Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (
More info?)
I think XP does not support the direct control of hardware
that you want, don't know about Server 2003. You may need a
smart modem or some third-party software.
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
"Gary Roach" <jgroach@NOSPAMcogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:eBRehNpjEHA.2652@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| actually i'm using server 2003 - i posted here because it
appears to be the
| same with xp and nobody ever responds on the "server"
groups. i'm using the
| routing and remote access functionality of the OS to
configure demand
| dialing. i've got it to work with a real modem but i don't
really want to
| dial out to an isp. i want to connect to another machine
via a direct cable
| and have it appear as a modem. i have to use a parallel
connection because
| the serial ports on one of my machines don't work properly
under windows
| (i'm told i need a bios upgrade) but the parallel port
does work. it seems
| like the capability i want exists because of the entry
"parallel cable
| between two computers" in the modem list. seems strange
that no "selected
| ports" appear in the list. i've tried this on several
server 2003 and xp
| machines and the result is always the same. however, when
i tried it on one
| of the same machines under 98se, i got the parallel ports
in the list.
|
| "Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote
in message
| news:uSECdrkjEHA.3972@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| > That is true, but there may not be any reason why it
would
| > not work. If the OP would report exactly what software
he
| > needs to use he would get a better answer.
| >
| >
| > --
| > The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
| > But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
| >
| >
| > "GTS" <x> wrote in message
| > news:%23kP7dAkjEHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| > | If the issue were simply connecting the 2 computers
for
| > file transfer,
| > | couldn't agree more. However, the OP said "i have to
have
| > the parallel
| > | connection appear as a modem for some other software
to
| > work." Without
| > | knowing the nature and purpose of that software,
there's
| > no basis to assume
| > | it would work on an Ethernet connection?
| > | --
| > |
| > | "Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm>
wrote
| > in message
| > | news:egE4Q6hjEHA.2764@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| > | > Your connection speed will be very slow, not more
than
| > | > 56,000 bits per second, if you install (if you don't
| > already
| > | > have) two 10/100 NICS you'll have up to 100 MB/sec
on a
| > | > cross-over cable.
| > | >
| > | > Cost of two NICs and a cable, $25-30. Cost of
parallel
| > | > cable and modem $100?
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > --
| > | > The people think the Constitution protects their
rights;
| > | > But government sees it as an obstacle to be
overcome.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram