Help with internet / OS X please

M

MacWorld

Registered
I have a G4 with OS X and I want to access internet via my 7200/90 witch runs IP Net Router (last version) to share my Sympatico DSL account. It works fine when the client (on the G4) is OS 9 but how to configure OS X to do it too??? in OS 9 I have to configure these in TCP/IP: «IP Adress», «Subnet Mask», «Router Adress» and «Name Server Adr.». All of these are of course numbers. How do I have to configure OS X to access internet this way? Please help me...

IP Net Router Homepage

How I configured IP Net Router

:confused:
 
If your problem is what I think it is, you just need to know where to set your TCP/IP settings. In OS 9, it's done using the TCP/IP control panel. Under OS X it's done from the "Network" preference panel. Just enter the same settings in the same places that the machine had under OS 9, and it should work.
 
Whit sympatico you don't need a router!

You have to install the application of sympatico on your machine
and connect your 2 computers.!!!


I change for videotron because sympatico it's bullshit!!
(Always disconnect!!)


 
What's that guy on?

Anyway, does IP Net Router act as a DHCP host? That's the ideal, because in OS X's Network System Preference you can simply choose Configure: Using DHCP, and that's it. You don't need any of that mask stuff.

On a related vein, has anyone seen a nice utility for using OS X as a DHCP host for easy internet sharing with other users?

-Rob
 
Originally posted by rharder
What's that guy on?

Anyway, does IP Net Router act as a DHCP host? That's the ideal, because in OS X's Network System Preference you can simply choose Configure: Using DHCP, and that's it. You don't need any of that mask stuff.

On a related vein, has anyone seen a nice utility for using OS X as a DHCP host for easy internet sharing with other users?

-Rob
Click to expand...

It's part of OS X Server. Personally, i think that's the only place it should be. OS X is not meant to be a sever platform, which is what adding certain features like DHCP would be turning it into, that would be blurring the line between the two products, which is very unnecessary!
 
Sure, it's not meant to be a server platform, but there are plenty of home users now with more than one computer, and being able to share an internet connection would be handy.

Right now, only Windows 98 second edition and better has that for the home market.

-Rob
 
Originally posted by rharder
Sure, it's not meant to be a server platform, but there are plenty of home users now with more than one computer, and being able to share an internet connection would be handy.

Right now, only Windows 98 second edition and better has that for the home market.

-Rob
Click to expand...

That's not completely true. While Windoze may have some built in technology to do peer-to-peer networking and half-assed sharing of Internet access points. We, as well, have that ability and in much more stable fashion, through 3rd party add-ons. WebRamp, and others, have dial-up sharing services. And, if you are talking about connecting several household machines to gether in an ethernet network to tak advantage of a cable or DSL line, then you shouldn't be looking at a software solution to begin with. Buy a real broadband router (most of which come with great 10/100 switches built-in) and you have the best possible scenario for your home, without needing to go and purchase a real server.

Just my humble opinion!
 
I guess I've gotten spoiled with so many apps being a free download now from Apple or Microsoft or whomever, but I'm sick of having to turn to 3rd party software for basic services. In this case it's a DHCP server.

<em>Especially on a *nix box where DHCP server software already exists, connection sharing should be standard.</em>

I'd be surprised if Apple <em>doesn't</em> throw it in to the Network System Prefs. It's an easy feature that pretty much already exists. It just needs a checkbox somewhere, and I'm not paying some 3rd party for one checkbox.

As for an actual router? I'm drooling (comparitively). That's ideal, and if I ever get DSL or a cable modem, I'll want it, but it's $100+, and it doesn't help the large portion of the population that still use modems. I guess some routers have modem ports, but who's gonna use that?

-Rob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top