Copy files over temporary LAN between Intra-HomeGroup PCs

[milindsmart]

I have a Desktop and a Laptop, both wirelessly connected to a router, and part of a HomeGroup. Sharing over HomeGroup works like a breeze. Occasionally I need to copy something large between the 2, so I connect an Ethernet cable.

To actually transfer the files, currently I have to :

1. disconnect wifi from both, else step 3 won't work
2. assign 192.0.0.0/24 addresses to each of them, setting no gateway
3. try to browse the network, upon which I can force the conversion of network type to private
4. upon which I might still have to manually type in the IP address in UNC format (\\192.168.1.3\)
5. I have to authenticate as my user account on the other machine
6. Then I have to share the required folders... Sometimes "pulling" the files doesn't work, upon which I have to assign write permissions onto a folder on the destination computer and "push" the files. Ugliest thing I have encountered.

I hate this process with a passion, because I have to do it every time. I have no clue how or why Windows decides a particular network to be "Identified" or "Unidentified". I would like some way of forcing Windows to treat all PC-to-PC connections as private (this arrangement is obviously VERY private, about as private as it gets), so that sharing is enabled, and so that it is recognized as a part of the HomeGroup, and then if I change the order of preference to Ethernet > WiFi, I should be able to have it automatically transfer over WiFi+Ethernet, just WiFi, or just Ethernet depending on which link is up....

One can dream But still, any improvement over this process will be welcome.

 

[milindsmart]

While I am at it, I would love to use IPv6 for this... But that's a bonus, and I'm sure I can adapt whatever solution is eventually found.

 

[broe23]

You do it just like you always have. Find the Network share on the other computer, connect to it, then drag and drop. Homegroup is just a idea from Microsoft that has never worked correct from day one. It is only for secured Library sharing, between those you only want access to those libraries.

Basically Homegroup was made in an attempt to dummyproof their OS, which in turned failed miserably. That is why Network sharing is still the preferred way of connecting between computers on a network.

 

[milindsmart]

I would have to disagree about HomeGroups, because that's the only reason currently sharing actually works reasonably reliably. Otherwise it was a pain to debug why it was not connecting, and when it did, it never seemed to remember the login credentials.... But maybe that was vista..

Nevertheless, neither home group nor "normal" sharing is possible when I'm on a direct lan connection between the 2 computers because each only gets a link local IP address. So it's unidentified, so it's public, and hence no network discovery.... Finding out which IP address was assigned and then doing it manually is far too much work to be replicated each time.... I want some way for windows to remember the network, to start with.

 

[broe23]

You need a Router first thing. Using ICS to take the place of a router is always going to fail. You can disagree all you want about Home Group. But it was never intended to be used in this kind of setup.

First you need to get a router. Second you need to not use Homegroup and use conventional Network sharing.

 

[strollin]

Since you already have a router, it seems it would work better if you would use 2 ethernet cables and connect each machine to the router. I regularly connect an ethernet cable to one of my machines that normally connects via wifi and don't need to make any changes. I would think that it would work just as easily connecting 2 machines.

 

[broe23]

Since you already have a router, it seems it would work better if you would use 2 ethernet cables and connect each machine to the router. I regularly connect an ethernet cable to one of my machines that normally connects via wifi and don't need to make any changes. I would think that it would work just as easily connecting 2 machines.

I do not even think that will solve their problem. There is more to this story why one way works, and one doesn't when connecting to the router.

Sounds like they are trying to do something that is not normally done.

 

[milindsmart]

My desktop is far away from the router, which is why I put a wireless card in, and that's why it connects through WiFi to the router. Dragging a cable all around the house is a pain, though I'd prefer it. It's not near to the router, so signal is 3/5 Max, usually 2. That's why I want to use a cable to speed up transfers... I don't have a gigabit router, but both NICs are gigabit. 100Mbps is just not enough.

 

[strollin]

I'd be tempted to use "sneaker net" for those times when you need to copy large files. Attach an external USB drive to source computer, copy the file(s), carry the drive and plug it in to the target computer, copy file(s) to target. Not the most high tech method but it will get the job done.

 

[milindsmart]

Unfortunately I don't have a large portable drive. I do have an external powered drive, more accurately called "semi-portable", which only has eSATA and USB 2.0 interfaces... I use eSATA with my desktop, but don't have that port on my laptop, so I have to USB 2.0. It's slow, much less than the theoretical limit, and keeps getting slower as the copy operation proceeds.

In fact, your method makes more sense now than I thought, and will resort to it when needed, thanks. Still, a faster method would be better.

 

[Clintlgm]

I would have to disagree about HomeGroups, because that's the only reason currently sharing actually works reasonably reliably. Otherwise it was a pain to debug why it was not connecting, and when it did, it never seemed to remember the login credentials.... But maybe that was vista..

Nevertheless, neither home group nor "normal" sharing is possible when I'm on a direct lan connection between the 2 computers because each only gets a link local IP address. So it's unidentified, so it's public, and hence no network discovery.... Finding out which IP address was assigned and then doing it manually is far too much work to be replicated each time.... I want some way for windows to remember the network, to start with.

What you need to do is set up a good old Peer to Peer network, "Work Group"with a User set up on both computer that are the same , then set your shares to Authorized Users only. Just Goggle Peer to Peer LAN you'll get tons of information. Home group sucks I never could get it to work. Then I have had a Peer to Peer network since Window 2000 so maybe I just not wanting too. I like having full control over my computers.

Set up your router to assign specific IP address's for each computer on the network.

Even with a gigabyte LAN large file transfers over wireless are going to be slow, but you could use some file syncing program so you wouldn't have to sit there and manual transfer files.

 

[milindsmart]

But how do I get the IP addresses set? There is no router as far as the Ethernet cable goes.... It's a direct connection. How do I get it to take a sane IP address automatically?

And I certainly don't have Gigabyte LAN, more like 150Mbps. I'm talking about 1000BASE-T direct cable (Both my NICs have Auto MDI/MDI-X, so no crossover cable required).

 

[Clintlgm]

But how do I get the IP addresses set? There is no router as far as the Ethernet cable goes.... It's a direct connection. How do I get it to take a sane IP address automatically?

And I certainly don't have Gigabyte LAN, more like 150Mbps. I'm talking about 1000BASE-T direct cable (Both my NICs have Auto MDI/MDI-X, so no crossover cable required).

I'm Sorry I have no idea how to network PC to PC directly with out a router. Back in the old days I used a program call Laplink or something like that I think there are a few program out there that will do this for you.

 

[popeye]

But how do I get the IP addresses set? There is no router as far as the Ethernet cable goes.... It's a direct connection. How do I get it to take a sane IP address automatically?

And I certainly don't have Gigabyte LAN, more like 150Mbps. I'm talking about 1000BASE-T direct cable (Both my NICs have Auto MDI/MDI-X, so no crossover cable required).

This should help: Chip - India's Most Trusted Guide To Gadgets And Technology > Networking At Home > Articles

Bottom part of article talks about setting the IPs.

 

[broe23]

Depending on if you have a Wireless-G or Wireless-N adapter. It is going to transfer at the same rate pretty much as a wired connection. Just keep the computers connected, and either connect them through Ethernet, or just use Wifi. Stop trying to make more difficult, out of something that has been done for decades.

You really will never notice, unless you are one of these clock watcher types, that sit in front of the computer and watch it move data. I can send around 5gb of data in less than 5 minutes from my laptop to my NAS, across my wireless-N 300mb/s network, with the NAS hooked up to my gateway through a 1000mb/s Ethernet connection with no issues.

 

[milindsmart]

This should help: Chip - India's Most Trusted Guide To Gadgets And Technology > Networking At Home > Articles

Bottom part of article talks about setting the IPs.

That is manual setting up of IPs for a connection that is going to be permanent. Mine would be temporary.

Depending on if you have a Wireless-G or Wireless-N adapter. It is going to transfer at the same rate pretty much as a wired connection. Just keep the computers connected, and either connect them through Ethernet, or just use Wifi. Stop trying to make more difficult, out of something that has been done for decades.

You really will never notice, unless you are one of these clock watcher types, that sit in front of the computer and watch it move data. I can send around 5gb of data in less than 5 minutes from my laptop to my NAS, across my wireless-N 300mb/s network, with the NAS hooked up to my gateway through a 1000mb/s Ethernet connection with no issues.

It should not be very different, but in practice I get 50 MBps on GigE, while I get only 5 MBps on WiFi. Due to location, BOTH the devices will have to be quite far from the WiFi router... I have tried it and makes for a long slow and irritating file transfer.

Besides all this, I sometimes am a "clock watcher", or more accurately a progress bar watcher, and I find underutilized communication pathways an irritant. Let's please not go there, debating "Use the convenient option, it's fast enough, unless you're needlessly obsessive".

 

[broe23]

In a lab environment yes. In the real world, no. Suggest not rewriting the book, and just set up the network how you want it. Then do everything that way. Of course you could upgrade to Wireless-ac with the expense for doing so. And then have Gb speeds across wifi.

Remember that individual hardware is where you run into the slowdowns (hard drives, CPU, wifi chipset, router, NAS hardware).

 

[milindsmart]

expensive wireless-ac instead of cheap gigE ethernet cable? no thanks.

In this case my slowdown is definitely due to the network.

 

[broe23]

expensive wireless-ac instead of cheap gigE ethernet cable? no thanks.

In this case my slowdown is definitely due to the network.

Did I state that you had to go right out and get Wireless-ac equipment? No. As for Cheap Ethernet cables. That will cause more problems than it is worth. Using Wireless-n Dual Channel/Dual-Band, will work just fine if you do not want to connect say a laptop or cannot connect a desktop to the switch.

 

[milindsmart]

Broe23, please just take it from me, I want an optimal solution for this, not just settle for what is easily doable. Being long, troublesome, inconvenient in the short term is fine by me, if I can get to a qualitatively better solution. After all, I'm the kind of guy who does Boot Windows 7/8 from GPT on BIOS system : No hybrid MBRs or DUET! - Windows 7 Help Forums because I want to avail the benefits of a new partitioning scheme without having new firmware, despite Microsoft saying that it's not supported.

I don't have a dual-band router, else maybe I'd have taken your advice. I only have Wifi-N 300Mbps. Trust me, that is just not enough.