Using Remote Access within my own house??

In ,
mm typed on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:00:29 -0400:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 15:36:13 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:

In ,
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

In ,
mm typed on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:00:29 -0400:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 15:36:13 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:

In ,
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

In ,
mm typed on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:02:08 -0400:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 15:38:20 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:

In ,
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

In ,
mm typed on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:02:08 -0400:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 15:38:20 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:

In ,
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

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.
--
PeteCresswell

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:15:30 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
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.

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:15:30 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
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.

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:15:49 -0500, "BillW50" 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.

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:15:49 -0500, "BillW50" 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.

On Aug 22, 7:33*pm, mm wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:15:49 -0500, "BillW50" 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.
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.

"mm" wrote in message
...
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...

"mm" wrote in message
...
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...

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.
--
PeteCresswell

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 05:21:52 -0700 (PDT), "apistomaster(nospam)"
wrote:

On Aug 22, 7:33*pm, mm wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:15:49 -0500, "BillW50" 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.

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 05:21:52 -0700 (PDT), "apistomaster(nospam)"
wrote:

On Aug 22, 7:33*pm, mm wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:15:49 -0500, "BillW50" 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.