XT-clone data exchange

Chuck(G) said:

Maybe, but it's hard to beat the raw speed and convenience of a NIC--and its ability to work with just about any other OS platform.

Click to expand...

Well they both have their pros and cons.

Interlnk/NC/Laplink are generally very quick and easy to setup and use, but they are not very fast and you are limited to a 1:1 connection.

Networking a DOS machine is a bit of a pain in the ass and requires a fair amount of setup and it uses quite a bit of memory (if you go the NetBui route, but even the FTP route is a bit cumbersome. But it is significantly faster than a laplink and it can enable you to get to many different machines and even onto the internet.

So I think neither is truly better than the other, and which one to use entirely depends on your setup, time and personal preference.

lutiana said:

Well they both have their pros and cons.

Interlnk/NC/Laplink are generally very quick and easy to setup and use, but they are not very fast and you are limited to a 1:1 connection.

Networking a DOS machine is a bit of a pain in the ass and requires a fair amount of setup and it uses quite a bit of memory (if you go the NetBui route, but even the FTP route is a bit cumbersome. But it is significantly faster than a laplink and it can enable you to get to many different machines and even onto the internet.

So I think neither is truly better than the other, and which one to use entirely depends on your setup, time and personal preference.

Click to expand...

It's not really about comparing the two; if I understand correctly the 'client' has no way of copying files to the client system and wants to use what he has on hand (which does not include an ethernet card), so at this point it's either an Interlink-type solution or solve the disk drive compatibility problem.

Then he can buy an ethernet card & cable if he wants the speed and flexibility that offers, but to suggest an ethernet solution when he does not even have a way to copy the drivers to the client computer and has said that he doesn't want it sounds like the cart is at the wrong end of the horse...

Let's get some kind of transfer method working first, no?

MikeS said:

Let's get some kind of transfer method working first, no?

Click to expand...

Great point!

lutiana said:

Great point!

Click to expand...

Yeah; one of the reasons I keep bringing up Interlink etc. in these situations is that not everyone realizes that the program can transfer and install itself over the serial cable, so you don't need compatible diskette drives as long as both systems can boot MS-DOS.

MikeS said:

Yeah; one of the reasons I keep bringing up Interlink etc. in these situations is that not everyone realizes that the program can transfer and install itself over the serial cable, so you don't need compatible diskette drives as long as both systems can boot MS-DOS.

Click to expand...

How does one get it to do this?

lutiana said:

How does one get it to do this?

Click to expand...

- Connect the two computers with a 7-wire null-modem cable; use com1 or com2 on the remote.
- On the local computer (which has the files) type INTERSVR /RCOPY and follow the on-screen instructions:
Select the com port you're using on the remote (com1 or com2)
On the remote, set the baud rate: MODE COMx:2400,n,8,1,p
On the remote, type CTTY COMx
(Of course replace x with 1 or 2)

The bootstrap will be copied to the remote system, and it in turn will copy the two Interlink files to the remote.

Add a "DEVICE=\DOS\INTERLNK.EXE" to the client computer's CONFIG.SYS.
Start INTERSVR on the server
Reboot the client.

That's basically it, although there are various options for fine tuning; baud rate, drive restrictions etc; HELP and Google are your friends.

The server will display a table listing the drive assignments, i.e. what each drive on the server is called on the client, and the client can access those drives just like on a regular network. The server is dedicated to serving if you're running DOS but IIRC with WIN < XP it can run as just another task.

Maximum baud rate is 115,200, so speed is not too bad (although an XT may not reach that); don't know how the parallel option compares.

I think I forgot to mention one thing, and this got "no Interlink" little unclear. The machine in question had all the OS files of MS-DOS 5 installed - only core files were missing. And if I remember correctly a) Interlink package came with DOS 6 or later and b) didn't see that files in DOS dir on the XT. Coupled with only 180kB of usable transfer space I figured it's too much trouble.

Isn't Interlink package tied to particular DOS version? Other external commands give "Incorrect DOS version" when used on another OS release.

Arabski said:

I think I forgot to mention one thing, and this got "no Interlink" little unclear. The machine in question had all the OS files of MS-DOS 5 installed - only core files were missing. And if I remember correctly a) Interlink package came with DOS 6 or later and b) didn't see that files in DOS dir on the XT. Coupled with only 180kB of usable transfer space I figured it's too much trouble.

Isn't Interlink package tied to particular DOS version? Other external commands give "Incorrect DOS version" when used on another OS release.

Click to expand...

I don't have a DOS5 system handy so I can't say for sure, but I'm pretty sure that Interlink doesn't care about the DOS version and that I've used it in the distant past with DOS3.3, a Win98 system, and various versions in between, but in any case DOSVER should take care of it.

Sounds like you may still be missing the most important part:

You don't need "transfer space" or diskettes! All you need on the XT is the DOS MODE.COM command (and a running DOS of course), and on the 'server' (also running DOS or a pre-XP Windows) all you need are the two Interlink files (INTERLNK.EXE and INTERSVR.EXE) which you can surely find on the 'net. The two Interlink files are copied to the XT over the cable using Interlink itself.

Why not just try it!

MikeS said:

Umm, not everybody else...

I'm gonna argue again that IMO Interlink is much less hassle than ethernet if you're only doing transfers, especially if you already have the cables, don't have compatible disk drives and therefore can't copy the ethernet drivers and client, etc. Besides, he told us that he wants to use what he has and not buy anything.

Once he has a way to transfer files onto the client system (and has bought a card or adapter) then ethernet becomes a viable option.

Click to expand...

i didn't mean everybody literally, i just mean in reference to everybody who did say ethernet. you've got good points though. interlink is the only real way to go without being able to copy a NIC driver over.

Mike Chambers said:

i didn't mean everybody literally, i just mean in reference to everybody who did say ethernet. you've got good points though. interlink is the only real way to go without being able to copy a NIC driver over.

Click to expand...

You should know me by now; if there's a nit to pick somewhere I'll find it and gleefully jump all over it! ;-)

Sounds like you may still be missing the most important part:

Click to expand...

No no, I know it can install itself over serial link. I just thought it needs particular DOS version to work with. Next time I'll be around my machines I'll try this as well. Unfortunately not in next 2 weeks...

Eeee I was looking for Edit button, but either I'm blind or there isn't any

I have a little update on data xfrer front. I was able to score this:



Still shrinkwrapped. This solves some of issues, but it doesn't mean I'm gonna give up on serial link. As soon as I have results - they will be posted.

Arabski said:

No no, I know it can install itself over serial link. I just thought it needs particular DOS version to work with. Next time I'll be around my machines I'll try this as well. Unfortunately not in next 2 weeks...

Click to expand...

I also thought it would need particular versions, but that turns out to be an assumption. Just now, because I read this, I decided to find out. I put INTERSVR.EXE on a floppy with MS-DOSv3.3. It works! Just like MikeS said it would. No complaints, no nothing, just the way it's supposed to look. I don't have time to do further testing right now, but it would be worth checking MS-DOSv2.0 and a PC-DOS version or two, but it would be good to know.

I use Interlnk/intersvr on a daily basis and I can attest to it being both trivial to use (and install) as well as very fast. If you need more speed than that you'd be transferring whole HDD contents or working in a production environment where more than a second is unacceptable. As for Norton Commander, how big is it? In a typical DOS environment of 360K disk space, it could easily be unacceptably large. Interlnk is 9K in memory and under 17K on the disk. Much larger than that would start to give problems. Also, does NC have a menu or can you just tell it what to do? Someone suggested that it has a menu, so obviously it won't be as easy to use as Interlnk where you just give commands and there's no games to play. :D

Yes! Yes!



Reason for all trouble was something fishy about serial port on other machine. Today I was able to tinker a little bit, and when it turned out that I cannot connect the system in question to VT510 it was obvious.

Thank you all for replies.

Ole Juul said:

As for Norton Commander, how big is it?
Also, does NC have a menu or can you just tell it what to do?

Click to expand...

NC 3 takes up about 185kb on the disk (basic files needed, 810k fully installed) and uses 13k of memory. It is menu driven, but it is as simple as F9 -> Link -> Set some options (COM port and Master/Slave) and hit Link, do the same on the other side and book you are in business. Very simple, certainly on a par with Interlnk, but with the advange of an orthodox file manger as a gui (as opposed to pure DOS commands).

For comparison, NC 5.51 can be weened down to fit on a 360k floppy, but is just under 5mb installed, and it takes up just under 6kb of memory when running, it supports linking via parallel as well as serial, and is just as easy to do as it is in NC3, but as I stated earlier, both machines need to be running the same version of NC for it to work.

lutiana said:

NC 3 takes up about 185kb on the disk (basic files needed, 810k fully installed) and uses 13k of memory. It is menu driven, but it is as simple as F9 -> Link -> Set some options (COM port and Master/Slave) and hit Link, do the same on the other side and book you are in business. Very simple, certainly on a par with Interlnk, but with the advange of an orthodox file manger as a gui (as opposed to pure DOS commands).

For comparison, NC 5.51 can be weened down to fit on a 360k floppy, but is just under 5mb installed, and it takes up just under 6kb of memory when running, it supports linking via parallel as well as serial, and is just as easy to do as it is in NC3, but as I stated earlier, both machines need to be running the same version of NC for it to work.

Click to expand...

Interesting info. So, pretty good on memory usage, but not suitable for floppy only usage.

Ole Juul said:

Interesting info. So, pretty good on memory usage, but not suitable for floppy only usage.

Click to expand...

Well NC 5.51 won't run on anything older than a 286, and as near as I can tell most 286 machines use 1.2 or bigger drives. So if you take the bare essentials for NC 5.51 and cut out the help file it is about 295kb. Very viable for larger disk drives drives, or dual 360k floppies.

lutiana said:

Well NC 5.51 won't run on anything older than a 286, and as near as I can tell most 286 machines use 1.2 or bigger drives. So if you take the bare essentials for NC 5.51 and cut out the help file it is about 295kb. Very viable for larger disk drives drives, or dual 360k floppies.

Click to expand...

I guess I could dig out a copy of NC & install it but quicker to ask: can you run programs on the remote computer as though it were a local disk, or is it just a file manager? ISTR that that was what made the free Interlink special (although serial networks with way more capability were available at the time).

can you run programs on the remote computer as though it were a local disk

Click to expand...

No, you can't. It's just like in Midnight Commander - although no warrning message is given.

MikeS said:

I guess I could dig out a copy of NC & install it but quicker to ask: can you run programs on the remote computer as though it were a local disk, or is it just a file manager? ISTR that that was what made the free Interlink special (although serial networks with way more capability were available at the time).

Click to expand...

Can you do this with Interlnk?

IIRC in NC if you press enter on a exe on a remote system it simply does nothing.