D
Dennis
Do you need to install NetBEUI on both the XP Pro computer and the Win98SE
computer in order for them to share files?
computer in order for them to share files?
C
Chuck
Dennis,
You don't need NetBEUI on either computer. If you setup TCP/IP properly,
neither IPX/SPX nor NetBEUI should be necessary. Windows 98 uses TCP/IP also.
E
Eric Cross [MVP]
Hi Dennis,
No. All networking functions are available using TCP/IP.
No. All networking functions are available using TCP/IP.
D
Dennis
Thanks Chuck.
I got rid of the win98se NetBEUI, and finally got the share between XP Pro and
Win98SE working by following the instructions on:
http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=92
However, the Win98SE computer can see and access the XP Pro files but the XP Pro
cannot see the Win98SE computer.
Because of this, I disabled the Master Browser on the Win98SE computer as you
suggested on your web site and rebooted both computers. The XP Pro still cannot
see the Win98SE computer.
Where did I go wrong? This is not a Firewall issue because all the fixed IPs are
in the ZAP Trusted zone.
Thanks.
Dennis
I got rid of the win98se NetBEUI, and finally got the share between XP Pro and
Win98SE working by following the instructions on:
http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=92
However, the Win98SE computer can see and access the XP Pro files but the XP Pro
cannot see the Win98SE computer.
Because of this, I disabled the Master Browser on the Win98SE computer as you
suggested on your web site and rebooted both computers. The XP Pro still cannot
see the Win98SE computer.
Where did I go wrong? This is not a Firewall issue because all the fixed IPs are
in the ZAP Trusted zone.
Thanks.
Dennis
J
John R Weiss
Under ideal conditions, NetBEUI is not needed. However, NetBEUI can be used to
get around home LAN configuration problems that are otherwise difficult for a
normal user to resolve. If you install NetBEUI, it must be installed on both
computers. After installation, there is no configuration needed.
C
Chuck
Dennis,
There are two registry settings I know of that will cause problems with the
browser seeing a specific computer. I don't think either applies to Windows 98,
though.
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/restrictanonymous-and-enumeration-of.html>
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/hiding-your-server-from-enumeration.html>
Windows NT runs the browser, the client, and the server as services. The
browser, running as a service, can't depend upon authenticating with a specific
account, because it runs before authentication (ie, most classic servers run
unattended), so it uses anonymous access to any server it enumerates ("sees").
The restrictanonymous setting permits any NT server to block anonymous access,
and therefore, to not be enumerated by a browser. The LANMan server Hidden
parameter does essentially the same thing. Those settings, according to the
articles referenced in the above pages, apply to NT and up (Hidden parameter)
and to 2000 and up (restrictanonymous).
I don't know any setting in Windows 98 that do the same thing, and there's not a
hella lot of references anywhere for it either.
Is the Windows 98 computer running File and Printer Sharing? Check My Computer
- Properties - Performance - File System. What role is selected? Desktop
Computer or Network Server?
Try disconnecting the Windows 98 computer from the network, and starting the
Browse Master. Can the Windows 98 computer see itself then? Try then disabling
the browser service on the Windows XP computer, reconnecting the Windows 98
computer to the network, and restarting both computers, and see which computer
can see each other.
C
Chuck
John,
NetBEUI itself needs no configuration. If you install it on a computer
accessing the Internet, without unbinding TCP/IP from file sharing, you'll
likely run into performance and stability problems, though.
<http://www.practicallynetworked.com/sharing/xp/network_protocols.htm>
<http://www.ultratech-llc.com/BrainWave/TechDocs/Resolution.html>
D
Dennis
Chuck said:
I read your URLs above and my restrictanonymous is set to zero
Desktop Computer is selected
No. With the cable disconnected I get the error "Can't find Network"
The Win98 Computer can see itself but not the XP
The XP Pro can now see the Win98 computer in the Workgroup but it can't see any
of the other XP computers in the workgroup.
Thanks
Dennis
D
Dennis
Whoops correction. After about 10min the Win98 can see all XP's on the network
and the XP Pro can see all computers on the network
The XP Pro has its Computer Browser Disabled in the services. The Win98 has
it's Master Browser enabled.
The only thing that changed it I brought the XP Home notebook on line. when I
ran browstat on the XP Home it said that the XP Home laptop was the Master
Browser.
When I ran browstat on the XP Pro it said:
Status for domain WORKGROUP on transport \Device\NetBT_Tcpip_{DF65D9FC-4F5E-4AD1
Browsing is active on domain.
Master browser name is: Laptop
Could not connect to registry, error = 53 Unable to determine build of br
owser master: 53
\\\\Laptop . Version:05.01 Flags: 51003 NT POTENTIAL MASTER
1 backup servers retrieved from master Laptop
Thanks
Dennis
and the XP Pro can see all computers on the network
The XP Pro has its Computer Browser Disabled in the services. The Win98 has
it's Master Browser enabled.
The only thing that changed it I brought the XP Home notebook on line. when I
ran browstat on the XP Home it said that the XP Home laptop was the Master
Browser.
When I ran browstat on the XP Pro it said:
Status for domain WORKGROUP on transport \Device\NetBT_Tcpip_{DF65D9FC-4F5E-4AD1
Browsing is active on domain.
Master browser name is: Laptop
Could not connect to registry, error = 53 Unable to determine build of br
owser master: 53
\\\\Laptop . Version:05.01 Flags: 51003 NT POTENTIAL MASTER
1 backup servers retrieved from master Laptop
Thanks
Dennis
C
Chuck
Restrictanonymous = 0 on all XP computers? Hidden = 0 on all XP computers?
I don't think the Browse Master is working on the Windows 98 computer. Or
there's a firewall problem.
When the XP Pro computer can't see any of the other XP computers, what are they?
Is this with the XP Home laptop off? Can the other computers see each other,
with the XP Home laptop off?
Which computers are running the browser? Apparently browsing works only with
the laptop on.
I think we're to the point where you need to un install Zone Alarm, completely,
on all computers. Start with the Windows 98 computer.
- Un install Zone Alarm.
- Start the Browse Master.
- Attach a network cable, and a hub / switch with no other computers.
- What do you see in Network Neighborhood?
Then add one computer at a time. And wait 10 - 15 minutes after adding each
computer, before checking Network Neighborhood on all computers connected.
The browser doen't update immediately. Most browser functions run on a 6 minute
cycle, so a second computer could show as much as 12 minutes latency. Do this
methodically, like you figured out the Zone Alarm limitations.
D
Dennis
Hi Chuck,
I don't know if you saw my follow-up message but here it is again below
After the below message, I put all the IP addresses and Computer names into the
Hosts file on each computer. On the Win98SE computer I disabled the Master
Browser. On the XP Pro computer I started and enabled the Computer Browser in
Services. I turned off the laptop so it's browser would not take control. I
then restarted the XP Pro and Win98SE computers. Now both computers can see
each other and all the other XP Home computers on the network.
Thanks for all your help. It seems that setting up the Hosts file on each
computer solved all the "no see" problems.
Dennis
==================================================================
Whoops correction. After about 10min the Win98 can see all XP's on the network
and the XP Pro can see all computers on the network
The XP Pro has its Computer Browser Disabled in the services. The Win98 has
it's Master Browser enabled.
The only thing that changed it I brought the XP Home notebook on line. when I
ran browstat on the XP Home it said that the XP Home laptop was the Master
Browser.
When I ran browstat on the XP Pro it said:
Status for domain WORKGROUP on transport \Device\NetBT_Tcpip_{DF65D9FC-4F5E-4AD1
Browsing is active on domain.
Master browser name is: Laptop
Could not connect to registry, error = 53 Unable to determine build of br
owser master: 53
\\\\Laptop . Version:05.01 Flags: 51003 NT POTENTIAL MASTER
1 backup servers retrieved from master Laptop
Thanks
Dennis
============================================================================
I don't know if you saw my follow-up message but here it is again below
After the below message, I put all the IP addresses and Computer names into the
Hosts file on each computer. On the Win98SE computer I disabled the Master
Browser. On the XP Pro computer I started and enabled the Computer Browser in
Services. I turned off the laptop so it's browser would not take control. I
then restarted the XP Pro and Win98SE computers. Now both computers can see
each other and all the other XP Home computers on the network.
Thanks for all your help. It seems that setting up the Hosts file on each
computer solved all the "no see" problems.
Dennis
==================================================================
Whoops correction. After about 10min the Win98 can see all XP's on the network
and the XP Pro can see all computers on the network
The XP Pro has its Computer Browser Disabled in the services. The Win98 has
it's Master Browser enabled.
The only thing that changed it I brought the XP Home notebook on line. when I
ran browstat on the XP Home it said that the XP Home laptop was the Master
Browser.
When I ran browstat on the XP Pro it said:
Status for domain WORKGROUP on transport \Device\NetBT_Tcpip_{DF65D9FC-4F5E-4AD1
Browsing is active on domain.
Master browser name is: Laptop
Could not connect to registry, error = 53 Unable to determine build of br
owser master: 53
\\\\Laptop . Version:05.01 Flags: 51003 NT POTENTIAL MASTER
1 backup servers retrieved from master Laptop
Thanks
Dennis
============================================================================
C
Chuck
Dennis,
That's a name resolution issue. Run "ipconfig /all" on each computer (Windows
98 too), and look at Node Type. What do you see?
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/address-resolution-on-lan.html>
Strictly speaking, LMHosts is the file that you should by putting Windows
Networking hosts into. LMHosts, or LAN Manager Hosts, is for local addresses.
Hosts, which complements DNS, is typically used for Internet name resolution.
That might illustrate your problem.
S
Steve Winograd [MVP]
Dennis, I just looked at that web page. In my opinion, it contains
numerous technical errors and can't be relied on for networking help.
For example:
"The three Protocols can reside together BUT - All computers must have
the same Default Protocol." - In my experience, installing more than
one protocol makes a Windows network unreliable, especially when XP is
involved.
"All computers have the same Workgroup name" - This is a good idea,
but it isn't necessary. Windows networking supports multiple
workgroups, and a computer in any workgroup can access a computer in
any workgroup.
"You will not see a Computer in the Network Neighborhood, unless it
shares something." - This is wrong. Enabling "File and Printer
Sharing" makes a computer appear in Network Neighborhood, whether or
not it shares any disks or folders.
"Sharing setting in Win98!!! Make sure that you Logon as Client for
Microsoft Network." - This is wrong. All of the available Win98
logons (Client for Microsoft Networks, Windows Logon, Microsoft Family
Logon) are OK for networking.
--
Best Wishes,
Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking)
Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group
for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions
addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups.
Microsoft Most Valuable Professional Program
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com
D
Dennis
Thanks Steve,
After I gave that URL and after experimenting with different settings, I came to
the same conclusion. However, I didn't know if it was because of some quirk in
my network or that he was in error.
Thanks for the post.
Dennis
After I gave that URL and after experimenting with different settings, I came to
the same conclusion. However, I didn't know if it was because of some quirk in
my network or that he was in error.
Thanks for the post.
Dennis
Steve Winograd said:
D
Dennis
Chuck said:
All node types are Unknown.
Ok. Maybe it was by chance that putting all IP addresses into the hosts file
worked. I'll try the LMHosts and see what happens.
Thanks for your help.
Dennis
J
Jack
Hi
Sometimes the reality of the situation and actual functioning is more
important than "Technological Truth".
While using NetBEUI on a corporate Network is an obvious NO NO it is Not
necessarily so on a small peer to peer Network that is comprised of a few
computers.
It seems that some of us keep forgetting that for most End users the
capacity to use the computers for functional purposes is the Goal, and not
technical "Rightness".
Fact One: There are many End users that have difficulties in setting sharing
resources on small peer to peer Networks.
I install and advice people that are desperate and seem not to be able to
set TCP/IP for correct sharing to use NetBEUI as well.
Fact two: I am yet to find one single Negative repercussion that comes out
of this practice while using it on small peer to peer Networks.
In matter of fact it makes LAN File transfer faster since NetBEUI has less
overhead than TCP/IP.
In the future this situation will probably change, but some people need to
use their networks Now
.
Jack (MVP-Networking).
Sometimes the reality of the situation and actual functioning is more
important than "Technological Truth".
While using NetBEUI on a corporate Network is an obvious NO NO it is Not
necessarily so on a small peer to peer Network that is comprised of a few
computers.
It seems that some of us keep forgetting that for most End users the
capacity to use the computers for functional purposes is the Goal, and not
technical "Rightness".
Fact One: There are many End users that have difficulties in setting sharing
resources on small peer to peer Networks.
I install and advice people that are desperate and seem not to be able to
set TCP/IP for correct sharing to use NetBEUI as well.
Fact two: I am yet to find one single Negative repercussion that comes out
of this practice while using it on small peer to peer Networks.
In matter of fact it makes LAN File transfer faster since NetBEUI has less
overhead than TCP/IP.
In the future this situation will probably change, but some people need to
use their networks Now
.Jack (MVP-Networking).
C
Chuck
Dennis,
Node Type = Unknown is OK, but there is a fix for it.
<http://support.microsoft.com/?id=310570>
If using Hosts, or LMHosts, works for you, then fine - but I think it indicates
that you still have a firewall problem. NetBT Name Resolution should take care
of this without requiring either.
<http://support.microsoft.com/?id=160177>
S
Steve Winograd [MVP]
"Jack" said:Hi
Sometimes the reality of the situation and actual functioning is more
important than "Technological Truth".
While using NetBEUI on a corporate Network is an obvious NO NO it is Not
necessarily so on a small peer to peer Network that is comprised of a few
computers.
It seems that some of us keep forgetting that for most End users the
capacity to use the computers for functional purposes is the Goal, and not
technical "Rightness".
Fact One: There are many End users that have difficulties in setting sharing
resources on small peer to peer Networks.
I install and advice people that are desperate and seem not to be able to
set TCP/IP for correct sharing to use NetBEUI as well.
Fact two: I am yet to find one single Negative repercussion that comes out
of this practice while using it on small peer to peer Networks.
In matter of fact it makes LAN File transfer faster since NetBEUI has less
overhead than TCP/IP.
In the future this situation will probably change, but some people need to
use their networks Now
Jack (MVP-Networking).
Hi, Jack. I agree that adding NetBEUI can make some networks work
(i.e. share files and printers) when someone hasn't been able to get
it to work using TCP/IP. However, the fundamental problem --
incorrect TCP/IP or firewall settings -- still exists, and NetBEUI is
simply a bandage covering it up.
I've seen cases where adding a second protocol on even one computer
disrupts network browsing on all of the computers.
I always remove NetBEUI when I find it on a network. I've worked on a
lot of home and SOHO networks, and every one of them works fine with
TCP/IP as the only protocol. Every Windows XP computer that I've ever
added to a network has worked immediately, right out of the box, using
only TCP/IP.
Do you have any measurements to show that NetBEUI is faster than
TCP/IP for file transfer?
--
Best Wishes,
Steve Winograd, MS-MVP (Windows Networking)
Please post any reply as a follow-up message in the news group
for everyone to see. I'm sorry, but I don't answer questions
addressed directly to me in E-mail or news groups.
Microsoft Most Valuable Professional Program
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com
J
Jack
Hi Steve.
Quote: "I agree that adding NetBEUI can make some networks work
(i.e. share files and printers) when someone hasn't been able to get
it to work using TCP/IP. However, the fundamental problem --
incorrect TCP/IP or firewall settings -- still exists, and NetBEUI is
simply a bandage covering it up". (End of Quote).
Yeah, I agree that is exactly what it is.
It is hard to ignore the fact that the most frequent question on this News
Group is involving File sharing issues.
When the person already run 10 times the Network wizard in order to try to
establish a peer to peer Network and he does not want (or does not know. or
afraid of complicated settings) the system from scratch a bandage is a
useful thing.
I am in the medical field and bandages unfortunately have the use a lot of
time.
As evident by the variety of approaches taken by few MVP (who frequently
take this subject On), there are few ways to approach the subject of making
file sharing functional.
It seems that there is No one method that can help every one, while some end
users (probably depends on the level of their knowledge, self confidence,
and willing to learn) are capable to solve their problem using one of the
methods they might mess up their system further if they try another method.
The whole thing is like the diet business there are many diets out there,
but not one diet that works for all people. Some diets might work for some
people even if it is does not the utmost scientifically based concuction.
Unless the people commit them self to real changes in Life Style and self
awareness, almost all the diets are Bandages.
However better to be on a bandages then shorten life by being exposed to
overweight related diseases. (LOL this analogy is really a stretch.
Jack (MVP-Networking).
Quote: "I agree that adding NetBEUI can make some networks work
(i.e. share files and printers) when someone hasn't been able to get
it to work using TCP/IP. However, the fundamental problem --
incorrect TCP/IP or firewall settings -- still exists, and NetBEUI is
simply a bandage covering it up". (End of Quote).
Yeah, I agree that is exactly what it is.
It is hard to ignore the fact that the most frequent question on this News
Group is involving File sharing issues.
When the person already run 10 times the Network wizard in order to try to
establish a peer to peer Network and he does not want (or does not know. or
afraid of complicated settings) the system from scratch a bandage is a
useful thing.
I am in the medical field and bandages unfortunately have the use a lot of
time.
As evident by the variety of approaches taken by few MVP (who frequently
take this subject On), there are few ways to approach the subject of making
file sharing functional.
It seems that there is No one method that can help every one, while some end
users (probably depends on the level of their knowledge, self confidence,
and willing to learn) are capable to solve their problem using one of the
methods they might mess up their system further if they try another method.
The whole thing is like the diet business there are many diets out there,
but not one diet that works for all people. Some diets might work for some
people even if it is does not the utmost scientifically based concuction.
Unless the people commit them self to real changes in Life Style and self
awareness, almost all the diets are Bandages.
However better to be on a bandages then shorten life by being exposed to
overweight related diseases. (LOL this analogy is really a stretch
.Jack (MVP-Networking).
D
Dennis
Chuck said:
Chuck,
Both of the URLs above show the correct values for the keys:
EnableProxy and NodeType
Neither of these keys are present in my registry at the HKLM spot named in the
URLs, either my XP Pro SP1 or my new laptop with XP Home SP2
Here are my reg settings in that spot:
Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\NetBT\Parameters]
"NbProvider"="_tcp"
"NameServerPort"=dword:00000089
"CacheTimeout"=dword:000927c0
"BcastNameQueryCount"=dword:00000003
"BcastQueryTimeout"=dword:000002ee
"NameSrvQueryCount"=dword:00000003
"NameSrvQueryTimeout"=dword:000005dc
"Size/Small/Medium/Large"=dword:00000001
"SessionKeepAlive"=dword:0036ee80
"TransportBindName"="\\Device\\"
"EnableLMHOSTS"=dword:00000001