> > and
> >> > have asked her for more details. Have you heard of similar
> >> > occurrences?
> >> > If
> >> > we're talking about the possibility of files at both ends becoming
> >> > damaged,
> >> > I'll pay the $30 and go for the SC option. It also sounds like it
> >> > might
> >> > be
> >> > easier to set up and manage with a dedicated application as a front
> >> > end.
> >> > Would you agree?
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > Jonathan Finney
> >> >
> >> > "Bill Sanderson" <Bill_Sanderson@msn.com.plugh.org> wrote in message
> >> > news:eSfvXbTsEHA.2632@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> >> SMB is Server Message Block, apparently invented by IBM:
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.javvin.com/protocolSMB.html
> >> >>
> >> >> It is what any windows networking implementation has used since time
> >> >> immemorial.
> >> >>
> >> >> The current standard is CIFS which is also mentioned in this
> > definition.
> >> >>
> >> >> VPN is not necessarily slow--the speed depends on the infrastructure
> > you
> >> > are
> >> >> connecting across.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you have a 100mbps full duplex ethernet, and use a VPN connection
> >> > across
> >> >> that, for security, the speed difference may be negligable, I
suspect,
> >> >> but
> >> >> haven't tested. There's processor power going into the
> >> >> encryption/decryption at both ends, but if more than enough of that
is
> >> >> available, it shouldn't impact speed. I haven't looked up the
details
> > of
> >> >> the overhead in individual packets--versus unencrypted traffic. I'm
> > sure
> >> >> there's some.
> >> >>
> >> >> What I meant by slow is that if you are connecting across the
> >> >> Internet,
> >> > many
> >> >> common connection types these days are not equally fast in both
> >> > directions.
> >> >> The "A" in ADSL is for assymetric, meaning that the connection is
> > faster
> >> > in
> >> >> one direction than in the other. The same is true for common cable
> >> >> connections, as I understand it.
> >> >>
> >> >> So--the speed of your connection may be limited by the uplink speed
at
> >> >> the
> >> >> site the data is flowing from. Using Remote Desktop, for example,
> > speed
> >> >> issues are almost unnoticable--because of compression and great care
> >> >> bandwidth use. However, when you are using normal networking
> >> >> protocols
> >> > over
> >> >> that same connection and moving large amounts of data--as you may be
> >> >> in
> >
> >> >> doing an initial synch on offline files, the basic link speed is
going
> > to
> >> >> limit how fast things go. If you are lucky, and the source is a
> >> >> workplace
> >> >> with a large upload speed to the Internet, this may not be a
problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> Many here are accustomed to the speeds that RDP achieves over such
> >> >> connections and are startled when they try an actual file transfer
or
> >> > other
> >> >> bulk data movement over the same underlying connection and are
bitten
> > by
> >> > the
> >> >> relative speed (or lack thereof!) of the link--so I try to remind
> > folks.
> >> >>
> >> >> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:416d31ac$0$112$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
> >> >> > Sorry, Bill.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I've heard of VPN, but didn't know it was slow. Where can I read
> > more
> >> >> > about
> >> >> > this?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What's SMB?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Jonathan Finney
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Bill Sanderson" <Bill_Sanderson@msn.com.plugh.org> wrote in
message
> >> >> > news:e7JMGx8rEHA.3728@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> >> >> Offline files works with any source offering SMB networking--this
> >> >> >> includes
> >> >> >> the 9.x versions of Windows, and, I suspect, Linux
implementations
> > of
> >> >> >> SMB.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> As Lanwench mentions, it isn't available in XP Home, but that
isn't
> >> > what
> >> >> > you
> >> >> >> have at home.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I don't have experience with trying to use this feature in a
> > situation
> >> >> > where
> >> >> >> you are only connecting via a slow VPN link, but you can
definitely
> >> >> >> try
> >> >> >> it
> >> >> >> out.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You might want to try both mechanisms--the third-party one and
the
> >> > native
> >> >> >> one. I don't have a strong opinion about this--they both look
well
> >> >> > designed
> >> >> >> to me, and I haven't had a lot of complaint about the offline
files
> >> >> >> feature--I use it mainly with laptop users who grab a machine and
> > take
> >> > it
> >> >> >> off-network for periods of time, though.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:416a9d4a$0$110$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net...
> >> >> >> >I have a broadband connection at work and home and I'd like to
get
> >> >> >> >access
> >> >> >> >to
> >> >> >> > my data partition at work (3 PCs on a Win2K PTP LAN) from my
home
> > PC
> >> >> >> > (running XP Pro).
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I need to get read/write access to the shared partition where
all
> > my
> >> >> > data
> >> >> >> > files are held. I don't mind if I have to have a duplicate set
> >> >> >> > of
> >> > data
> >> >> >> > files at home and sync the files/folders.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I understand that XP has a sync folders facility, but suspect
> >> >> >> > that
> >> > both
> >> >> >> > ends
> >> >> >> > need to be running XP for this to work. Is this so?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > What other options do I have to achieve this?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > --
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Jonathan Finney
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 10:48:03 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

Thanks Jason.

I'm awaiting a call-back from the UK office. It appears that Webex's
services are mostly aimed at conferencing and I expect that their fees will
be too high for this to be economical, but we'll see.

What do you pay for your service? What service is it that you use? Do you
justify the cost for this purpose alone?

--

Jonathan Finney

"Jason" <jasony@webex.com> wrote in message
news:ef983b38.0410151720.38659b3f@posting.google.com...
> Jonathan,
>
> The offering of standalone access anywhere is new so I am not sure if
> UK office has latest information. Check out the web site
> http://www.webex.com/go?accessone
> It gives a lot of information. Let me know what kind of information
> you need that are not there.
>
> Yes. You can work directory on the remote copy. You can also work on
> the local copy and transfer it between your local machine and remote
> machine. Actually, what I usually do is do majority of editing on the
> local machine, and then transfer it to remote machine and if I have a
> last minute edit, I can just edit on the remote machine.
>
> Actually I found one unexpected benefit of editing on the remote
> machine. I was in China this summer and I was editing a document using
> access anywhere. And suddenly the power went out. I was panic for a
> moment. When the power came back on, I log back on to remote computer,
> I went back to exactly where I was.
>
> Pretty cool.
>
> Jason
>
> "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
news:<416ea5b5$0$116$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net>...
> > Thanks Jason.
> >
> > I have contacted their UK office and am awaiting some more information.
> >
> > I assume in this situation, I'd be working directly with the files on my
> > work data folder rather than working on local copies and keeping the two
> > folders in sync. Is this correct? I must admit I'd prefer to have the
two
> > copies as it adds an extra level of safety.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Jonathan Finney
> >
> > "Jason" <jasony@webex.com> wrote in message
> > news:ef983b38.0410131013.1418a76e@posting.google.com...
> > > Another option is to use remote access software to access file
> > > directly via the Web. I used it for my connection from home to work. I
> > > can access and even edit files on my work computer. Setting up is
> > > pretty straight forward. WebEx ( http://www.webex.com/go?accessone )
> > > now is having a promotion to use it free until 2005. You may want to
> > > give it a try and if it doesn't meet your needs, you can always
> > > cancel.
> > >
> > > Just another option to setting up VPN and doing file sync.
> > >
> > > Jason
> > >
> > > "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
> > news:<416a9d4a$0$110$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net>...
> > > > I have a broadband connection at work and home and I'd like to get
> > access to
> > > > my data partition at work (3 PCs on a Win2K PTP LAN) from my home PC
> > > > (running XP Pro).
> > > >
> > > > I need to get read/write access to the shared partition where all my
> > data
> > > > files are held. I don't mind if I have to have a duplicate set of
data
> > > > files at home and sync the files/folders.
> > > >
> > > > I understand that XP has a sync folders facility, but suspect that
both
> > ends
> > > > need to be running XP for this to work. Is this so?
> > > >
> > > > What other options do I have to achieve this?
October 19, 2004 8:03:26 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)

Jonathan,

I don't need to pay to get the service because I work at WebEx.:)  But
you can get it for free until 2005 and after that, it is $9.95/month
if you subscribe for a year. It is a self service, you can check it
out on
http://www.webex.com/go?accessone. Actually this is really useful
because if I accidentally forgot anything on my computer, I can get
it. Kind of having a personal carrier between home and work at all
times.

Also, recently I found that my company blocks certain port and web
site. I actually can use access anywhere to access the blocked address
via my home computer. Pretty cool.:)  And if you have emails archived
on your home computer, you can also access them also.

Whether the costs justifies the benefits various from person to
person. I am paying $40/month to my broadband provider and most of the
time my home computer is idle. With 9.95 more, I make a lot better use
of my $40/month. Yeah, I think it is worth it.

Jason


"Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message news:<417401d5$0$121$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net>...
> Thanks Jason.
>
> I'm awaiting a call-back from the UK office. It appears that Webex's
> services are mostly aimed at conferencing and I expect that their fees will
> be too high for this to be economical, but we'll see.
>
> What do you pay for your service? What service is it that you use? Do you
> justify the cost for this purpose alone?
>
> --
>
> Jonathan Finney
>
> "Jason" <jasony@webex.com> wrote in message
> news:ef983b38.0410151720.38659b3f@posting.google.com...
> > Jonathan,
> >
> > The offering of standalone access anywhere is new so I am not sure if
> > UK office has latest information. Check out the web site
> > http://www.webex.com/go?accessone
> > It gives a lot of information. Let me know what kind of information
> > you need that are not there.
> >
> > Yes. You can work directory on the remote copy. You can also work on
> > the local copy and transfer it between your local machine and remote
> > machine. Actually, what I usually do is do majority of editing on the
> > local machine, and then transfer it to remote machine and if I have a
> > last minute edit, I can just edit on the remote machine.
> >
> > Actually I found one unexpected benefit of editing on the remote
> > machine. I was in China this summer and I was editing a document using
> > access anywhere. And suddenly the power went out. I was panic for a
> > moment. When the power came back on, I log back on to remote computer,
> > I went back to exactly where I was.
> >
> > Pretty cool.
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
> news:<416ea5b5$0$116$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net>...
> > > Thanks Jason.
> > >
> > > I have contacted their UK office and am awaiting some more information.
> > >
> > > I assume in this situation, I'd be working directly with the files on my
> > > work data folder rather than working on local copies and keeping the two
> > > folders in sync. Is this correct? I must admit I'd prefer to have the
> two
> > > copies as it adds an extra level of safety.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Jonathan Finney
> > >
> > > "Jason" <jasony@webex.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ef983b38.0410131013.1418a76e@posting.google.com...
> > > > Another option is to use remote access software to access file
> > > > directly via the Web. I used it for my connection from home to work. I
> > > > can access and even edit files on my work computer. Setting up is
> > > > pretty straight forward. WebEx ( http://www.webex.com/go?accessone )
> > > > now is having a promotion to use it free until 2005. You may want to
> > > > give it a try and if it doesn't meet your needs, you can always
> > > > cancel.
> > > >
> > > > Just another option to setting up VPN and doing file sync.
> > > >
> > > > Jason
> > > >
> > > > "Jonathan Finney" <jon@isotrack.com> wrote in message
> news:<416a9d4a$0$110$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net>...
> > > > > I have a broadband connection at work and home and I'd like to get
> access to
> > > > > my data partition at work (3 PCs on a Win2K PTP LAN) from my home PC
> > > > > (running XP Pro).
> > > > >
> > > > > I need to get read/write access to the shared partition where all my
> data
> > > > > files are held. I don't mind if I have to have a duplicate set of
> data
> > > > > files at home and sync the files/folders.
> > > > >
> > > > > I understand that XP has a sync folders facility, but suspect that
> both
> ends
> > > > > need to be running XP for this to work. Is this so?
> > > > >
> > > > > What other options do I have to achieve this?
!