Re: Can't establish a network.
- From: "Don J" <dej8801@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 08:23:50 -0400
You have ignored my new point made under "Added Comment". It seems to me
that by contributing to this newsgroup we are taking part in a group where
every thread is routinely abandoned as it is, once a day, deleted by the
system to automatically make way for new threads. Maybe I'm dense but isn't
this a system of daily forced abandonment? What is the recommended way of
continuing a thread when this happens?
Don J
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"John John" <audetweld@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eBtdfsanHHA.208@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I'm not sure what you mean by the thread being "terminated". Terminated
by whom? Threads are never really terminated, they are just abandoned but
can be revived by anyone at any given time, so to speak. They are
terminated in the sense that when the issue is resolved or when no amount
of trying fixes the problem the posters acknowledge that the issue is
fixed or that the problem cannot be resolved and they move on, the thread
just becomes inactive.
If you feel that you are getting further ahead in your troubleshooting
efforts and that you prefer to start new threads with new topics to
resolve the problem then you should do as you see fit. It is not for me
to tell anyone how to post, I only suggested that it was difficult to
follow your efforts and the suggestions made by the poster to help you
resolve the errors and come to a successful conclusion with the network
problem.
As for the network problem, are you making any progress? Did you verify
the registry setting to see if it is causing the problem?
John
Don J wrote:
See added comments at bottom:
This is a classic example of my having started a new thread. My original
posting for this thread was basically one I used to start a previous
thread. The thread wasn't going anywhere. In fact the very first
response ignored many of the questions I had posed, and shifted the
discussion. I failed to catch it at the time and the thread took a very
different direction. So I decided to start a new thread and keep it in
the relevant direction.
The subjects covered by threads seems to evolve over time. This is very
confusing and, I believe, counter productive. Is'nt it better to keep a
single thread on a sigle topic? And to start a new thread for a new
topic. My thinking is that each thread should be defined by the original
question, and that when a new issue is raised it is good for a new
thread. I think that starting a new thread for each new question will
help rather than impede
Added Comments:
I note that this paticular newsgroup is very short: My original
Post of the thread is time stamped today at 10:33AM. It is now 9:00PM.
The thread containing the previous post has aleady been terminated.
With such a short lifespan for threads it seems to me that frequent
definning of new threads has got to be more the rule than the exception.
In fact I fail to see how the continuity of discussions can be maintained
without defining each new thread somewhat before the previous thread is
terminated. So if you look at the dates and times, my defining a new
thread was a simple continuation of the old thread.
Don J
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don J" <dej8801@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:562dnW7j1bhpQsnbnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This is a classic example of my having started a new thread. My original
posting for this thread was basically one I used to start a previous
thread. The thread wasn't going anywhere. In fact the very first
response ignored many of the questions I had posed, and shifted the
discussion. I failed to catch it at the time and the thread took a very
different direction. So I decided to start a new thread and keep it in
the relevant direction.
The subjects covered by threads seems to evolve over time. This is very
confusing and, I believe, counter productive. Is'nt it better to keep a
single thread on a sigle topic? And to start a new thread for a new
topic. My thinking is that each thread should be defined by the original
question, and that when a new issue is raised it is good for a new
thread.
I think that starting a new thread for each new question will help rather
than impede
Don J
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"John John" <audetweld@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23$G4HKWnHHA.3544@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In the registry got to:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\LSA
Value: RestrictAnonymous
Value Type: REG_DWORD
Set the value to 0
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/246261/
John
PS. Your multi-posting to all kinds of different groups and your
constant start of new threads is not helping in your search for an
answer nor is it helping the troubleshooting efforts by the would be
helpers in this matter! The way you have sought help with this problem
is a classic example on how *not* to ask for help on the newsgroups! You
would be way better served by cross-posting this to a few relevant news
groups and by *STICKING* to the thread and answering the questions asked
by the helpers!
As it is now there is no single concerted effort to resolve the issues
you have simply because no one knows what has or hasn't been tried to
resolve the problem, and what has worked or not worked in the effort. I
am sure that some of the networking experts are seeing your posts all
over the place but due to the scattered approach that you have used to
seek help many are probably ignoring your posts!
There is no magic solution to the kind of problem that you are having.
Troubleshooting network problems can sometimes be complex and with all
but the simplest network problems you usually have to follow a series of
steps or troubleshooting measures to arrive to a successful resolution
to the problem. By keeping your request for help under one thread a
reader may spot a tiny but vital step that has been missed by another
poster and add a contribution to the discussion, quite often a final
successful resolution is obtained by a sort collaborative effort by many
contributors. When the thread gets longer and when the troubleshooting
gets more and more difficult is often the time when some of the experts
come in to the rescue or when one of the helpers rereads the thread and
spots a crucial step that is missing or gets the stroke of genius that
solves the problem.
I am not saying this to be critical, I am only trying to help. Your
posts are concise and you explain the problems in a clear manner but
because of the scattered postings and lack of focus from all readers you
are sabotaging the help effort. If my answer does not solve the problem
try one last time by cross-posting to a few select groups. Give all the
pertinent information about the problem and then stick to the thread!
John
Don J wrote:
Right clicking a folder on my system and selecting "Sharing and
Security" from the displayed menu yields a dialog box that has no
"Share this folder on the network" checkbox available. Is this OK?
On the same display is the statement "As a security measure, Windows
has disabled remote access to this computer. However, you can enable
remote access and safely share files by running the 'Network Setup
Wizard'". I've
run the 'Network Setup Wizard', and it fails to establish a network, as
evidenced by the fact that again selecting "Sharing and Security"
yields the same screen as described above, with no changes.
I'm running Win'XP Home on two machines. I have firewalls disabled on
both machines.
I'm successfully pinging each PC one from the other.
What do I do? How do I create a network? I am trying to set it up so
that I can share folders on one machine with another.
Don J
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Can't establish a network.
- From: John John
- Re: Can't establish a network.
- References:
- Can't establish a network.
- From: Don J
- Re: Can't establish a network.
- From: John John
- Re: Can't establish a network.
- From: Don J
- Re: Can't establish a network.
- From: Don J
- Re: Can't establish a network.
- From: John John
- Can't establish a network.
- Prev by Date: Re: Windows uppdates on CD
- Next by Date: Offline Files Greyed Out
- Previous by thread: Re: Can't establish a network.
- Next by thread: Re: Can't establish a network.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
