Re: Can't establish a network.
- From: "Gary S. Terhune" <none>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:54:54 -0700
View menu > Current View > Show all messages.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com
"Don J" <dej8801@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Pb-dndD8Tpd1ZcjbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I am using Outlook Express. How do I configure it not to hide messages
that have been read?
Don J
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:rfsb53ps0e3e2i762fk50c31pism71s0a5@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 24 May 2007 11:23:19 -0400, "Don J" <dej8801@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I don't think we understand each other.
What do you do call it, when the thread just 'Disappears' from the
newsgroup. The current newsgroup seems to do it about a day after each
thread starts. This is the way they make room for new threads.
This is *not* correct. Threads do *not* disappear from the newsgroup
after a day, and there is no "making room for new threads."
Threads and the messages within them last for several months. If you
are seeing threads disappear, the reason is that that's way you have
your *newsreader* configured. You perhaps have it set to hide read
messages.
It is also a time when it is necessary to start a new thread.
Don J
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"John John" <audetweld@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:etZnTPhnHHA.4188@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
No Don, the threads are not abandoned once a day. They do eventually
expire, when they do if you click on the thread you will get a message
telling you that the the message is "Expired". I don't know exactly
how
long the Microsoft servers keep the posts before they expire but it is
several months. That is not to say that you should keep on beating a
dead
horse, if the thread is going nowhere or if it has been hijacked by
posters who have nothing of value to add to the problem at hand then
you
definitely should start a new thread.
As a example, after I post this I will reply to one of your old threads
in
this group, lets say this one that you started on May 14th:
Error Message when I click "Mshome".
You will see that my post will appear as an answer to a post that you
made
almost two weeks ago, the threads are not deleted on a daily basis,
Microsoft keeps them for many months and you can keep on using the same
thread to follow up on the discussion. I see that you are using
Outlook
Express for your newsreader so you should be able to easily follow the
discussion.
As for the issue of cross-posting vs. multi posting see here:
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting
By cross posting to a few relevant groups (instead of multi-posting)
the
answers given by any poster in any of the cross posted groups will
automatically appear in all the other groups when replies are made to
any
single post. People who subscribe to one group but not another one
will
still see the replies coming from other posters in other groups.
For example I see that you started yet another post in a different
group
and that no one has yet answered. I will go there and post (what I
think)
is a relevant reply to the question but I will try to cross post it so
you
will see how it works. I hope the cross post works, I don't do it
often
so I may screw it up ;-)
John
Don J wrote:
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
.
- 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
- Re: 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: Ken Blake, MVP
- Re: Can't establish a network.
- From: Don J
- Can't establish a network.
- Prev by Date: Re: error 6001
- Next by Date: Re: XP Dual Boot across two physical HDD - Help Please
- Previous by thread: Re: Can't establish a network.
- Next by thread: Re: Can't establish a network.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
