Connecting PCs and Macs via Infrared Communications? 38
Stuee asks: "Isn't it about time my friend and I could sit opposite each other on the train and share documents or images without having to build a small network?! I mean, what's the point of both systems having infrared, and software to bridge the platform gap, if we can't connect? It's so frustrating that my XP laptop reports that my friend's iBook is in range, but cannot do anything about it, especially when my phone (which was a fraction of the cost of either laptop) and pocket device can communicate with both machines without any problem! If anyone knows of a workaround for this (other than cables), I think there would be a lot of people interested in hearing about it.
Thanks for listening."
Re:Solution (Score:4, Informative)
What this guy really needs is good old AirPort wireless networking. He said his friend has an iBook; any iBook can take an Apple AirPort card (MSRP $99), and they're take about three minutes to install. PCMCIA cards for PC laptops are also available, but I haven't a clue what they cost. Setting up a computer-to-computer network is the easiest thing in Mac OS 9 or OS X. Once established, the Windows machine should be able to sign on, but you never know for sure with those wacky third-party AirPort cards.
Of course, if the laptops in question were capable of this, he probably wouldn't be asking the question. The AirPort answer is just too obvious.
Furthermore, since he's talking about one Mac laptop and one PC laptop, chances are fair that Ethernet isn't an option. (All reasonably modern Mac laptops have Ethernet, but even today a lot of PC laptops don't. Which amazes me, but that's another conversation.)
To Stuee: If both computers do, by luck, have Ethernet, just carry a crossover cable with you. It's easy and lightweight. And you don't have to "build a small network" to use it, unless you count plugging the cable in as building a small network. At most, you'll have to ask the other guy for his IP address-- if you're using FTP or some such. It'll be in the 169.254 subnet. You are using self-assigned IP addressing on these little trips, right? It makes life easy.
And if the Mac laptop is reasonably recent, you don't even need a crossover cable. I forget exactly when it happened, but recent Apple laptops have auto-sensing MDX ports on them, which means you can go computer-to-hub or computer-to-computer with a regular Ethernet cable.
I know the you said you were looking for workarounds "other than cables," but if you can't use AirPort, an Ethernet cable is the way to go.
Re:Solution (Score:1)
Not strictly accurate. It's a device to device wireless technology, and (you guessed it) a computer is a device.
Bluetooth devices have to be paired before they can be used together, and once paired, they can be used at any time without authentication.
Not always. This is controlled in software.
Think of Bluetooth as a computer-to-peripheral technology. Anyplace you'd use a serial cable, or a USB cable, or a parallel cable, you can-- at least in principle-- use Bluetooth.
...or LAN cable...
Re:Solution (Score:1)
Uh... that was a pretty useless remark, skinfitz. Bluetooth is used for communication between devices, yes, but so is every other communication protocol. What matters is what sorts of devices act in each role of the communication. Bluetooth is suited for computer-to-peripheral communication. It's not well-suited to computer-to-computer communication.
I've never seen a headset connected to a cell phone via a LAN cable.
Bluetooth is not meant to replace LAN technologies. It's mean to replace low-data-rate serial communication technologies. Don't try to squeeze it into a different role, particularly when they're a better wireless solution for that role.
Re:Solution (Score:1)
I use Bluetooth every day, so I'm quite familiar with its characteristics. While it may or may not be possible to use it for, as you say, "LAN access," the fact remains that it is not well suited for computer-to-computer communication. AirPort is a good computer-to-computer technology, but a bad wireless peripheral technology. Bluetooth is just the opposite; it's a lousy computer-to-computer technology but a good wireless peripheral technology.
See how you're not being helpful here? One would assume that the submitter, when asking for ideas, was expecting people to think before making suggestions. Your posting about Bluetooth is right up there with, "Use cups and string, d00d!" It might be possible to do it your way, but it would be a bad idea.
Re:Solution (Score:1)
Infrared is simply a high speed serial connection that requires line of sight. Bluetooth is the replacement for that technology (that can also be used for LAN access) and does not require line of sight. If he wants serial comms between two machines physically close to each other then Bluetooth is ideal. Uting Bluetooth will also smooth out the serial comms problems of the possibly incompatible IR protocol stacks between the two OS's. I stand by my original choice.
Re:Solution (Score:2, Insightful)
No, the submitter said he didn't want to have to "build a small network," and that he wanted alternatives "other than cables." Using AirPort and self-assigned IP addresses, you don't have to "build a small network." For that matter, you don't have to "build a small network" if you use a crossover cable, unless you count plugging the cable in.
I stand by my original choice.
You can stand by whatever you like. I've already explained why you're wrong. Just to drive the point home: making two laptops-- one Mac, one Windows-- interoperate in the way you describe, with Bluetooth, is even more difficult than using IR between them. AirPort, on the other hand, is specifically designed to do what the submitter wants to do. Exchanging files over Bluetooth-- with what, XModem?-- is like carving roast beef with a screwdriver.
I'm done with you. If you want the last word here, be my guest.
Re:Solution (Score:1)
Name a colour.
Black
Wrong.
Re:Solution (Score:1)
I just got a laptop a few months ago. I don't remember seeing a single one WITHOUT ethernet in my shopping.
Why would they be using the 169.254 subnet? I thought it would be 192.168 or 172.mumblemumble or 10.x.x.x subnets?
But to get to the original question, I have to agree that ethernet is the way to go. Even if the PC laptop doesn't have a ethernet jack, it's trivial (read: cheap) to get a pc card ethernet adapter. This IR jazz just seems to be a bit of a cluster fuck to show how 733+ this guy and his buddy are.
Re:Solution (Score:2, Interesting)
I hope you're right. A former coworker of mine bought a Compaq about nine months ago-- don't know the model number-- that came without Ethernet. I hope the various PC laptop makers have come to the realization by now that Ethernet is important enough to build in.
Why would they be using the 169.254 subnet? I thought it would be 192.168 or 172.mumblemumble or 10.x.x.x subnets?
If you set your computer to get its IP info from DHCP, and no DHCP server is available, the computer will fall back to a self-assigned IP address. To self-assign, the machine picks a random address in 169.254, sends out a broadcast packet-- ARP, I think-- to see if anybody else on the local segment is using that address, repeats if necessary, and finally assigns the address to itself. All self-assigned addresses are in the 169.254.0.0/16 network. This is covered by an RFC, but I'm too lazy to look up which one.
This is also, incidentally, one of the foundations of Rendezvous. Rendezvous (a.k.a. ZeroConf) adds something called the multicast DNS resolver, which allows computers with self-assigned link-local addresses to refer to each other by name. Computer A sends out a multicast DNS packet asking for the IP address of the computer named "foo.local." Computer B is named "foo.local," so it responds with its own self-assigned IP. Computer A now knows what Computer B's IP address is, so they can communicate.
Until all the world is Rendezvous, you'll need to ask your friend what his IP address is before you can FTP (or whatever) to his machine. But you don't have to worry about assigning IPs to your machines or anything silly like that.
to show how 733+ this guy and his buddy are
Um... no offense, but do you maybe mean "1337"?
Re:Solution (Score:2)
Just goes to show I'm not 1337 enough.
If you set your computer to get its IP info from DHCP, and no DHCP server is available, the computer will fall back to a self-assigned IP address.
Is this part of the RFC, or is it something that the implementers of various dhcp programs implemented? On a few linux boxes I have that get address via dhcp, they don't go for one of those addresses.
I hope the various PC laptop makers have come to the realization by now that Ethernet is important enough to build in.
My mother bought a Jetta last year. Ethernet port. I got one this year, Ethernet port. I looked at several others, all Ethernet ports. Now the really interesting thing is that I was looking at a few laptops the other day, and see that some of them are coming with 802.11b built in, like the TiBooks. The one that caught my eye was an IBM. One thing I noticed is that the smaller manufacturers were more likely to compete on features, whereas the big names competed on... their names.
I'm happy with my choice, but would have been just as happy with an iBook or TiBook (the former with the a smaller screen, the latter much more expensive.)
Re:Solution (Score:1)
I have infrared as well on my laptop, I can sync with my phone, with my clie, with other people's PDA's. I'm with you though. The hardest thing is usually another computer.
Re:Solution (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Solution (Score:1)
Re:Solution (Score:1)
Seems to me like he's asking for a wireless solution, which is what I proposed.
So lets talk about this idiot thing...
Simple technologies are often the best solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Simple technologies are often the best solution (Score:2, Informative)
yes, it's possible..use two terminal programs (Score:5, Informative)
The only trick is that you need to choose IR (or in some cases it says Virtual IR) as the COM port instead of choosing a modem or COM port. Oh yeah, and make sure the two IR ports recognize each other.
don't use IR. (Score:2)
Umm.... (Score:1)
Why not look at getting a wireless ethernet card or two? All of the speed of a standard (albeit "slow") network, none of the cables. It's a relatively cheap workaround that doesn't involve cabling. :-)
Re:Umm.... (Score:2, Informative)
No... you're absolutely right. That brings up a great point. There's never been an IR port an any iBook. Maybe the submitter meant PowerBook instead; many PowerBooks, including the G4, have IR ports on them. (Although I'm not sure why.)
To a non-Mac person, the distinction between an iBook and a PowerBook might not be immediately obvious. Benefit of the doubt applies here, I think.
Hate to say this: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hate to say this: (Score:3, Informative)
RTFA:
Forego IR for .... (Score:2, Offtopic)
As for security
You can easily find PCMCIA wireless cards for under $50
Not to mention that you can get Wicked Distance [frars.org.uk] from 802.11b!!! Yes, this is a special case, but 100 meters is certainly no problem.
While IR is nice and will certainly be used (in other devices) for a long time to come, 802.11b should be your choice for mobile networking. It's worth noting that many companies are already including built-in 802.11b in their notebooks (either standard or as an option).
PPP over IrCOMM, if you're lucky (Score:2, Informative)
The easy one: One of you will have to act as a PPP server.
Harder:
Mac OSX 10.1 doesn't support the IR ports on some powerbooks. http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=10
MS has added some layers that complicate basic IRDA behavior, and implemented their own IrNET network protocol instead of the IrLAN standard. I'm not even sure you can get raw access to the IRCOMM layer that allows you to treat an IR port as an ordinary serial port.
http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/tech/networ
http://www.irda.org/
The real difficulties of "building a small network" are difficulties of software, not hardware.
There is one advantage of stringing a crossover cable across the aisle. You could end up with both laptops flying towards the ankles of the person you trip.
Re:PPP over IrCOMM, if you're lucky (Score:2, Informative)
http://ircomm2k.de/
Throw Linux into that mix as well. (Score:2)
One of the few problems I still have with using Linux as my sole platform for work is IR. I frequently find myself at some client site with a couple of colleagues with a need to move some files around. We all have Thinkpads with IR, and when we were all running Windows it was easy to beam stuff around. But with Linux, I can no longer participate effectively.
Yeah, I know about ircp, but it's quirky, unreliable and *dog* slow (less than dialup speeds) when transferring to a Win2K box. I've read that there's another approach that requires reconfiguring the Win2K side, but that's not really an option, because, usually, if the need is sufficiently urgent that it's worth doing there's no time to futz with things. It has to just work.
OTOH, I can't complain too much, since I didn't pay anything for ircp and I don't care enough to fix it myself, but it sure would be nice if someone else would do it (or if someone would post a reply saying they've done it, or that there's some better tool to use? Please? ;-)
MacLAN (Score:3, Informative)
You should be able to bind Appletalk to the Infrared port on MacLAN.
From there, you assign infrared on the Mac (in OS 9 or X) to be the current Appletalk port, restart file sharing and away you go.
Seriously, though: go for the Airport/Orinoco 802.11 card option. It's one hell of a lot faster and more reliable. You're not gonna be able to do Unreal Tourney or Warcraft matches (very well) over IR because the speed is too low and the latency is too high. You've also got line-of-sight issues. Just try synching a palm over IR and you'll see what I mean. It's freaking SLOW.
I'm also curious how you got an iBook with an IR port.
TiBook, yes. iBook, no for built-in.
Re:MacLAN (Score:1)
There are, if I recall correctly, 5 separate types of machines called "Powerbook G3". They decided to make things slightly better by calling some of them "PowerBook G3 Series" later, but within that grouping there are architectural differences as well (i.e. I'm not just talking about things like CPU speed and/or minor component changes).
This also explains why they have things like "PowerMac G3" vs "PowerMac G3 (Blue and White)".
There are articles on their information base where they ask you to look at the ports you have, etc. etc., to exactly what machine you actually have. Imagine their tech support calls. ("I have a PowerBook G3" "Which one?" "huh? It says PowerBook G3 on the label" "hang on while I transfer you to someone else, because I swore the next time I had to talk someone through which keys they had on their keyboard, I'd quit").
So, basically, there ARE iBooks that have IR ports. Just not the "marble"/"icebook" ones you see on sale now.
A few points you must consider (Score:1)
Cables have their practical problems too, of course (esp. if you're sitting "opposite each other on the train" and don't want either (a) some kid try to use it as a skipping rope or (b) some big guy tripping on the cable and deciding to break your laptops).
And, if you're sitting on the same bench side by side, having the ports on the BACK of the machine doesn't really help either.
Re: cables - all Macs since around 1999 (before, actually, but I'm not sure exactly when; if it's colourful and/or has white on it anywhere it should be safe
That leads on to the next question - what do you mean by "communicate"? File transfer? Network gaming? It's not all the same thing. You bring up the example of your phone, but quite frankly, those are completely different issues. Are you going to transfer a PDF file to your phone? (Assuming it's not a semi-PDA, I'm guessing the answer is no). Some IR links are just file-sharing links, while some links are "full networks". Does a phone that can be used by your laptop as a wireless modem count as "communicating"? That's more a "(purpose-built?) feature" than "communication".
IR is slowly getting retired, I believe, thanks to all the radio-wireless (since IR is "wireless" after all
I think the only real option is 802.11b/a/g.