On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:38:41 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:50:45 -0500, Char Jackson <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>>Things to check:
>>>identical users exist on all three machines with identical passwords
>>
>>IIRC, this is not applicable to XP Home because Home only uses Simple
>>File Sharing. Identical user accounts don't apply to Simple File
>>Sharing.
>
>I just looked that up. That's a requirement for Pro, but not for
>Simple File Sharing. Incidentally, Pro supports both Simple File
>Sharing and ACL (access control lists).
Please allow me to rephrase your answer for (hopefully) some added
clarity. "That's a requirement for Pro" isn't quite correct.
- Simple File Sharing doesn't require matching user accounts.
- Simple File Sharing is available in both Home and Pro.
- Simple File Sharing is the only method available in Home.**
- Simple File Sharing is the default in Pro, but is easily disabled in
favor of the ACL method.
**You can sort of fake the ACL method in Home after logging on as
Administrator.
>Home:
><http://www.practicallynetworked.com/sharing/xp/filesharing.htm>
>
>Pro:
><http://www.practicallynetworked.com/sharing/xp_filesharing/index.htm>
>
>>>>firewalls are all set to allow filesharing
>>
>>Agreed, and IME the Windows firewall is rarely the problem. It's those
>>blasted Internet security suites that I run into most often.
>
>Yep. In particular, Norton Internet Security drives me nuts. I have
>yet to figure out how to undo the damage, disable the stupid firewall,
>or deal with multiple security zones where the machine acts
>differently in different locations. I suppose there's a benefit to
>doing all that for perhaps 10% of the users. However, it drives the
>other 90% nuts.
>
>>>all machines in the same Workgroup
>>
>>This isn't applicable, either, is it? I bring random machines into the
>>shop on a regular basis and am always able to access workgroups other
>>than mine. It takes an extra couple of mouse clicks, but no big deal.
>
>It's important. Viewing the machines on the networks is a bit awkward
>if they're in different Workgroups. You have to specify the Workgroup
>every time you issue a network command or use a share. For example:
> net view
>will show all the machines in your Workgroup, but not the other
>Workgroups. To see those, you have to use:
> net view /network:workgroup_name
>Since net view is the back end to the "My Network Places" mess, you
>won't see the other machines.
I typically use the My Network Places stuff, and so far I haven't run
into issues related to different workgroups. I expand My Network
Places, see the various workgroups, click to expand the one I want,
and click to access it without further ado.
>>>all machines can ping each other with IP address and hostname
>>
>>IP address, yes, but hostname has never been something I worry about.
>
>I like to use this test to see if things are working. It takes all
>the GUI complexity out of the picture.
> Start -> run -> cmd
> \\machine_name
>or
> \\192.168.xx.xx
>to show the available shares. It's a good fast test to see if
>networking is setup correctly. If it hangs for about 10 seconds, it's
>not working.
Yep, I do that too.
>Incidentaly, if you need some entertainment value at the local coffee
>shop, try running the above commands pointing to the ip addresses of
>the various laptops in the coffee shop. An amazing number have the
>firewall turned off and shares wide open (with no password). So do I
>but the exposed directories are full of software bombs. I wrote one
>that fills the screen with crud.
><http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/crud.com>
>Hit the space bar to exit. I also have one that makes all kinds of
>awful noises on the speaker, which has been handy for identifying the
>hackers.
>
>Isn't Windoze networking fun?
I've done that, but not at a coffee shop. Amazing what you can find.
|
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
