Shared drives on WinXP network?

Hi,
I've been muddling along happily with my WinXP network. I recently
added another computer and wanted to distribute between all machines,
the network accessible work folders. Sharing so many folders produces
a very long and untidy list in the "My Network Places" window. As my
router provides a hardware firewall and I use ZoneAlarm too, would it
still be considered a security problem if I just shared the root
directory of each drive, reducing the list size and making the work
folders accessible in the same manner as local folders would be?

An example of a recent problem I'd like to overcome by this method is
when I want to move a large "DocLib" folder from the root of the D:\
drive on one machine to the root of the E:\ drive on another. The
source folder is visible but the destination root is not, only the
shared folders on it.
Can anyone please advise?
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the EGG to email me.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> Hi,
> I've been muddling along happily with my WinXP network. I recently
> added another computer and wanted to distribute between all machines,
> the network accessible work folders. Sharing so many folders produces
> a very long and untidy list in the "My Network Places" window.

Do people actually use that?

> As my
> router provides a hardware firewall and I use ZoneAlarm too, would it
> still be considered a security problem if I just shared the root
> directory of each drive, reducing the list size and making the work
> folders accessible in the same manner as local folders would be?
>
> An example of a recent problem I'd like to overcome by this method is
> when I want to move a large "DocLib" folder from the root of the D:\
> drive on one machine to the root of the E:\ drive on another. The
> source folder is visible but the destination root is not, only the
> shared folders on it.
> Can anyone please advise?
>

Not really a problem as long as the shared partitions only contain data
- it's generally inadvisable to share the partition with the Windows
installation on it. But if all you're doing is occasionally copying
large amounts of data across the LAN, why not share the source folder
then copy from the target machine?

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:16:47 -0000, Rob Morley <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>(E-Mail Removed) says...
>> Hi,
>> I've been muddling along happily with my WinXP network. I recently
>> added another computer and wanted to distribute between all machines,
>> the network accessible work folders. Sharing so many folders produces
>> a very long and untidy list in the "My Network Places" window.
>
>Do people actually use that?

I do, after changing it's desktop icon name to LAN for short. I'm a
bit of a novice though, so if there's a better approach I'd be glad to
hear about it.
>
>> As my
>> router provides a hardware firewall and I use ZoneAlarm too, would it
>> still be considered a security problem if I just shared the root
>> directory of each drive, reducing the list size and making the work
>> folders accessible in the same manner as local folders would be?
>>
>> An example of a recent problem I'd like to overcome by this method is
>> when I want to move a large "DocLib" folder from the root of the D:\
>> drive on one machine to the root of the E:\ drive on another. The
>> source folder is visible but the destination root is not, only the
>> shared folders on it.
>> Can anyone please advise?
>>
>
>Not really a problem as long as the shared partitions only contain data
>- it's generally inadvisable to share the partition with the Windows
>installation on it. But if all you're doing is occasionally copying
>large amounts of data across the LAN, why not share the source folder
>then copy from the target machine?

You make it sound so easy, and it probably is.:-) Thanks Rob.
Once I get the lucky files moving to the required drives, I must find
a way of avoiding the frequent questions from the OS that bring the
process to a pause. xcopy may do it.
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the EGG to email me.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:16:47 -0000, Rob Morley <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >(E-Mail Removed) says...
> >> Hi,
> >> I've been muddling along happily with my WinXP network. I recently
> >> added another computer and wanted to distribute between all machines,
> >> the network accessible work folders. Sharing so many folders produces
> >> a very long and untidy list in the "My Network Places" window.
> >
> >Do people actually use that?
>
> I do, after changing it's desktop icon name to LAN for short. I'm a
> bit of a novice though, so if there's a better approach I'd be glad to
> hear about it.

If I only occasionally use a network resource I tend to access it with
the \\host\resource notation from the Run box. If it's something I use
frequently I usually set it up as a persistent network drive. But maybe
I'm weird, I tend to use the desktop as a temporary storage area rather
than for launching applications.
> >
> >> As my
> >> router provides a hardware firewall and I use ZoneAlarm too, would it
> >> still be considered a security problem if I just shared the root
> >> directory of each drive, reducing the list size and making the work
> >> folders accessible in the same manner as local folders would be?
> >>
> >> An example of a recent problem I'd like to overcome by this method is
> >> when I want to move a large "DocLib" folder from the root of the D:\
> >> drive on one machine to the root of the E:\ drive on another. The
> >> source folder is visible but the destination root is not, only the
> >> shared folders on it.
> >> Can anyone please advise?
> >>
> >
> >Not really a problem as long as the shared partitions only contain data
> >- it's generally inadvisable to share the partition with the Windows
> >installation on it. But if all you're doing is occasionally copying
> >large amounts of data across the LAN, why not share the source folder
> >then copy from the target machine?
>
> You make it sound so easy, and it probably is.:-) Thanks Rob.
> Once I get the lucky files moving to the required drives, I must find
> a way of avoiding the frequent questions from the OS that bring the
> process to a pause.

If you mean the "This is read only - do you really want to move it?"
type questions - copy rather than move the files, then delete the
originals when you've finished.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:19:38 -0000, Rob Morley <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>(E-Mail Removed) says...
>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:16:47 -0000, Rob Morley <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> >(E-Mail Removed) says...
>> >> Hi,
>> >> I've been muddling along happily with my WinXP network. I recently
>> >> added another computer and wanted to distribute between all machines,
>> >> the network accessible work folders. Sharing so many folders produces
>> >> a very long and untidy list in the "My Network Places" window.
>> >
>> >Do people actually use that?
>>
>> I do, after changing it's desktop icon name to LAN for short. I'm a
>> bit of a novice though, so if there's a better approach I'd be glad to
>> hear about it.
>
>If I only occasionally use a network resource I tend to access it with
>the \\host\resource notation from the Run box.

I just tried it. Fast and effective, thanks.

> If it's something I use
>frequently I usually set it up as a persistent network drive.

I do this too but I'm making so many changes, including drive letters
lately that things don't persist for long.

> But maybe
>I'm weird, I tend to use the desktop as a temporary storage area rather
>than for launching applications.

I have permanent shortcuts to a long established and well structured
filing system along the top of my desktop, with what looks like the
result of a riot at a jumble sale below.

>> >> As my
>> >> router provides a hardware firewall and I use ZoneAlarm too, would it
>> >> still be considered a security problem if I just shared the root
>> >> directory of each drive, reducing the list size and making the work
>> >> folders accessible in the same manner as local folders would be?
>> >>
>> >> An example of a recent problem I'd like to overcome by this method is
>> >> when I want to move a large "DocLib" folder from the root of the D:\
>> >> drive on one machine to the root of the E:\ drive on another. The
>> >> source folder is visible but the destination root is not, only the
>> >> shared folders on it.
>> >> Can anyone please advise?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Not really a problem as long as the shared partitions only contain data
>> >- it's generally inadvisable to share the partition with the Windows
>> >installation on it. But if all you're doing is occasionally copying
>> >large amounts of data across the LAN, why not share the source folder
>> >then copy from the target machine?
>>
>> You make it sound so easy, and it probably is.:-) Thanks Rob.
>> Once I get the lucky files moving to the required drives, I must find
>> a way of avoiding the frequent questions from the OS that bring the
>> process to a pause.
>
>If you mean the "This is read only - do you really want to move it?"
>type questions - copy rather than move the files, then delete the
>originals when you've finished.

That's exactly what I meant and my tendency was to try to find
increasingly complicated ways to overcome it. I'd never have though of
the copy option simply because I didn't want to copy. Thanks for
suggesting it.
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the EGG to email me.