A fellow I know, but never met. He's got two computers.
Desktop running XP, and laptop running Vista. He wants to
copy a couple gb of files, from one to the other.
So far, he's been copying some with a flash drive, and dump
them onto the other computer. It's taking a long time.
Suppose he takes a USB cable, from one computer to the
other. Would each computer show up as another drive, to the
other? Use windows explorer to click and drag and drop? Send
the data through the USB cable.
And what if one of the computers was turned off? Would the
USB cable provide enough power to spin the other drive, and
allow the data transfer?
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:33:41 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
Can't he do other things while it's happening? Like read
YOu can't do it that simply. At best-buy, staples or office-depot,
probalby best buy, maybe all 3, they had a device that is designed for
this. It was only about 20 dollars iirc, maybe 24. It might have had
teh orange geek guy on the label, but maybe not. If you look in the
USB cable area, I think that's where it is. It might have had some
little box in the middle.
When things like this were done with serial cables from one serial
port to the other (very slow, slower than printer ports) a regular
serial cable wouldn't work. A null modem was needed, one in which two
of the wires reversed on their way from one end to the other. (They
cost no more to make than a regular serial cable, but might have been
a little more expensive because there were 100 times as many of the
other ones made. This may not be the same issue USB cables face -- I
don't know -- but at least we hanven't gone backwards.
No, not nearly, and in addition, there is no way it would get from the
USB port back to the power supply and from there to the harddrive to
power the harddrive. Even an exteranl harddrive, or a harddrive case
(used to turn a plain old harddrive into an external harddrive. Under
10 dollars) for which they would love to be able to use it like you
want, requires a wallwart to power it.
We have two desktop PCs and a laptop at home, all connected to a home
network via a router. Configured correctly, any of the three machines has
total access to either of the other two. Transferring files between them
is very fast.
I don't think so. Even if he could, USB connection speed is terribly slow
for that sort of thing.
The better way is to network the two computers. Each PROBABLY has a network
port built in, so it's merely a matter of a cat-5 cable connecting them and
following the steps outlined in the networking wizard.
Of course the instructions are in geekeze, so he'll need the help of a
An alternative, assuming both can access the internet and he has a
high-speed connection, is to use the 8-or-so Gigabyte storage offering of
Google Mail and send the files as attachements from one machine while
retrieving them with the other machine.
Yes, I hadn't though of that or the router (EVen though just tonight
for the first time it occurred to me if I want to have a second
computer, I should network them.
LOL, but true.
Isn't that still slow because the email protocol is slow, including
for attachments. I was always told not to email programs for example,
because they are long, but to ftp them to webspace, and then have the
other guy ftp them back down. File Transfer Protocol. There are free
ftp programs if this comes up a lot. (Sometimes urls use FTP without
you're asking them too, especially those heirarchical libraries I used
to see. Browsers seem to have what they need to handle ftp for the
last 15 years or so. But you still need a separate program to access
private webspace with no webpage or software surrounding it. Like
what your ISP offers you. It's like you can put up bookshelves and a
card catalog, to help people get what they want, or you can just put a
book there with an address named after your book, your file. I don't
do any of this. )
In addition, you remind me, it surprised me to find out there are real
issues in emailing attachments. A friend has a Mac and I would sent
to him two files every week or so, one .rtf and one .htm . Each file
had a standard font and a fairly rare one. It turned out, he coould
read the .rtf pretty well, but not the .htm files. And it turned out
his file length was a few hundred bytes shorter than what I sent him.
I think maybe the missing bytes had held the second font information.
I think maybe some special character in the file was treated as an end
of file marker, but I never found out. The problem seemed to get bad
when I switched from win98SE to XP, even though my email program was
the same, exactly the same, still running from the C: partition
(Because Eudora doesn't really get installed in windows. It just has
to sit there>)
During testing, I decided to try Outlook Express to send the files.
When I sent the same files to him, and the opposite was true. The
.rtf file was bad and the .htm file was good. Even when I sent the
files to ME and read them with Eudora, that was true.
I thought attachments were always exactly what one sent when they got
to the receving end, but it seems to be much more complicated.
Email is a silly idea for lots of reasons:
1. DSL and Cable Internet services will download data pretty
fast but they are VERY slow to upload. It will kill you on
GByte data volumes.
2. As you say the protocols associated with email and attachments
carry a significant overhead.
3. Few mail systems accept very large attachments. Gmail is more
generous that most but the limit is somewhere around 10-15MB.
Much better to network the computers:
1. Point-to-point with a cross-over cable. This is the cheapest
2. In a star network with a relatively inexpensive hub.
3. A full network so that both computers can share your
internet connection as well as each others storage,
and maybe a printer or two.
Option #3 is pretty inexpensive these days and offers so
much utility that it's simply not worth messing around
with options #2 or #3.
You can buy a good quality router/firewall and a bunch of
good quality cable for less than $100 and both computers
can share anything. Just do it.
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
I don't know if it is good quality or not, but OPtimized Cable Company
had Cat5E 100 feet with no-snag covers for 25 dollars, no charge for
shipping, when BestBuys had 50 feet for 38 dollars.
Opt has lots of lengths and lots of colors and doesn't charge much
more for Cat6 either.
I haven't used it yet, to go from the second floor to the basement,
but my needs are small and if it is low-quality, I probably won't be
able to tell.
An architect/homebuilder by the name of Tom Tynon writes a column in
the Houston Chronicle. You could probably find the one of this past
week in which he advocates a "booster" tank to go along with a tanked
(in my college days that meant something else) water heater. The
picture showed what looked like a small tankless unit. Said it
provided instant, constant hot water as it somehow signaled the tank
to heat up more water. ??????
Thanks for the idea. This might work for data too. ....OKay, I
googled "data tank" and they come from 1 quart/1 kilobyte, all the
way up to 40,000 gallons/3 terrabytes. I guess I won't know what
size I need until I've started using the cable.
I saw your second post too. :)
Is he using USB-1 or USB-2.
I have an XP system and I replaced the USB-1 card with a USB-2 card and the
speed of the USB drive is very much faster. I would guess it is close to the
speed of my hard drive.
He doesn't have to know more about your system if he knows more about
USB-2 theoretical maximum bandwidth is 480Mbit/s. In the real world,
counting system overhead, packet information, and the like, the actual
transfer rate is about 25-60MByte/s for USB-2.
Your ordinary SATA hard drive (bandwidth of 3Gbit/s) will move data at
around 300MByte/s - about 50 times faster.
Here's a comparison chart (scroll down):
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.