Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
I have a Toshiba 486 laptop with DOS 6.22, and a Pentium II desktop with a 500MB primary DOS partition with DOS 6.22. The partition in the desktop was obtained via System Commander 2000 v5.0, which keeps the partitions isolated and hidden from each other.
I connected the parallel ports with my printer cable, and followed the directions in all the manuals to do an interlink, to copy the files back and forth between the machines. This includes loading interlink by adding the line
device=C:\DOS\INTERLNK.exe
to the config.sys file.
HOWEVER, when I then boot, the message appears:Microsoft Interlnk v. 1.00 Connection NOT established. Drive letters redirected: 3 (D: through F:). Printer ports redirected: 2 (LPT2: through LPT3:).
According to all the manuals, it should work with the either a serial or parallel cable --- the program supposedly scans all ports for one with a cable of either type connected to another computer.
I've tried various things, including unhiding the partitions in the desktop, and variations on the procedure, which is described in the original manual which came with MS-DOS 6.22, as well as the many other DOS books. I know the cable works, because I use it for printing.
Incindentally, I have no interest in VCOM, but my experience with their System Commander 2000 has so far been good. It seems doubtful(?) that it's the culprit for this problem. I appreciate advice from anyone who seems to have insignt and/or experience with this.
Download LapLink3 for DOS from my web page and run the software on both computers. LapLink will work without regard to partition type and LapLink doesn't load any drivers. If LapLink3 connects, then you'll know that you either have a partition problem or a driver problem using interlink. If LapLink doesn't connect, then I'd suspect your cable or your parallel ports.
0 
No, no.
Interlnk is a lot more practical.
I hope that you have tried all combinations of LPT ports, and that your parallell ports work (in DOS, too, not all do that)
Also, I hope you have understood that INTERSVR must be running on the 'server' all the time."I connected the parallel ports with my printer cable" seems a bit suspicious to me. You cannot connect two parallel ports with a standard printer cable, as only one end would fit into the lpt port. I both ends of your printer cable fits into your lpt port, you have a strange printer. However, that cable will likely not work.
You need a special cable to connect the computers via lpt ports. It has the same connectors at each end (male). The pinout for this cable can be found at this page: http://www.wown.com/j_helmig/dcccable.htm along with serial null-modem cable too. (The page is about DCC for Windows, but it uses the same cables).
0
I agree with Preston. I personally think interlink is a pa.. in the a.... use laplink, and I believe you dont have the corret cable. All of these "link" programs have occasionally given me problems on the parallel port, so start with serial, if possible. You need a "null modem" type cable--"Direct Connect" or "laplink" cable Laplink 3 is very easy to set up. Can send it to you if need be
0
Interlnk isn't that bad (except it has to be loaded in config.sys). It doesn't take up much memory, and it provides easier access to files than Laplink and such does. As long as you don't use Windows, Interlnk works so that you copy files just as if they were on a diskette or another directory, it couldn't be easier.
OK, Interlnk maybe doesn't work for you for some reason, but personnally I haven't ever had any problems, except that it can't do CD-ROMs.
0
Thank you Preston, JR, and delar --- I should try both Interlink and Laplink --- apparently they both do the job. Is Laplink feasible in a non-Windows environment?
As for the Interlink set-up procedure, the MS book that came with DOS 6.22 is a little unclear, but says to load INTERLNK.exe (via config.sys) on the client first and then execute INTERSVR in the server. I tried it both ways.
Thanks JR for the page on cables. What I was trying to use was a parallel cable which I had been running from the laptop to a data switch, which in turn had enabled me to print from either the laptop or the desktop PC. That site makes it appear that the cable I have isn't the specialized one needed --- is it also called a "bi-directional parallel cable"?
I think I'm getting the concept --- ? with one-directional, the conductor arrangements for the two ends are idential when you look at them together head-on, but in the bi-directional type, the conductor arrangements would appear a mirror-image of each other (backwards), and effectively the cable connects pin 1 of the client to pin 1 of the server, etc., right? If this is true, I just now confirmed that mine is not the bi-directional type by simply putting a continuity tester on the pins.
I intuitively feel that parallel ports and cables are generally faster than serial, but am not sure in this case(?)
0
Cant help you with much apart from your last statement!
Serial communications is geting alot better, i dont know of the bauds for printer cables but i know that you can buy 18MB serial cards. which is slightly faster than the old 57k...
0
Yes, your'e right, you cannot do this with your printer cable, though it looks the same, but you have to get (or make) a new one, a bi-directional cable. A standard printer cable is unusable for data transfers between PC's.
Also, parallell data transfer is still faster than serial. The parallell ports are getting as much better as the serial cards, and Interlnk and Laplink still doesn't support serial speeds above 115200 baud, but the transfer over parallell ports are rather limited by the cable and speed of the computer, so you'd stick to parallell. The speed is about 5-fold on my computers.
0
If you want some tech info on how the cable actually works, read this:
the standard PC parallel port is uni-directional, i.e it can actually transfer data only out of the computer, not into. The bidirectional cable therefore doesn't connect the way you figured out, as the pins cannot recieve. The Interlnk cable connects the first 5 data pins to the 5 error pins and vice versa on the computers, so that data that is sent on the first 5 bits, are represented on the 5 error pins. Data must then be sent in parts of 5 bits, hence the cable needs only 11 cables, instead of the 17 you would excpect for 8 x 2 bits and one ground. There are also more modern bidirectional ports, used for scanners and such, that can recieve data too, but Interlnk cannot take advantage of this. (though it will still work the old way)
0  |
 |
 |
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
