Re: [Rpcemu] RPCEmu 0.8.9 and RO 5.19

In message <4145596f52.old_coaster@old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk>
Tony Moore <old_coaster@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 11 Mar 2012, george greenfield <george.greenfield@tiscali.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> In message <526e676439dave@triffid.co.uk>
>> Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> > Version 5.19 on either XP or W7 (32bit) works okay.
>> >
>> > Networking is still the problem, and will be until the time the
>> > method is changed.
>> >
>> > On W7 it's very patchy, sometimes it'll bridge, but quite often not.
>> >
>> > I can't leave the RPCEmu networking bridge active as it messes with
>> > my basic W7 networking...
>
> [snip]
>
>> The issue is with RO 5.19 surely, not RPCEmu? I'm running a W7(64-bit)
>> system using RPCEmu 0.8.9/4.02 and networking is rock solid, settings
>> are retained between reboots of the master PC, and in all ways the
>> RPCEmu system behaves exactly like native hardware.
[detail snipped]
>
> Here, RPCEmu 0.8.9/RO 4.39 and RPCEmu 0.8.9/RO 5.19 run on the same
> Vista host, but not at the same time. Each connects to the same bridge
> (which survives a Vista re-boot). Both versions can access the internet,
> and can share files with the RiscPC, on the same network, using ShareFS.
> I can see no difference between 4.39 and 5.19, in regard to networking.
>
> However, within the last few days, I've discovered a problem with a
> newly acquired copy of LanMan98. I can copy files from the Vista C drive
> to the RiscPC, but not vice-versa (time-out and the file left open). For
> now, I'm assuming that there is some elusive write-permission which
> needs to be set in Vista - and hoping that it is not a symptom of any
> general problem, as described by Dave.
>
> Does anyone know of any compatibility issues relating to RPCEmu and
> LanMan98?
>
LanMan98 works fine on my setup (see snipped post above). I think your
theory re sharing permission in Vista is probably right. I have a
network-shared folder on the PC here, and I found that: (1) enabling
sharing on the Windows side and (2) exact syntax concerning the share
identity was critical (i.e. if LanMan98 thought the folder was being
shared with 'Guest' it was no good selecting 'Everyone' on the Windows
sharing side; 'Guest' had to be created/selected in Windows or the
LanMan98 setup altered to 'Everyone'). Given that, it seems very
reliable here (touches wood).

George
--
george greenfield

_______________________________________________
Rpcemu mailing list
Rpcemu@riscos.info
http://www.riscos.info/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rpcemu