Printing

I just built a new system and installed XP Pro on it. I had 3 Win98SE systems
networked prior to it to share a printer on 1 of them. The machines are all connected
thru a router. Now I have 2 98SE's and the XP Pro connected.
My question is: How do I get the XP machine to use the printer on the 98SE machine?
I've tried all I can with the add new printer wizard in XP, keeps telling me it can
not connect and to check with the Admin or it wants to Enable the XP firewall. I have
firewalls installed on each machine and they are configured to allow each machine.
The printer is set to share on the 98SE.
I'm new to XP, but I know there has to be a simple way to do this. I don't want to
have to transfer files over just to print. Also the host 98SE and XP Pro are sharing
the same monitor, kb and mouse thru a KVM switch. And please don't mention purchasing
another printer, I am low on space as it is now.

--


Brian A.

www.careyholzman.com/netfixes.htm

Carey

"Brian A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:uVvnQ$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I just built a new system and installed XP Pro on it. I had 3 Win98SE
systems
> networked prior to it to share a printer on 1 of them. The machines are
all connected
> thru a router. Now I have 2 98SE's and the XP Pro connected.
> My question is: How do I get the XP machine to use the printer on the
98SE machine?
> I've tried all I can with the add new printer wizard in XP, keeps telling
me it can
> not connect and to check with the Admin or it wants to Enable the XP
firewall. I have
> firewalls installed on each machine and they are configured to allow each
machine.
> The printer is set to share on the 98SE.
> I'm new to XP, but I know there has to be a simple way to do this. I
don't want to
> have to transfer files over just to print. Also the host 98SE and XP Pro
are sharing
> the same monitor, kb and mouse thru a KVM switch. And please don't mention
purchasing
> another printer, I am low on space as it is now.
>
> --
>
>
> Brian A.
>
>
>
>

Thankyou for the offer, but I'm not one to give up even after posting. Slap myself
once and again and again, etc. Found out it was the firewall on the new machine that
was blocking the 98SE machine which I thought I had configured to have access.
As they say, live and learn.

--


Brian A.

Jack of all trades, Master of none. One can never truly be a master as there is
always more to learn.

"Carey Holzman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> www.careyholzman.com/netfixes.htm
>
> Carey
>
> "Brian A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:uVvnQ$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I just built a new system and installed XP Pro on it. I had 3 Win98SE
> systems
> > networked prior to it to share a printer on 1 of them. The machines are
> all connected
> > thru a router. Now I have 2 98SE's and the XP Pro connected.
> > My question is: How do I get the XP machine to use the printer on the
> 98SE machine?
> > I've tried all I can with the add new printer wizard in XP, keeps telling
> me it can
> > not connect and to check with the Admin or it wants to Enable the XP
> firewall. I have
> > firewalls installed on each machine and they are configured to allow each
> machine.
> > The printer is set to share on the 98SE.
> > I'm new to XP, but I know there has to be a simple way to do this. I
> don't want to
> > have to transfer files over just to print. Also the host 98SE and XP Pro
> are sharing
> > the same monitor, kb and mouse thru a KVM switch. And please don't mention
> purchasing
> > another printer, I am low on space as it is now.
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Brian A.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

I wasn't suggesting you should give up. If you checked the link I sent you,
one of the very first things it instructs you to do is uninstall any
firewalls.

Carey

"Brian A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thankyou for the offer, but I'm not one to give up even after posting.
Slap myself
> once and again and again, etc. Found out it was the firewall on the new
machine that
> was blocking the 98SE machine which I thought I had configured to have
access.
> As they say, live and learn.
>
> --
>
>
> Brian A.
>
> Jack of all trades, Master of none. One can never truly be a master as
there is
> always more to learn.
>
> "Carey Holzman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > www.careyholzman.com/netfixes.htm
> >
> > Carey
> >
> > "Brian A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:uVvnQ$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > I just built a new system and installed XP Pro on it. I had 3 Win98SE
> > systems
> > > networked prior to it to share a printer on 1 of them. The machines
are
> > all connected
> > > thru a router. Now I have 2 98SE's and the XP Pro connected.
> > > My question is: How do I get the XP machine to use the printer on
the
> > 98SE machine?
> > > I've tried all I can with the add new printer wizard in XP, keeps
telling
> > me it can
> > > not connect and to check with the Admin or it wants to Enable the XP
> > firewall. I have
> > > firewalls installed on each machine and they are configured to allow
each
> > machine.
> > > The printer is set to share on the 98SE.
> > > I'm new to XP, but I know there has to be a simple way to do this. I
> > don't want to
> > > have to transfer files over just to print. Also the host 98SE and XP
Pro
> > are sharing
> > > the same monitor, kb and mouse thru a KVM switch. And please don't
mention
> > purchasing
> > > another printer, I am low on space as it is now.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > Brian A.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

I'm sorry if it sounded like I was saying you suggest I give up, it was not meant
that way at all. I was just stating that I still hammer away at it even after posting
and before getting back to check on responses. I happened to track down the problem
before I checked for responses.
As for you mentioning uninstalling any firewall, that's the last thing I would do,
give up security, not a chance. I may disable it temporarily for the purpose of
testing to see if it is causing the problem, but uninstall, that's not in my book.

--


Brian A.

Jack of all trades, Master of none. One can never truly be a master as there is
always more to learn.

"Carey Holzman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> I wasn't suggesting you should give up. If you checked the link I sent you,
> one of the very first things it instructs you to do is uninstall any
> firewalls.
>
> Carey
>
> "Brian A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Thankyou for the offer, but I'm not one to give up even after posting.
> Slap myself
> > once and again and again, etc. Found out it was the firewall on the new
> machine that
> > was blocking the 98SE machine which I thought I had configured to have
> access.
> > As they say, live and learn.
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Brian A.
> >
> > Jack of all trades, Master of none. One can never truly be a master as
> there is
> > always more to learn.
> >
> > "Carey Holzman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > www.careyholzman.com/netfixes.htm
> > >
> > > Carey
> > >
> > > "Brian A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > news:uVvnQ$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > > I just built a new system and installed XP Pro on it. I had 3 Win98SE
> > > systems
> > > > networked prior to it to share a printer on 1 of them. The machines
> are
> > > all connected
> > > > thru a router. Now I have 2 98SE's and the XP Pro connected.
> > > > My question is: How do I get the XP machine to use the printer on
> the
> > > 98SE machine?
> > > > I've tried all I can with the add new printer wizard in XP, keeps
> telling
> > > me it can
> > > > not connect and to check with the Admin or it wants to Enable the XP
> > > firewall. I have
> > > > firewalls installed on each machine and they are configured to allow
> each
> > > machine.
> > > > The printer is set to share on the 98SE.
> > > > I'm new to XP, but I know there has to be a simple way to do this. I
> > > don't want to
> > > > have to transfer files over just to print. Also the host 98SE and XP
> Pro
> > > are sharing
> > > > the same monitor, kb and mouse thru a KVM switch. And please don't
> mention
> > > purchasing
> > > > another printer, I am low on space as it is now.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Brian A.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:31:37 -0600, "Brian A."
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> As for you mentioning uninstalling any firewall, that's the last thing I would do,
>give up security, not a chance. I may disable it temporarily for the purpose of
>testing to see if it is causing the problem, but uninstall, that's not in my book.

Look through the ng archives and you will see plenty of posts where
problems were resolved on uninstalling firewalls not merely disabling
them. Disabling just isn't enough to be sure.

Also, it's nonsense to suggest you're giving up security by
temporarily uninstalling a firewall to see if it is at the root of a
problem. It need only be removed for a short time in which the network
can be largely isolated.


Jim.

I am in no way, nor near, being a network expert as you all can tell. I will heed
your expert word on this. I will look at it in the way of, disable first, if it
clears the problem, it could possibly be a FW setting issue that needs to be changed.
If it does not and/or I can't find a setting issue, than an uninstall is at hand.
As for the security, I would have to say I wasn't thinking. Disabling the FW also
disables any rules set within for blocking, thus making it just as inactive as
uninstalling, or am I on the wrong path in thinking again? Come to think of it, the
router should take care of this issue, right?
One other question. I am on DSL cable which is always on, wouldn't
disabling/uninstalling the FW open up security if the router was not present, or am I
just simply missing the point?



--


Brian A.

Jack of all trades, Master of none. One can never truly be a master as there is
always more to learn.

"James Egan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:31:37 -0600, "Brian A."
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > As for you mentioning uninstalling any firewall, that's the last thing I would
do,
> >give up security, not a chance. I may disable it temporarily for the purpose of
> >testing to see if it is causing the problem, but uninstall, that's not in my book.
>
> Look through the ng archives and you will see plenty of posts where
> problems were resolved on uninstalling firewalls not merely disabling
> them. Disabling just isn't enough to be sure.
>
> Also, it's nonsense to suggest you're giving up security by
> temporarily uninstalling a firewall to see if it is at the root of a
> problem. It need only be removed for a short time in which the network
> can be largely isolated.
>
>
> Jim.
>

The key here is in the words James used in his reply. TEMPORARILY
uninstalling the firewall.

Taking your firewall down for a couple of hours is not a huge security risk.
What are the odds that in the few minutes or hours you have your firewall
down, someone is going to hack you?

Sometimes firewalls, when disabled, still have registry settings that are in
effect. That is all explained (once again) in the link I sent you earlier.

Hope this clears things up for ya.

Carey

"Brian A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> I am in no way, nor near, being a network expert as you all can tell. I
will heed
> your expert word on this. I will look at it in the way of, disable first,
if it
> clears the problem, it could possibly be a FW setting issue that needs to
be changed.
> If it does not and/or I can't find a setting issue, than an uninstall is
at hand.
> As for the security, I would have to say I wasn't thinking. Disabling the
FW also
> disables any rules set within for blocking, thus making it just as
inactive as
> uninstalling, or am I on the wrong path in thinking again? Come to think
of it, the
> router should take care of this issue, right?
> One other question. I am on DSL cable which is always on, wouldn't
> disabling/uninstalling the FW open up security if the router was not
present, or am I
> just simply missing the point?
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Brian A.
>
> Jack of all trades, Master of none. One can never truly be a master as
there is
> always more to learn.
>
> "James Egan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:31:37 -0600, "Brian A."
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > > As for you mentioning uninstalling any firewall, that's the last thing
I would
> do,
> > >give up security, not a chance. I may disable it temporarily for the
purpose of
> > >testing to see if it is causing the problem, but uninstall, that's not
in my book.
> >
> > Look through the ng archives and you will see plenty of posts where
> > problems were resolved on uninstalling firewalls not merely disabling
> > them. Disabling just isn't enough to be sure.
> >
> > Also, it's nonsense to suggest you're giving up security by
> > temporarily uninstalling a firewall to see if it is at the root of a
> > problem. It need only be removed for a short time in which the network
> > can be largely isolated.
> >
> >
> > Jim.
> >
>
>

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:44:16 -0600, "Brian A."
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Disabling the FW also
>disables any rules set within for blocking, thus making it just as inactive as
>uninstalling, or am I on the wrong path in thinking again?

This is what is supposed to happen, of course, but once the firewall
has gone wrong it can appear to be inactive but still blocking where
it's not supposed to. The only way to be sure is to completely
uninstall it and see if it is the culprit. You can isolate the network
from the big bad Internet while you are troubleshooting if you feel
safer.

>Come to think of it, the
>router should take care of this issue, right?

Yes. It's my view that personal firewalls shoulld not be run on pc's
behind a nat router unless you are forwarding ports and specifically
want to restrict access to a service. The freeing of the resources
they use up and the end to problems they sometimes cause more than
compensates for their very limited usefulness. Others (like Carey it
seems) will disagree with this.

> One other question. I am on DSL cable which is always on, wouldn't
>disabling/uninstalling the FW open up security if the router was not present, or am I
>just simply missing the point?

Yes. If you had no router and one of the machines was connected
directly to the Internet via dsl then a firewall can be useful.
Alternatively, you can look at what services are running on the
machine. For win98 that generally means only file and printer sharing
for the average networked pc. Instead of using a firewall you can
unbind file and printer sharing from the tcp/ip stack bound to the
Internet connection then there is nothing running the hackers on the
Internet to connect to.


Regards


Jim.

Thanks Carey,
I was quite tired from setting this new machine up and wasn't up to reading. I'm
going to print up what's on the page and have a good read when my brain cells get
some rest and I can think more clearly and logically. Sorry if I seemed like a PITA,
I don't intentionally do it. It's just been one frustration after another since I
finished building the machine. First the BIOS wouldn't boot, then a graphics problem,
next the print problem and now I'm have frequent shutdowns. If I can't get this thing
stabilized soon, I'm going to dump XP and go back to Win98SE. At least they're all
stable.

Once again, Thanks.

--


Brian A.

Jack of all trades, Master of none. One can never truly be a master as there is
always more to learn.

"Carey Holzman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> The key here is in the words James used in his reply. TEMPORARILY
> uninstalling the firewall.
>
> Taking your firewall down for a couple of hours is not a huge security risk.
> What are the odds that in the few minutes or hours you have your firewall
> down, someone is going to hack you?
>
> Sometimes firewalls, when disabled, still have registry settings that are in
> effect. That is all explained (once again) in the link I sent you earlier.
>
> Hope this clears things up for ya.
>
> Carey
>
> "Brian A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I am in no way, nor near, being a network expert as you all can tell. I
> will heed
> > your expert word on this. I will look at it in the way of, disable first,
> if it
> > clears the problem, it could possibly be a FW setting issue that needs to
> be changed.
> > If it does not and/or I can't find a setting issue, than an uninstall is
> at hand.
> > As for the security, I would have to say I wasn't thinking. Disabling the
> FW also
> > disables any rules set within for blocking, thus making it just as
> inactive as
> > uninstalling, or am I on the wrong path in thinking again? Come to think
> of it, the
> > router should take care of this issue, right?
> > One other question. I am on DSL cable which is always on, wouldn't
> > disabling/uninstalling the FW open up security if the router was not
> present, or am I
> > just simply missing the point?
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Brian A.
> >
> > Jack of all trades, Master of none. One can never truly be a master as
> there is
> > always more to learn.
> >
> > "James Egan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:31:37 -0600, "Brian A."
> > > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > >
> > > > As for you mentioning uninstalling any firewall, that's the last thing
> I would
> > do,
> > > >give up security, not a chance. I may disable it temporarily for the
> purpose of
> > > >testing to see if it is causing the problem, but uninstall, that's not
> in my book.
> > >
> > > Look through the ng archives and you will see plenty of posts where
> > > problems were resolved on uninstalling firewalls not merely disabling
> > > them. Disabling just isn't enough to be sure.
> > >
> > > Also, it's nonsense to suggest you're giving up security by
> > > temporarily uninstalling a firewall to see if it is at the root of a
> > > problem. It need only be removed for a short time in which the network
> > > can be largely isolated.
> > >
> > >
> > > Jim.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>