Re: XP Home and local area network
From: Carey Holzman (carey_at_careyholzman.com)
Date: 12/21/04
- Next message: Carey Holzman: "Re: Network Access Permission"
- Previous message: Carey Holzman: "Re: When viewing across network, file owner is blank"
- In reply to: Chuck: "Re: XP Home and local area network"
- Next in thread: Chuck: "Re: XP Home and local area network"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:10:15 -0700
Great explanations, Chuck! Thank you!
(saved me some typing!)
Carey
"Chuck" <none@example.net> wrote in message
news:fqpgs0137gcgjknfamv420ot5fcfu3bcv5@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:59:39 GMT, *email_address_deleted* wrote:
>
>>Thanks Carey and Chuck,
>>
>>I am glad to give anything a shot once at least. I looked over the patch
>>and am having some difficulty deciding what the purpose of the patch is.
>>What is it meant to achieve? And from the notes I sent last night do you
>>get a feel for why machines that previously shared files no longer do.
>>Why
>>does the browstat not allow an election if the services are running
>>correctly?
>>
>>Had I been able on the 1st visit to locate a handy XP CD I'd have
>>installed
>>NetBEUI and gone on my way. Do you think this might bypass the problem?
>>
>>I could not help but think the problem ultimately came about when 2
>>machines
>>that had previously found one another via a host XP box no longer had the
>>host box available. I mentioned in an earlier post I'd been able to ping
>>an
>>IP, that machine (the one I could ping) is the new box, the one that had
>>not
>>been in the workgroup before. All the systems are running XP Home-SP2.
>>
>>In answer to your question Chuck about my experience in the registry I do
>>have a reasonable amount of experience there and in most aspects of the
>>system hardware and software, and a fair amount of training in Microsoft
>>OS
>>back as far as DOS 3.0 and rarely run across one I can't effectively
>>troubleshoot. I certainly did not expect this to be more than about a
>>30-40
>>minute wireless router setup and a quick sharing of resources and
>>connecting
>>a printer. Now here I am 5 days later with some amount of egg dripping
>>off
>>my chin.
>>
>>>From looking over the text in the reg patch Carey is supplying it appears
>>that the anonymous access is corrected but I am unclear about the purpose
>>of
>>the rest of it.
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\NetBT\Parameters]
>>
>>"NodeType"=-
>>"DhcpNodeType"=-
>>[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Lsa]
>>
>>"restrictanonymous"=dword:00000000
>>
>>[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\lanmanserver\parameters]
>>"IRPStackSize"=-
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>If when I install the patch on each box I still don't get the desired
>>results would it be a fair assumption that I might be better off
>>uninstalling the network completely and setting it up from scratch? In
>>98SE
>>environments this has worked wonders in the past. Is XP as cooperative or
>>will it simply put everything back like it was?
>>
>>Thanks again
>>Chris
>
> Chris,
>
> The Restrictanonymous patch is to enable the browser to work - the browser
> requires anonymous access to all computers, as it runs regardless who is
> logged
> in at the time.
> <http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/reskit/en-us/default.asp?url=/windows2000/techinfo/reskit/en-us/regentry/46688.asp>
> <http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winntas/deploy/prodspecs/ntbrowse.mspx>
>
> The IRPStackSize patch is to solve a specialised problem with servers
> running
> NAV, and may not apply in your case.
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=177078
>
> The browser is a peer-peer method of cataloguing resources (shares) on
> your LAN.
> The master browser is elected in a pretty complicated fashion; as there is
> no
> authoritative computer deciding which becomes the master browser, it's
> simply
> all available browsers deciding between themselves.
>
> After changing the browser setting on any computer, you need to power all
> computers off to reset the browser settings on each. Or wait up to 52
> minutes
> (see the long Microsoft article for an explanation about the magic number)
> for
> all computers to reset themselves.
>
> Installation of NetBEUI serves as a workaround when the problem is related
> to
> the TCP/IP on the LAN (maybe a firewall misconfigured). If you have
> physical
> connectivity issues, or if file sharing is not set up properly on one or
> more
> computers, adding NetBEUI will not help. And if you don't setup NetBEUI
> properly, it will simply hamper diagnosing the actual problem.
>
> If browstat helps you figure the problem out, kewl. If not, try posting
> browstat and ipconfig, so we can see the problem a bit easier.
>
> As far as the egg on the chin bit, if you don't ever get that feeling,
> IMHO you
> are not really challenging yourself. ;-)
>
> And Chris, posting your email address openly will get you more unwanted
> email,
> than wanted email. Learn to munge your email address properly, to keep
> yourself
> a bit safer when posting to open forums. Protect yourself and the rest of
> the
> internet - read this article.
> http://www.mailmsg.com/SPAM_munging.htm
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Chuck
> Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.
- Next message: Carey Holzman: "Re: Network Access Permission"
- Previous message: Carey Holzman: "Re: When viewing across network, file owner is blank"
- In reply to: Chuck: "Re: XP Home and local area network"
- Next in thread: Chuck: "Re: XP Home and local area network"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
