How share program files folder on LAN?

[Shenan Stanley]

Comments inline:

Who want's to use the built-in CD burning of XP
when it is rudimentary and very basic when every CDr drive comes with
REAL burning software.

Not necessarily. If the OEM (if it is an OEM) chooses not to include
software - even if they received it when they bought the CD-R or DVD-RW/+RW
drive - then the end user may have no choice. There are also those
consumers who expect to have everything when they install Windows XP. The
chants of "Where is Word?" or "I have the Windows XP Firewall - doesn't that
cover the AntiVirus/AntiSpyware as well?" can be found on these newsgroups.

i personally would go back to Windows95, if i could, just for the
'liteness' of it, but unfortunately, XP can't be beat for stability
and the eye candy is nice, Win98 is was still 'lite' enough.

You are correct. Windows 98 was nice (SE) - although stable is not a word I
would use with it and secure is one that should not even be associated with
it. Fast and simple.. sure. Windows 95? I would never go back to it.

XP is a vast improvement and not even in the same family line - as that line
was technically discontinued. But even the hardcore people who love Windows
NT/2000 hated it for one of the very reasons you listed as good -
"eye-candy". This is what i began getting rid of immediately.

i thought this was an interesting project:

http://www.etek.chalmers.se/~e8gus/nano98/ , a very basic Win98
system that on 4.3 Megs in size with a GUI. a very lite start.

There are projects out there that rip Windows XP to a "lite" status as well.
You lose som much stability, however.. I install dozens of machines in a
given week and with these instals I have made my registry files and other
scripts do the tweaking for me. Tweaks from such pages as winguides.com and
setting many services to manual due to research on sites like:

Task List Programs
http://www.answersthatwork.com/Tasklist_pages/tasklist.htm

Black Viper's Service List and Opinions (XP)
http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm

Processes in Windows NT/2000/XP
http://www.reger24.de/prozesse/

Startups
http://www.pacs-portal.co.uk/startup_content.php

While I am the last to tout Windows XP's greatness - as I use other
operating systems alongside my Windows XP boxes - I do say that I have seen
WIndows XP win over some administrators that *did* go against everything
Microsoft. Yeah - sure - it requires tweaking - but this is the first in
the NT line that actually targetted consumers instead of just businesses.
For someone like me - it was easy enough to fix.. And for people who know
someone like me - same thing. A little tweaking here and there, a little
cut-down on some of the more annoying features and Windows XP runs great and
has some extra features that can, without a doubt, "save your butt".

 

[DanS]

You are correct. Windows 98 was nice (SE) - although stable is not a
word I would use with it and secure is one that should not even be
associated with it. Fast and simple.. sure. Windows 95? I would
never go back to it.

secure is how you make it.

XP is a vast improvement and not even in the same family line - as
that line was technically discontinued. But even the hardcore people
who love Windows NT/2000 hated it for one of the very reasons you
listed as good - "eye-candy". This is what i began getting rid of
immediately.

i too was alway's the first to remove the eye-candy, like fading menu's,
but there's the small bit's that should have just been the way they are
in XP from the start of windows, ie- desktop icon text with a transparent
background.

There are projects out there that rip Windows XP to a "lite" status as
well. You lose som much stability, however..

do you have any link's to these ? i would be very interested. i'm under
the impression you can do this with XP embedded, build an XP image for a
desktop including ONLY the compnents yo want to include.

I install dozens of
machines in a given week and with these instals I have made my
registry files and other scripts do the tweaking for me. Tweaks from
such pages as winguides.com and setting many services to manual due to
research on sites like:

Task List Programs
http://www.answersthatwork.com/Tasklist_pages/tasklist.htm

Black Viper's Service List and Opinions (XP)
http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm

Processes in Windows NT/2000/XP
http://www.reger24.de/prozesse/

Startups
http://www.pacs-portal.co.uk/startup_content.php

While I am the last to tout Windows XP's greatness - as I use other
operating systems alongside my Windows XP boxes - I do say that I have
seen WIndows XP win over some administrators that *did* go against
everything Microsoft. Yeah - sure - it requires tweaking - but this
is the first in the NT line that actually targetted consumers instead
of just businesses. For someone like me - it was easy enough to fix..
And for people who know someone like me - same thing. A little
tweaking here and there, a little cut-down on some of the more
annoying features and Windows XP runs great and has some extra
features that can, without a doubt, "save your butt".

i don't disagree at all, but i do believe the following:

there are 2 kinds of users out there. users like you and me (i'm an old
DOS guy that resisted the switch to Windows as long I possibly
could......until i realized you could run multiple programs
simultaneously) that know top to bottom how a computer works and can fix
just about any problem. then the other group of users, people that know
almost nothing short of pressing the power button, to the one's that know
just enough to be dangerous (hoping not to offend anyone).

it would be great if during the install process, for the 'expert' users,
you could have a lot more control over what is installed, and where......

'Windows XP support's multiple users. Each user's personal documents,
files and setting's are stored in a folder named after the Username. The
default location for the User folder's are C:\Documents and Settings.
Would you like to change this location ?'

wouldn't that be a great dialog box during installation ? or....

'Windows XP SP2 now includes 'Security Center', a built in firewall, that
helps protect you while online. If you already have a firewall, it may
not be necessary to install the 'Security Center'. Do you want to install
the Microsoft Security Center ?'

obviously since the PC has really gone mainstream since the early 90's,
the majority of the user's wouldn't want this, but IMO, a good percentage
would really like to see this. i know i would.

or better yet, an option to do a 'minimal' install, installing just the
VERY basic components required to NOT be considerd 'safe mode', that will
support networking, sound, and device driver installation's. the OS would
then telll you when something was trying to utilize a component that
wasn't installed.....

'The application (whatever) has tried to use the Windows Shadow Copy
Service. This service has not been installed. The program trying to
access it may not work without this service. Would you like to install
this component now ?'

obviously you'd have to keep the WindowsXP CD handy, but a small price to
pay for a sleek, non-bloated O/S.

regards,

DanS

 

[mike gray]

DanS wrote:

there are 2 kinds of users out there. users like you and me (i'm an old
DOS guy that resisted the switch to Windows as long I possibly
could......until i realized you could run multiple programs
simultaneously) that know top to bottom how a computer works and can fix
just about any problem. then the other group of users, people that know
almost nothing short of pressing the power button, to the one's that know
just enough to be dangerous (hoping not to offend anyone).

When the automobile was new technology, every driver was expected to
know how to resurface a cone clutch and to have the materials and tools
on board to do the job halfway to church on Sunday morning.

Like the car, the computer is morphing from an enthusiast's toy to a
tool. Whether it is used for business or at home, for work or pleasure,
it is now expected to be a simple and reliable. I use mine to write for
publication, to do financial analysis, for communication, and
occasionally for entertainment. I don't know and really don't care
what's going on with flying electrons, bits, bytes, partitions, blahblah.

The PC today is like the car of the 1930s. Lots of nice features, but
you still have to know how to gap the plugs, set the timing, lash the
valves, and ya have to do all that stuff regularly or the damned thing
won't run. The PC owner has to know enough to be dangerous.

And I still can't figure out how to make my PC and laptop talk to one
another. Thank God for restore points that allow me to go back every
time I try and get them both fubar!

 

[Guest]

I am having a similar problem. I have a 6 PC peer to peer network using XP
Pro. I have 3 files on the C Drive of PC#1 that I would like to share with
any network user and allow them full access to those files only, and would
like to password protect those 3 files.

This is in a school environment and I have the techer set up under the login
"Adviser" as an administrator and the other users set up under the login
"Students" as limited accounts. I do not want the students to be able to
install programs or run or download executables

I understand from your answer below that XP Pro has that option, but I can't
find it anywhere. Am I mistaken? If not, could you advise me to password
protect spcific files?