on 7/28/00 8:15 AM, Gowan Fenley at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Actually, this is the latest route suggested by Matt. I am reluctant to take
> such extreme measures as blowing away an entire subnet so far. That sort of
> work would have to be after hours, and this, after all an evaluation of
> Retrospect to see if it warrants purchase.
> The "Macintosh centric" feel of the product has begun to concern me. While I
> certainly have no bias against Apple (we were once an Apple shop before
> moving to NT), I hope Dantz is not struggling with a lack of depth of
> experience with NT/Win2K as compared to other vendors with a more well
> defined Wintel heritage...

Microsoft's response would probably be, "reinstall the operating system,"
and they have the most NT/Win2K experience out there -- they designed that
POS system (and I'm *not* talking about "Point of Sale").

Given the ease that Microsoft leads people down the primrose path to
destruction, by allowing configurations that "work" (kind of) has led to a
very large consultant base supporting Microsoft products.

Given all that, and my previous experience supporting multiple network
devices on a single machine, the result that I found was to remove all
traces of the NIC (not physically, just in the "Network Protocols" panel),
get everything working, then *just* add the protocol(s) that you need for
the second NIC.  If you don't need TCP/IP on the second NIC, then *don't
enable it*.  If you do, and everything is working, then it's possible that
things will continue to work.

Take this advice for what you paid for it -- but that is how I was able to
help a friend in a similar situation (only in his case, he had *3* NICs and
wondered why things weren't working -- I had to explain the benefits of hubs
to him).

Glenn L. Austin
Computer Wizard and Race Car Driver

To subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives:        <http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/retro-talk/>
Problems?:       [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to