Network Set Up:
oldsystem - windows ME
newsystem - Vista Ultimate 32bit
connect to comcast via a hub, each is assigned by comcast DHCP its own IP address, and each is thus assigned a different gateway and subnet from each other.
Each has shared resources that should be accessible by the other. At the IP level, they can see/ping each other by hostname, each has the others hostname mapped in hosts and lmhosts. both have defined the same workgroup.
Vista is set to use the old discovery methods if it cant negotiate the new one, and ME has installed DSClient and should be set to use the new methods.
All firewalls are temporarily off to get the system working, and setting vista network to private seems to have no effect. Have also set up vista VPN server and tried to create a tunnel through that, assigning non-internet IPs and mapping the hostname-IP on each, same effect, contact exists at IP level but not level.
I have had success with Hamachi, when the oldsystem ran XP (which was too slow, had to downgrade), but I did have similar issues under XP without Hamachi. I dont want to run Hamachi, because it results in incredibly slow transfer rates (havent examined it but conjecture is because it uses a mediation server which is presumably in china or something).
Before noting how many ppl are having issues connecting vista to XP and 9x, I assumed the culprit was the different subnets assigned by comcast. Since in that scenario, it worked under hamachi, I think it may still be an issue, although in theory VPN should provide the same structure. The only noticeable difference is that I use 192.x address instead of 5.x (if memory serves) address structure hamachi wants.
Of course, Hamachi worked to connect XP to vista. I have no guarantee it will work with ME even if I am forced to try it.
If anyone has any insight or tips on this problem PLEASE reply... I have spent a couple weeks on this problem already, trying it from every angle I can think of. My next plan is to try setting up the VPN again now that I theoretically have the negotiation worked out via DSClient.
oldsystem - windows ME
newsystem - Vista Ultimate 32bit
connect to comcast via a hub, each is assigned by comcast DHCP its own IP address, and each is thus assigned a different gateway and subnet from each other.
Each has shared resources that should be accessible by the other. At the IP level, they can see/ping each other by hostname, each has the others hostname mapped in hosts and lmhosts. both have defined the same workgroup.
Vista is set to use the old discovery methods if it cant negotiate the new one, and ME has installed DSClient and should be set to use the new methods.
All firewalls are temporarily off to get the system working, and setting vista network to private seems to have no effect. Have also set up vista VPN server and tried to create a tunnel through that, assigning non-internet IPs and mapping the hostname-IP on each, same effect, contact exists at IP level but not level.
I have had success with Hamachi, when the oldsystem ran XP (which was too slow, had to downgrade), but I did have similar issues under XP without Hamachi. I dont want to run Hamachi, because it results in incredibly slow transfer rates (havent examined it but conjecture is because it uses a mediation server which is presumably in china or something).
Before noting how many ppl are having issues connecting vista to XP and 9x, I assumed the culprit was the different subnets assigned by comcast. Since in that scenario, it worked under hamachi, I think it may still be an issue, although in theory VPN should provide the same structure. The only noticeable difference is that I use 192.x address instead of 5.x (if memory serves) address structure hamachi wants.
Of course, Hamachi worked to connect XP to vista. I have no guarantee it will work with ME even if I am forced to try it.
If anyone has any insight or tips on this problem PLEASE reply... I have spent a couple weeks on this problem already, trying it from every angle I can think of. My next plan is to try setting up the VPN again now that I theoretically have the negotiation worked out via DSClient.