Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!

Share an internet connection with a Win98 PC Internet
I use my PC to connect to the Internet and then browse, send mail etc. via Windows 98 Internet Connection Sharing (ICS). Why? The modem on my PC always connects faster, and more importantly, I have CallWave internet answering machine for which there is no Mac client.

HOW: First install ICS on Windows 98SE, the PC will be and set the OS X machine's IP to anything in the private IP range 192.168.x.2 - 192.168.x.254. Under System Prefs -> Built-in Ethernet, set the following:

Configure: Manually
IP Address: As stated above
Subnet Mask:

I paste the DNS in when I am ready to connect and delete it when I am done to cut down on the time OS X takes to shutdown. There's some involved permanent solution but this works for me.

[Editor's note: I have not tested this at home as my connection is shared via a router, but the basic premise is the same. Simply point the OS X box at the PC which is essentially acting as the router. Installing ICS is left as an exercise for the reader; this is, after all, a Mac-biased website!]
  • Currently 3.25 / 5
  You rated: 5 / 5 (4 votes cast)

Share an internet connection with a Win98 PC | 6 comments | Create New Account
Click here to return to the 'Share an internet connection with a Win98 PC' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Windows wireless/satellite ISPs
Authored by: yosemite on Apr 02, '02 01:01:37AM

This tip may help those who require wireless high speed Internet access, which currently seems to be a Windows-only area. I live in a relatively remote village and the only high speed internet service is from a provider offering wireless access - for Windows only of course. As I'm badly in need of this service for OS X, I'm wondering if I could buy an inexpensive low-end PC to act as my router after I install ICS...

If anyone has tried something similar to this, please share your experiences! In particular, is there any speed hit to the Internet connection?

[ Reply to This | # ]
Windows wireless/satellite ISPs
Authored by: mattriley on Apr 02, '02 06:03:04PM

I currently share a DirecPC satellite connection using a lower-end PC to my company's Intranet and it works pretty well. However, there are some differences in our setup.

First off, we use WinRoutePro running under Win2K for the sharing part. WinRoutePro offers great security and many advanced options (port forwarding and the like). Second, our service is through Earthlink (they call it DirecWAY now, but it is really the same as DirecPC, just with different logos).

The latency of a satellite system like this sucks. Web pages don't feel like they load very fast. Online gaming is simply not worth it. And the upload speeds just plain suck.

Also, I'd like to point this out on a separate line for all to read, EARTHLINK'S SUPPORT FOR OUR SATELLITE CONNECTION IS QUITE SIMPLY HORRIBLE. There, got that out of the way. ;-)

That said, the setup works okay for most things. I can usually get good download speeds once I initiate a download (usually around 75 k/sec, but often faster if the time of the day is right). But there are some network tweaks that I am doing to the clients on the network to help things out (adjusting mtu and tcp receive windows). Using the built-in proxy software included in the satellite modem software is an absolute must for any sort of reliable connection.

Would I recommend this setup to anyone? No. But if you are out in the sticks like the company I work for is, then it may be your only choice for semi-broadband speed. We used to have ISDN, but the prices kept going up without any performance increase so we switched to our only alternative... Well, I guess we could have opted to install that T1 line, but justifying a few grand for installation, let alone the monthly charges, is tough to do. ;-)

Feel free to email me if you want to know more about my setup or whatever.


[ Reply to This | # ]
Windows wireless/satellite ISPs
Authored by: Hallis on Apr 04, '02 07:18:31PM

This also works when connected ti a WinXP machine and sharing the connection, which is even easier than in Win98/ME, Seems that you can do it any way you want. I have even used SuSE linux on an Intel machine and shared out a connection perfically fine to my iBook on 10.1.3. Also. This may or may not be related but the airport really makes things nice when doing such things. We have 2 Dell laptops and my iBook in the house and all can see and use the airport and its internal dialup capabilities. :-) God i love this stuff.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Share an internet connection with a Win98 PC
Authored by: caliban10 on Dec 07, '03 11:16:41AM

To get this working I had to set the IP on the mac to, nothing else in the 3rd part of the IP worked. Also, if you're using ethernet from your mac straight to the pc and not using a hub, you have to use a XOVER cable for it to work, not just a regular ethernet cable.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Share an internet connection with a Win98 PC
Authored by: jonesml on Dec 07, '03 12:37:40PM
Actually, you may not need a crossover cable, have a look at this Apple Knowledge Base Article:

[ Reply to This | # ]
Share an internet connection with a Win98 PC
Authored by: BigCatTamer on Jul 31, '04 09:49:44AM

Many thanks. Finally, our new Emac on Panther is sharing the dialup with our Windows XP and 98 machines. We are hooked up via a router and I had set the router and DNS entries on the Emac to the router IP, not the XP server's IP. I disabled the DHCP on the router and manually set IP on the XP ( and Emac ( with subnet mask Win98's IP must be assigned automatically for ICS to work. In the dial-up properties on the XP machine, under the advanced tab, check all 3 sharing options and XP will dial-up automatically when Safari is clicked on the mac! Of course, the XP server must be turned on, but mine's always crunching SETI@Home anyway! (I know it's a Mac site, just threw the last in in case someone's struggling with the same setup.)

[ Reply to This | # ]