Ne02 - What?

[Mike Faithfull]

I have a simple small home network with O/S ranging from W95 through W98,
W2000 to XP Home, Microsoft Client for Networks, File & Print Sharing and
ICS. XP machine provides the gateway for ICS and the W95 machine does the
printing and scanning, the W98 is application-specific, and the W2000 is an
occasional visitor (laptop). It has all worked fine for months, but in the
last couple of days, the W95-connected LaserJet occasionally - not every
time - fails to print from the XP machine, and the print window (on the XP
machine) says it's printing to the correctly-named printer at a location
called "Ne02". AFAIK 'Ne02' has never existed anywhere on my network.
During one 'failure incident' I was checking all the configuration
parameters, as you do, when the printer suddenly came to life and delivered
the requested print. Up to that point, neither the XP machine nor the W95
machine admitted to having any job in the print queue, but the single page
print job completed quickly when it *did* finally start, so that I had no
time to check again. The PCs are connected together via a simple slow 10meg
hub.

Anybody any ideas what this "Ne02" is or where it came from? Is my hitherto
very stable XP machine about to crash in a pile of parity bits? Should I be
taking some action to prevent a bigger problem occurring?

 

[Madd]

Lo

"at location ne02" refers to the printer port that the
laserjet is using. IE: xp connects to network port name
ne02 (over the network) as opposed to locally lpt1
(something like that).

ne02 is nothing to worry about.

The sudden loss of ability to print can be literally for
hundreds of reasons, best to do a search.

Regards

Madd

 

[Ron Lowe]

Anybody any ideas what this "Ne02" is or where it came from? Is my
hitherto

very stable XP machine about to crash in a pile of parity bits? Should I be
taking some action to prevent a bigger problem occurring?

I don't know the answer to the problem,
but I have seen printer ports like Ne02 before.

I have seen these when printing to the Adobe Acrobat PDF
pseudo-printer, to generate PDFs of documents.

So I'm going to suggest that perhaps Acrobat is
implicated in the mix-up somewhere?