Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EddieZ]

I have this USB disk connected to the router, but when starting up Vista I always have to connect manually. Has anyone already figured out if and how the disk can be mounted automatically (script)?

I mainly use it, but others on the LAN might want/need to use it too, so connecting it to my PC is not an option 

[chrisnclovis]

The shareport utility software has advanced options that you can select to have the shareport utility run when windows starts but you have to manually select the USB device and virtually connect to it whenever you want to access it and only one user can access the USB device at a time although the other users that are not accessing the device will still be able to see the device that's connected to the USB port of the DIR-655 in the shareport utility. They must wait until the user that's accessing the device virtually disconnects before they will be able to virtually connect to it.

[EddieZ]

Yep, but that's old news  I know how it works out-of-the-box

My question is if there is a way to connect from startup to a specific USB device (and not connecting if it is already taken ofcourse). Startup scripts can do wonders, but I need to know if Shareport has a commandline capability or if there is another way to 'call' a device autimatically after startup.

Since I'm not a script-king or programming-wonder (not at all to be honest) I would like to ask other user or the D-Link moderators (who have to be addicted to messing around with D-link's products  ) if they know whether this is theoretically possible (so we can try it out).

 

[am9518]

If I could get my shareport to work I could help you with the programming. Almost every Windows based software uses hooks into various *.dll's or *.ocx's to run. Dependency Walker and Spy++ can tell you what API calls get made in order to automate things. 

I'm pretty close to just wiping my HD and starting XP over just to make Shareport work.

[EddieZ]

Let's make a deal: I'll fix your Shareport for you, you'll build the script...

[am9518]

Sounds like a deal.

I got Shareport to work on 2 other laptops. It took 5 minutes. Very easy. I manually compared the settings (Windows fire wall, registry, files) to the laptop that I can't get to work and they look identical.

I'm stumped. All of the laptops are HP, XP, SP3. The laptop that doesn't work has a fresh install from scratch of 32 bit XP on an AMD Turion64.

I've loaded Shareport with Dependency Walker and watched all of the dependant dll's load. Everything looks good. Oh well, I'll mess with it later. I have to go fix a plumbing leak.

I'll see if I can barrow a laptop that works with Shareport so I can start looking at how to make a bootstrap for Shareport so it's more user friendly and has more boot options.

-Aaron.

[EddieZ]

It is a Windows setting that's bothering you and others. No specific Shareport issue. I am in the process of figuring out what it is that's causing Windows to block it. Need to improvise here since I gladly left XP behind me and moved to Vista a long time ago. 

[Lycan]

gladly? XP? wow, thats a FIRST.

[EddieZ]

gladly? XP? wow, thats a FIRST.

Yeah, XP is nice but Vista is much more stable IMHO. And looks nice too, with a few tweaks you can get the XP elements at your fingertips again (instead of the three steps to managing the NICs, for example)

So except for the better LAN transfer speed: I'll vote for Vista.

[Lycan]

Thats so weird, you're opinion of Vista is exactly opposite of everyone else's. Also Vista is supposed to handle network traffic more efficiently then XP. Have you tried the Windows 7 Beta?

[EddieZ]

Thats so weird, you're opinion of Vista is exactly opposite of everyone else's. Also Vista is supposed to handle network traffic more efficiently then XP. Have you tried the Windows 7 Beta?

As are most of my responses on the board 
Like I said, imho Vista runs more smoothly then XP, even after a while when XP just gets a lot of lag because of overwhelming use of system resources. I preferred the 'workstationed' W2003, by the way, which was much better and also more stable (kernel used in Vista).  Perhaps for some hardware it took some time for appropriate drivers to appear, any recent mainstream PC did not suffer. I guess the MS experiment with "the new OS" (but in fact a disguised Vista) showed that at least the average consumer was being influenced by the XP diehards. Be honest, from an aesthetic and ergonomic point of view XP still resembles Win95.

Well, in a way Vista does handle traffic more efficient. But it does need some tweaking before you get near-XP LAN performance. The new network stack is not pefect yet, but let's see what W7 brings.

No W7 yet, but planning to install this upcoming weekend. Too much work to do supplying strategic IT advice for our credit crunched customers   

[Wal_]

As are most of my responses on the board 
Like I said, imho Vista runs more smoothly then XP, even after a while when XP just gets a lot of lag because of overwhelming use of system resources. I preferred the 'workstationed' W2003, by the way, which was much better and also more stable (kernel used in Vista).  Perhaps for some hardware it took some time for appropriate drivers to appear, any recent mainstream PC did not suffer. I guess the MS experiment with "the new OS" (but in fact a disguised Vista) showed that at least the average consumer was being influenced by the XP diehards. Be honest, from an aesthetic and ergonomic point of view XP still resembles Win95.

Well, in a way Vista does handle traffic more efficient. But it does need some tweaking before you get near-XP LAN performance. The new network stack is not pefect yet, but let's see what W7 brings.

No W7 yet, but planning to install this upcoming weekend. Too much work to do supplying stategic IT advice for our credit crunched customers   

I agree, Windows Vista 64bit with 4Gb of ram = no problem.

as for the automatic connection...there's a few things in the "works" 

[EddieZ]

Compared to Linux as a mainstream consumer platform, Vista 'shines'. If you want the average consumer to go crazy, give him (or her) a Linux machine.

[Lycan]

I've tested the Beta. 8gb footprint and a refined UI.
Vista = windows ME and Windows 7 = XP. (if you get my analogy.)

However the fact that the "tweeks" needs to be done in order to get the UI to stop treating you liek a two year old is......annoying? However I understand their standpoint of better safe then sorry.

I'm undecided with Vista currently, mostly because of the serious lack of DX10+ audio support.
Most games are written with DX9 audio support, (Creatives entire Xfi driver set uses the DX9 as a "backplane"[for lack of a better term]) so i was forced to uninstall it and return to XP to continue enjoying 7.1 HD sound with games like BF2142. I'm not sure if this has been corrected, as I plan to build a newer machine and use a Home Theater style setup for my next gaming machine.

[EddieZ]

(...) as I plan to build a newer machine and use a Home Theater style setup for my next gaming machine.

Nice clear picture you present there 

And yes, MS treats us like toddlers. But thank G for TweakUAC etc. All things are better unprotected 
Yep, got the analogy, quite a nice one. I hope Creative will do a better job in supporting W7 than it did with Vista.

I'll be moving to W7 if testing goes well. I do hope my SLiC modified BIOS  does the same trick for W7 as it did for Vista