That's how it works...

Intersvr acts as a server, sharing the hard disks on a PC. Then, you use Interlnk on the other PC to connect to it. There were other tools like laplink and Norton Commander that can connect PCs using serial cable.

the serial cable must be twisted to connect this way - You know that,right?
from my experience - select a low speed to get this going; i did not use a dos solution, but windows but i think this will be similar;
You could also check for and acquire a known to work in dos NIC;

Serial port connection is slower than parallel port, IIRC. However if you need to copy INTERSVR over the cable, you must use serial to do it. (You can connect parallel afterwards.)

Have you tried another cable?

I have the null-modem dongle which twists the wires so the cable is 100% not the issue. Speed is also not the issue. I never detect a connection when running interlink on either machine. Maybe the device driver is not loading properly. I don't know exactly what syntax works.

I have a 3com etherlink plus which I specifically bought because of its ubiquitous reputation. However I wasn't able to get it working in windows. If you know a way to set up some sort of FTP from dos, that might be something... I just figured laplink was the only real way at this point and should be very simple, except that it isn't. Could it be some sort of incompatibility due to the laptop being modern and only running dos from a boot floppy?

Hello.

Gahhhrrrlic wrote:

Maybe the device driver is not loading properly. I don't know exactly what syntax works.

I think that you don't need drivers to use de COM (or parallel) port.

Gahhhrrrlic wrote:

I have a 3com etherlink plus which I specifically bought because of its ubiquitous reputation. However I wasn't able to get it working in windows. If you know a way to set up some sort of FTP from dos, that might be something...

If the NIC doesn't works in Windows probably you can get the same effect in DOS.

If it is of any help, these are the notes I made for my own reference last time I had to do this:

1Retrieve files from a remote computer (server) running an old DOS version (without INTERLNK/INTERSVR) to a local computer (client) running DOS 6+ 
2
31. Transfer INTERSVR.EXE from the client to the server machine. This may be done with a floppy disk. However if the two machines use different floppy formats, do the following:
4
5        a. Connect the COM1 serial ports of both machines with a null modem cable (cannot use parallel port for this)
6
7        b. On the client run the command INTERSVR /RCOPY
8
9        c. On the server type the following two commands: MODE COM1:2400,N,8,1,P and CTTY COM1. INTERSVR.EXE and INTERLNK.EXE will now be copied to the CWD of the server.
10
112. Connect the two computers using a null modem cable or a LapLink (parallel-parallel) cable. The latter is preferable as it is faster. Ensure that the parallel ports of both machines are set to (in order of preference) ECP, EPP, Bi-directional (PS/2) or Standard mode.
12
133. Run INTERSVR on the server 
14
154. On the client, edit CONFIG.SYS to load INTERLNK.EXE as a driver, i.e. DEVICE=C:\DOS\INTERLNK.EXE, and reboot
16
175. On restart, the drives of the server will be available as virtual drives on the client. Run INTERLNK on the client to view the drive letter assignments. Regular COPY/MOVE/XCOPY operations may now be used to transfer files from the server to the client.

Gahhhrrrlic wrote:

I'm using a bootable USB on my laptop because with a floppy there's not enough space to bring files over (since it won't expose any of the partitions).

Bootable USB what? I don't think a DOS-era utility will be USB aware, and possibly the way USB works on your system means it cannot be accessed via DOS anyway even if you can boot off it.

Hi, just for the curiosity, which kind of computers are intended to be connected to each others ?

Gahhhrrrlic wrote:

I have the null-modem dongle which twists the wires so the cable is 100% not the issue.

Please check out A Null-Modem is a Null Modem, right?
😀

Gahhhrrrlic wrote:

Speed is also not the issue. I never detect a connection when running interlink on either machine.?

I don't question this, but may I ask which kind of UART chips are installed in each PCs ?
MSD can help to detect them (it may threats 8250/16450 the same, though).
Afaik, the 16450 found in most ATs isn't very stable from what I leanred with my Schneider Tower AT..
Doing a simple MODE COM1:9600,n,8,1 worked wonders with one of my radio programs. 😀

I strongly suggest using Norton Commander for this purpose.

No procedures, it just works. Connect two DOS computers with a null modem cable (serial) or Laplink cable (parallel equivalent of the same), run Norton Commander in both PCs, and evrything else is menu driven. I don't remember the exact steps to do to connect them, but I remember it was simple (like; select the port, choose one as a server, and connect to the server from the other one). I can check again when I'm back home from work tonight for detailed steps if you want.

I used this method for years backing up industrial PCs, so I know it works and it works well.

Errius: Thanks for the notes: This is the kind of stuff I wish was more prevalent on the internet

YawetaG: The Intersvr seemed to map the usb stick fine.. i would have preferred to use a floppy but doing so only mapped the A drive with it's 1.4MB capacity. No good for transferring large files

Jo22: It's a CF-31 laptop and a 386 AT with a CH1333something something. Sorry I forget the mobo model code but it's a decent CHIPS type board if I'm not mistaken. The laptop natively runs xp and 7 with NTFS partitions while the 386 are all FAT16 obviously and DOS6.22/WFW. I would also have to check on the UART when I get home, as I do not know off the top of my head.

Tayyare: I'm all for simplicity. Have you also tried File Maven and what do you think of that vs Norton?

It's a SCSI so I can't connect it to another machine...

Er, why not? The great thing about SCSI is that it is totally backwards compatible (unless something uses HVD, in which case you are probably screwed), so you can take a disk from 1990 and connect it to a relatively modern SCSI adapter. Given that SCSI adapters are being dumped for next to nothing (a lot of choice < EUR 7.50 for PCI and even some PCIe for less than EUR 20 with worldwide free shipping), if the data on this drive is worth investing an effort into saving, this is the easiest option.

Plus, if the drive is actually in the process of failing, anything that relies on programs running off it is adding extra points of failure to the operation and hastening the demise of the disk. I would immediately STOP using it, get a setup that you can hook the drive up to directly and before you do anything else, try to get a raw copy of the data on the drive (the Linux tool dd would be perfect).

If you have XTreeGold you can use XTLINK to copy over serial/parallel cable. I have used it in the past, its a bit easier to get going than interlnk.

Gahhhrrrlic wrote:

Tayyare: I'm all for simplicity. Have you also tried File Maven and what do you think of that vs Norton?

I'm all for it, too. Norton commander is a (very powerful) file management tool that I used regularly for any DOS machine, also back in days, since the very frst version. So, having your most favorite tool (that you cannot do without) in any DOS environment also allowing serial/parallel file transfers easily? Priceless 🤣

I've heard of File Maven for the first time, so I will check what it is and what it can do. I'm so familiar and in confort with NC that if it is not a 100% clone, I think I probably continue the original.

Getting INTERLNK to work shouldn't be this hard. I would run a terminal program and do a loop-back test (basically a jumper wire that connects the transmit and receive so data going out the port will echo back) to see if those serial ports actually work. Did you check the BIOS setup on the laptop to see if the port is enabled?

Er, why not? The great thing about SCSI is that it is totally backwards compatible (unless something uses HVD, in which case you are probably screwed), so you can take a disk from 1990 and connect it to a relatively modern SCSI adapter.

From what I've seen, SCSI uses at least half a dozen different physical connectors. The chances of having two things that actually plug into each other is not too good. 😉

bakemono wrote:

Er, why not? The great thing about SCSI is that it is totally backwards compatible (unless something uses HVD, in which case you are probably screwed), so you can take a disk from 1990 and connect it to a relatively modern SCSI adapter.

From what I've seen, SCSI uses at least half a dozen different physical connectors. The chances of having two things that actually plug into each other is not too good. 😉

And they are all compatible with each other, so you can get an adapter and it will very likely work. 😎

bakemono wrote:

Er, why not? The great thing about SCSI is that it is totally backwards compatible (unless something uses HVD, in which case you are probably screwed), so you can take a disk from 1990 and connect it to a relatively modern SCSI adapter.

From what I've seen, SCSI uses at least half a dozen different physical connectors. The chances of having two things that actually plug into each other is not too good. 😉

Internally, you'll only come across two SCSI connectors on the cards, 50p and 68p HD. Most PCI cards will still have 50p as well as 68p and failing that, converters from 68p to 50p are easy & cheap to find. Externally it can get a bit diverse, but that's not too relevant here.

The big advantage to doing it this way is that you don't need to actually run any new stuff on the dying drive.

File Maven v3.0 can get the job done as well, same as Norton Commander, does not need to have a driver installed for the client to connect. Transfer speeds between a 4- or 7-wire serial and 4- or 8-bit parallel connection actually do not differ that greatly.

I have made comparisons between those 4 different transfer modes and found that, - besides the fact that of course the 7-wire and 8-bit modes do have an advantage of being able to initiate file transfers quicker - the sheer transfer speeds do actually not differ that greatly.