Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
Anyone know an easy way to transfer a lot of files from an old win 3.1/dos machine to an xp via printer cable, phone cord, etc? thanks
The quickets way is to take the hard disk out of the Win 3.1 machine and temporary install in the XP machine as a slave drive. There is no reason why the XP machine shouldn't be able to read the hard disk and you can can copy them over that way.
Alternatively if the XP machine has an RS323 serial port then connect the two computer via a null modem and transfer them over using Hyper terminal. that is likely to be a bit slow but being Win 3.1 files they are not likely to be huge.
After that things can get a bit complicated.
Stuart
0 
There is also devices like this:
http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?in...
which allow you to simply remove the old hard drive from the Windows 3.1 computer and plug it into your XP machine using a USB port. Very easy to use, and works just fine with USB 1.1 as well.
0
Another option is if both PCs have dial-up modems, just plug a phone cord into the Line-In jacks on both modems, and follow this tutorial using Hyperterminal...
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Transf...
I've actually tried this myself and it worked flawlessly for me. I got 44,000 bps (which transfers to about 5.5 kilobytes per second). It works over twice as fast as a serial cable, which connects at about 19.2 bps.
0
>> It works over twice as fast as a serial cable, which connects at about 19.2 bps. >>
You wouldn't like to think about that again. If you can get 44,000 bps through a modem you have to be able to get at least that much down a serial cable. A serial cable will always be faster than a modem because it is digital all the way, no digital to analogue conversation necessary as in a modem.
The very first modems ever made ran at 300 bps and it had to got down a serial line to do that. 110 bps second is possible down a serial cable using a null modem. The actual speed you get is dependant on the UART chip you have driving the Com port.
Stuart
0
Pyro,
That' precisely the unit I use. Mine's about 2 years old and has never been a problem to use. Quick and easy way to <snoop>check out</snoop> used hdd's and optical drives.
Skip
0
"You wouldn't like to think about that again. If you can get 44,000
bps through a modem you have to be able to get at least that
much down a serial cable. A serial cable will always be faster
than a modem because it is digital all the way, no digital to
analogue conversation necessary as in a modem."I knew someone would try to challenge that, but all I can tell you
is that I have personally noticed that using 2 modems is faster
than a serial cable. I'm just taking it at face value. I've used both
methods and the modem is definitely faster. Windows even said
that I was connected at 44000 bps, while the serial cable
connection was only 19.2 kbps (not bps like I mistakenly said
above), which comes to roughly 19,661 bps. Note that I'm not
basing my assessment on just what Windows says alone, but
mostly on what I've actually seen. There may be a simple reason as to why the serial cable seems slower, such as a setting in Windows that needs to be adjusted, or it may just be that an RJ-11 connection is faster than a serial cable, or that the modem can convert the data faster than the UART chip can, who knows.
0
You think are misinterpreting the information. You cannot put 19.2 kbps down a serial cable, into a MODEM and have it come out the other end at 44 kbps, just physically impossible. To get to the Modem it has to go down the serial cable. Even an internal modem has to go through a Com port.
Windows often got the modem speed wrong. It took the information from the serial driver and it was the serial driver that got it wrong. I have had the situation where Windows is reporting an Internet connection speed of 110 kbs second on dial up. Plainly wrong and plainly reporting the serial speed and not the Modem speed.
Even when using a external modem the data still goes through the UART chip. The only conversion that does is to convert the digital signal from TTL signal levels to RS232 signal levels which is mainly just adjusting voltage levels. By the time it gets to the RJ11 it is an audio signal so the speed of an RJ11 cable is irrelevant. Or Cat3 cable to use its proper name. RJ11 is the plug on either end.
What does matter is the frequency of this signal and the higher the data rate the higher the frequency. That is why dial up speeds are so much slower than DSL. You just cannot get high enough frequencies through the conventional telephone system.
The speed at which the modem can convert the digital signal to an audio signal is what matters. With a serial to serial link this conversation doesn't take place.
Stuart
0
OtheHill...
That particular IDE to USB adapter works on a 80Mb IDE drive I have; haven't tried it on anything earlier.
Rayburn and Stuart...
It's hard to imagine anything slower than a serial connection. I transfered an entire 98se cd via Interlnk/Intersvr and it took about 30 hours. Win95B setup folder sped along only taking just over 5 hours.
I sure regretted not taking the time to build a parallel cable to do those jobs.
Skip
0
Skipcox
I am too lazy to check the standards but at some point in the past hard drives didn't even use DMA. Those drives were predecessors of the current IDE ATA series drives. That is why I thought the adapters wouldn't work. I don't think there is any auto configuration available if you go back far enough. I remember having to manually configure drives up to 540MB.
0
"You cannot put 19.2 kbps down a serial cable, into a MODEM
and have it come out the other end at 44 kbps, just physically
impossible."I never said that was possible. I did say that connecting 2
dial-up modems together with a phone cord is faster to me than
hooking 2 computers together with a serial cable. I thought that you knew that I also mean adding a null modem adapter to the end of the cable. I thought that was the way you were referring to in #1.".....Or Cat3 cable to use its proper name. RJ11 is the plug on
either end."CAT3/RJ11 is the same thing to me.
0
Rayburn
I disagree with you on one point. This forum is here to not only help folks but to educate them. In that respect I see no malice in the kind of correction that was made here.
I don't think anyone was trying to demean or mock you. However, facts are facts.
0
Well there was no need to correct or educate anyone, I know my facts.
Hopefully the OP understands what I was saying. I was just trying to be helpful. As far as I'm concerned, this conversation is over.
0
I meant to add that to send a file via the modems, in HyperTerminal click Call>Send File after you're connected. To see where the file is stored on the XP machine, in HyperTerminal on that machine, go to Call>Receive File and there will be the folder where the received files are stored. You can also change it there if need be.
0  |
 |
 |
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
