• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

Using Remote Access within my own house??

M

mm

Flightless Bird
I soon will have two XP computers, one in the basement and the main
one on the second floor.

Would it be possible to use the computer in the basement as the Remote
Access user of the computer upstairs. This would avoid downloading
files to the basment computer when I would really prefer them to be on
the main compuer. It would mean that my outgoing email and news posts
would all be in the same computer, the main one.

I'm running DSL with a cable connection from the router to the main
computer, and a wireless connect to the computer in the basement.

I've never used Remote Access at all before.

Thanks a lot.
 
M

mm

Flightless Bird
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:04:48 -0400, mm <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

>I soon will have two XP computers, one in the basement and the main
>one on the second floor.
>
>Would it be possible to use the computer in the basement as the Remote
>Access user of the computer upstairs.



I guess I'm confused. I don't mean Remote Desktop, which I see now
comes only with XP professional.

Isn't there something, even with XP Home, that lets a repairman access
a computer in another location, as if he were sitting in front of it.

I apologize for my first confusing post.



> This would avoid downloading
>files to the basment computer when I would really prefer them to be on
>the main compuer. It would mean that my outgoing email and news posts
>would all be in the same computer, the main one.
>
>I'm running DSL with a cable connection from the router to the main
>computer, and a wireless connect to the computer in the basement.
>
>I've never used Remote Access at all before.
>
>Thanks a lot.
 
B

BillW50

Flightless Bird
In news:0b0376h5t3haoi96cl043tsfvh46fr4545@4ax.com,
mm typed on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:04:48 -0400:
> I soon will have two XP computers, one in the basement and the main
> one on the second floor.
>
> Would it be possible to use the computer in the basement as the Remote
> Access user of the computer upstairs. This would avoid downloading
> files to the basment computer when I would really prefer them to be on
> the main compuer. It would mean that my outgoing email and news posts
> would all be in the same computer, the main one.
>
> I'm running DSL with a cable connection from the router to the main
> computer, and a wireless connect to the computer in the basement.
>
> I've never used Remote Access at all before.
>
> Thanks a lot.

I haven't actually tried Remote Access before (and I really should try
it). But I have used programs like it and it should be okay except the
video doesn't update really fast. Typing something in Word or something
might be okay, but watching a youtube video is probably out of the
question.

I think a better idea is to sync data between the two computers.
SyncBack will probably work ok (the free version). Syncing outgoing mail
and news posts, ouch! It could be done, but it might be far better to
leave them separate I would think.

Another thing besides the video is slow that worried me a lot was that
the one acting as a server ran the CPU way up. Thus the CPU runs hot.
And I personally don't think this is such a good idea for daily
practice. But frankly, most computers should be able to handle this
fairly well. Although it could cause a problem for some down the line.

I have other ideas and I have lots of computers here and run across this
same problem and I do it far differently than the way you are heading.
But I am also setup to only have one computer running at a time and that
changes everything. So I like to know which direction you are going so I
can help you more.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2
 
B

BillW50

Flightless Bird
In news:972376tlevgr0m37homr501rihh9vnp1u4@4ax.com,
mm typed on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:32:25 -0400:
> I guess I'm confused. I don't mean Remote Desktop, which I see now
> comes only with XP professional.
>
> Isn't there something, even with XP Home, that lets a repairman access
> a computer in another location, as if he were sitting in front of it.
>
> I apologize for my first confusing post.

Yes there are other programs that will work with XP Home. But see my
previous post. As I personally think something totally different is a
better idea myself.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2
 
B

Bob CP

Flightless Bird
On 8/22/2010 4:38 PM, BillW50 wrote:
> In news:972376tlevgr0m37homr501rihh9vnp1u4@4ax.com,
> mm typed on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:32:25 -0400:
>> I guess I'm confused. I don't mean Remote Desktop, which I see now
>> comes only with XP professional.
>>
>> Isn't there something, even with XP Home, that lets a repairman access
>> a computer in another location, as if he were sitting in front of it.
>>
>> I apologize for my first confusing post.
>
> Yes there are other programs that will work with XP Home. But see my
> previous post. As I personally think something totally different is a
> better idea myself.
>
http://lifehacker.com/5080121/five-best-remote-desktop-tools
 
M

mm

Flightless Bird
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 15:36:13 -0500, "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>In news:0b0376h5t3haoi96cl043tsfvh46fr4545@4ax.com,
>mm typed on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:04:48 -0400:
>> I soon will have two XP computers, one in the basement and the main
>> one on the second floor.
>>
>> Would it be possible to use the computer in the basement as the Remote
>> Access user of the computer upstairs. This would avoid downloading
>> files to the basment computer when I would really prefer them to be on
>> the main compuer. It would mean that my outgoing email and news posts
>> would all be in the same computer, the main one.
>>
>> I'm running DSL with a cable connection from the router to the main
>> computer, and a wireless connect to the computer in the basement.
>>
>> I've never used Remote Access at all before.
>>
>> Thanks a lot.
>
>I haven't actually tried Remote Access before (and I really should try
>it). But I have used programs like it and it should be okay except the
>video doesn't update really fast. Typing something in Word or something
>might be okay, but watching a youtube video is probably out of the
>question.

I wouldn't need to do that, because it leaves little or no trace on
the computer anyhow, so I could just watch it in the basement. I
wonder how easy it is to change from Remote to Local and back.

>I think a better idea is to sync data between the two computers.
>SyncBack will probably work ok (the free version).

Can this work so it only syncs in one direction? I'm planning on
starting with two computers that have all the same stuff, but in the
long run, I think I'll have a computer in the basement with very
little on it and I'll be happy to keep it that way. I'll just want new
stuff to the basement computer to be added to main computer.

> Syncing outgoing mail
>and news posts, ouch!

Because the programs store every outgoing mail or post in one big
file?

> It could be done, but it might be far better to
>leave them separate I would think.

The thing is, I often look in my outbox of both email and news to see
what I've said! So I'd like them to all be there. I've solved the
inbox problem by letting only one computer delete emails from the
server.

WRT Usenet. I can dl all the posts in a a group, but in the main
computer, some bodies are retrieved, some posts are still marked
unread, some posts are marked kept or watched, and these are landmarks
for me to find what I want to read. When I'm somewhere else, none of
the posts have been read or marked and they all look alike to me.

>Another thing besides the video is slow that worried me a lot was that
>the one acting as a server ran the CPU way up. Thus the CPU runs hot.
>And I personally don't think this is such a good idea for daily
>practice.

>But frankly, most computers should be able to handle this
>fairly well. Although it could cause a problem for some down the line.
>
>I have other ideas and I have lots of computers here and run across this
>same problem and I do it far differently than the way you are heading.

HOw do you usually do it?

>But I am also setup to only have one computer running at a time and that
>changes everything. So I like to know which direction you are going so I
>can help you more.
 
M

mm

Flightless Bird
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 15:38:20 -0500, "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>In news:972376tlevgr0m37homr501rihh9vnp1u4@4ax.com,
>mm typed on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:32:25 -0400:
>> I guess I'm confused. I don't mean Remote Desktop, which I see now
>> comes only with XP professional.
>>
>> Isn't there something, even with XP Home, that lets a repairman access
>> a computer in another location, as if he were sitting in front of it.
>>
>> I apologize for my first confusing post.
>
>Yes there are other programs that will work with XP Home. But see my
>previous post. As I personally think something totally different is a
>better idea myself.

Thanks for replying.

So this means when I told my ex-girlfriend who also has XP home that I
could log into her computer and help her while she watched what I was
doing, I can't?

I need to get some other software! Two copies even.
 
M

mm

Flightless Bird
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:48:52 -0400, Bob CP <ctcboater@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>On 8/22/2010 4:38 PM, BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:972376tlevgr0m37homr501rihh9vnp1u4@4ax.com,
>> mm typed on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:32:25 -0400:
>>> I guess I'm confused. I don't mean Remote Desktop, which I see now
>>> comes only with XP professional.
>>>
>>> Isn't there something, even with XP Home, that lets a repairman access
>>> a computer in another location, as if he were sitting in front of it.
>>>
>>> I apologize for my first confusing post.
>>
>> Yes there are other programs that will work with XP Home. But see my
>> previous post. As I personally think something totally different is a
>> better idea myself.
>>
>http://lifehacker.com/5080121/five-best-remote-desktop-tools

Thanks. Just what I was referring to.

I'm reading the stuff now.
 
B

BillW50

Flightless Bird
In news:qb3376lq2klntn83a9rn5k0d2245ddr04h@4ax.com,
mm typed on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:00:29 -0400:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 15:36:13 -0500, "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> In news:0b0376h5t3haoi96cl043tsfvh46fr4545@4ax.com,
>> mm typed on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:04:48 -0400:
>>> I soon will have two XP computers, one in the basement and the main
>>> one on the second floor.
>>>
>>> Would it be possible to use the computer in the basement as the
>>> Remote Access user of the computer upstairs. This would avoid
>>> downloading files to the basment computer when I would really
>>> prefer them to be on the main compuer. It would mean that my
>>> outgoing email and news posts would all be in the same computer,
>>> the main one.
>>>
>>> I'm running DSL with a cable connection from the router to the main
>>> computer, and a wireless connect to the computer in the basement.
>>>
>>> I've never used Remote Access at all before.
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot.
>>
>> I haven't actually tried Remote Access before (and I really should
>> try it). But I have used programs like it and it should be okay
>> except the video doesn't update really fast. Typing something in
>> Word or something might be okay, but watching a youtube video is
>> probably out of the question.
>
> I wouldn't need to do that, because it leaves little or no trace on
> the computer anyhow, so I could just watch it in the basement. I
> wonder how easy it is to change from Remote to Local and back.

Oh piece of cake! Remote is in a window and everything else works like
always.

>> I think a better idea is to sync data between the two computers.
>> SyncBack will probably work ok (the free version).
>
> Can this work so it only syncs in one direction? I'm planning on
> starting with two computers that have all the same stuff, but in the
> long run, I think I'll have a computer in the basement with very
> little on it and I'll be happy to keep it that way. I'll just want new
> stuff to the basement computer to be added to main computer.
>
>> Syncing outgoing mail
>> and news posts, ouch!
>
> Because the programs store every outgoing mail or post in one big
> file?

Well it all depends on the program that you are using. And email and
newsgroups are completely different. eMail using multiple computers is
very easy with IMAP (what GMail and AOL uses). POP (or POP3) is totally
different and is trickier. Newsgroups is something else entirely, but
much like POP(3).

>> It could be done, but it might be far better to
>> leave them separate I would think.
>
> The thing is, I often look in my outbox of both email and news to see
> what I've said! So I'd like them to all be there. I've solved the
> inbox problem by letting only one computer delete emails from the
> server.
>
> WRT Usenet. I can dl all the posts in a a group, but in the main
> computer, some bodies are retrieved, some posts are still marked
> unread, some posts are marked kept or watched, and these are landmarks
> for me to find what I want to read. When I'm somewhere else, none of
> the posts have been read or marked and they all look alike to me.

I understand. A portable version of a newsgroup reader is the way to go
here. You could keep this on one computer and just network the drive to
the other. Or use a flash drive or something which is usually somewhat
faster.

>> Another thing besides the video is slow that worried me a lot was
>> that the one acting as a server ran the CPU way up. Thus the CPU
>> runs hot. And I personally don't think this is such a good idea for
>> daily practice.
>
>> But frankly, most computers should be able to handle this
>> fairly well. Although it could cause a problem for some down the
>> line.
>>
>> I have other ideas and I have lots of computers here and run across
>> this same problem and I do it far differently than the way you are
>> heading.
>
> HOw do you usually do it?

I only usually have one computer at a time and use IMAP for email and
read and flags and such are automatically synced. Newsgroups can't work
this way without more effort. So I don't bother. But it can be done
nonetheless. Using portable versions is probably better in your case
either on a flash drive or networking the other computer instead of
using remote access.

>> But I am also setup to only have one computer running at a time and
>> that changes everything. So I like to know which direction you are
>> going so I can help you more.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2
 
B

BillW50

Flightless Bird
In news:jv3376pc04ghartbcq14scnao096f8ljk7@4ax.com,
mm typed on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:02:08 -0400:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 15:38:20 -0500, "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> In news:972376tlevgr0m37homr501rihh9vnp1u4@4ax.com,
>> mm typed on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 16:32:25 -0400:
>>> I guess I'm confused. I don't mean Remote Desktop, which I see now
>>> comes only with XP professional.
>>>
>>> Isn't there something, even with XP Home, that lets a repairman
>>> access a computer in another location, as if he were sitting in
>>> front of it.
>>>
>>> I apologize for my first confusing post.
>>
>> Yes there are other programs that will work with XP Home. But see my
>> previous post. As I personally think something totally different is a
>> better idea myself.
>
> Thanks for replying.
>
> So this means when I told my ex-girlfriend who also has XP home that I
> could log into her computer and help her while she watched what I was
> doing, I can't?
>
> I need to get some other software! Two copies even.

The short answer is yes.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2
 
M

mm

Flightless Bird
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:15:30 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>
wrote:

>Per mm:
>>Isn't there something, even with XP Home, that lets a repairman access
>>a computer in another location, as if he were sitting in front of it.
>
>Dunno from XP Home - I've got Pro - but I do not see any reason
>why TeamViewer wouldn't work for you. They even have a version
>that works on an iTouch/iPhone/iPad.
>
>The price is right - free... so it's worth a try.
>
>I used to use Remote Desktop and VPN, but TeamViewer has won me
>over bco it's near-instantaneous connection. You doubleclick on
>a PC in it's list and "Bam!"... you're looking at it's desktop.

That's quite an endorsement. I'll try it, when I get that second XP
computer working, soon I hope. Thanks

BTW, I might possibly forget your name, but I don't forget your
parentheses.
 
M

mm

Flightless Bird
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:15:49 -0500, "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>
>>
>> HOw do you usually do it?
>
>I only usually have one computer at a time and use IMAP for email and
>read and flags and such are automatically synced. Newsgroups can't work
>this way without more effort. So I don't bother. But it can be done
>nonetheless. Using portable versions is probably better in your case
>either on a flash drive or networking the other computer instead of
>using remote access.

Thanks again. I've been trying, off and on for a year, to network my
main computer and the win2000 in the basement. It should have worked
long ago, but that's a problem for another time.

For quite a while I couldn't even connect to DSL in the basement, not
with a CAT-5 cable or wireless, but that started working for some
reason and still does.

So this is one more reason to get my networking working, and after the
new computer is working, I'll work on that.

Remote Desktop still sounds worthhile also. My ex-gf calls me with a
problem and we go around in circles sometimes because she can't find
what I'm talking about or doesn't tell me what's on her screen. But
she does a lot of favors for me too.
 
O

Olórin

Flightless Bird
"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:0b0376h5t3haoi96cl043tsfvh46fr4545@4ax.com...
>I soon will have two XP computers, one in the basement and the main
> one on the second floor.
>
> Would it be possible to use the computer in the basement as the Remote
> Access user of the computer upstairs. This would avoid downloading
> files to the basment computer when I would really prefer them to be on
> the main compuer.

<snip>

After a skim through the thread, I'm not sure anyone's picked up on this
bit. But as far as files being on the "wrong" computer goes, it's quicker to
just move them from one to the other across your network, no need for Remote
Access to be involved. Although it's not clear (at least to me) why these
files can't just be downloaded on to the "main" computer in the first
place...
 
M

mm

Flightless Bird
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 05:21:52 -0700 (PDT), "apistomaster(nospam)"
<apistomaster@clearwire.net> wrote:

>On Aug 22, 7:33 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:15:49 -0500, "BillW50" <Bill...@aol.kom> wrote:
>>
>> >> HOw do you usually do it?
>>
>> >I only usually have one computer at a time and use IMAP for email and
>> >read and flags and such are automatically synced. Newsgroups can't work
>> >this way without more effort. So I don't bother. But it can be done
>> >nonetheless. Using portable versions is probably better in your case
>> >either on a flash drive or networking the other computer instead of
>> >using remote access.
>>
>> Thanks again.   I've been trying, off and on for a year, to network my
>> main computer and the win2000 in the basement. It should have worked
>> long ago, but that's a problem for another time.  
>>
>> For quite a while I couldn't even connect to DSL in the basement, not
>> with a CAT-5 cable or wireless, but that started working for some
>> reason and still does.
>>
>> So this is one more reason to get my networking working, and after the
>> new computer is working, I'll work on that.
>>
>> Remote Desktop still sounds worthhile also.  My ex-gf calls me with a
>> problem and we go around in circles sometimes because she can't find
>> what I'm talking about or doesn't tell me what's on her screen.    But
>> she does a lot of favors for me too.
>
>Remote assistance is built into XP Home Edition.

Thanks a lot. That's what I thought but somewhere along the line, the
webpages convinced me otherwise. I used the wrong search terms,
remote access, and then got hits about Remote Desktop. I don't think
anything pointed me to Remote Assistance. The difference between a
computer and a human mind.

Didn't MS put this in to make it easier for them to do warranty work?
So they wouldn't have to stay on the phone forever when they could use
this to look at the problem? That's what I figured, and if I am
right, it's not in MS's interest to retrict it to the pro edition.

>For in home, 1 or more computers on a network can be part of a home
>work group.
>I use a wireless router for 1 XP Home and 2 Win 7 Home premium, I can
>look at any other networked computer including the external HD from
>any other laptop on the network. I believe I can drag and drop files
>from one to another machine. All three machines share one wireless
>printer.

That's one reason I wanted a network. I wanted to use a wired, or
eventually wireless, printer in the basement. No more room on the
desk upstairs.
 
P

Paul

Flightless Bird
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per Olórin:
>> After a skim through the thread, I'm not sure anyone's picked up on this
>> bit. But as far as files being on the "wrong" computer goes, it's quicker to
>> just move them from one to the other across your network, no need for Remote
>> Access to be involved. Although it's not clear (at least to me) why these
>> files can't just be downloaded on to the "main" computer in the first
>> place...
>
> I had the same reaction: he could choose one of his PCs as the
> place where all data is stored and just save everything there.
>
> I do this using a PC that is not used for anything else - and
> which runs a special OS.... but the concept is the same.
>
> Only hitch is that if that main PC is turned off, other PCs
> cannot get to the data.
>
> Running that main PC 24-7 isn't what I would call cheap: (175
> watts * 24 hrs * 30 days/1000) * .18/kWhr ==> about $23/month....
> maybe 1/4 or so less if you figure that PC would be on a certain
> number of hours anyhow.
>
> Also, it could be reduced by scheduling a Windows Scheduler task
> to shut it down at a certain time and setting the BIOS to boot it
> up at a certain time - reducing it's operation to some range of
> hours - which is where I am about to try to go with my setup.

One of these might be a way to save power, as a solution
instead of a whole PC. This is a bit faster than an
NDAS I compared it to.

Synology Disk Station DS110j (NAS without disk installed) $150
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=22-108-042

Win 7 64-bit SMB GigE client: 54 MB/s reads, 31 MB/s writes,
19w idle

It has a fan on the back for cooling.

http://images17.newegg.com/is/image/newegg/22-108-042-Z04?$S640W$

Hardware setup manual.

http://download.synology.com/download/ds/QIG/x10-series/1bay/Syno_QIG_1bay_enu.pdf

HTH,
Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top