How to remove a networked PC?

[Terry Pinnell]

Ages ago, on this XP SP1 Home PC, I managed to setup an old W98 PC in
my shed/workshop, and was sporadically able to transfer files between
the two. I'd like to get rid of it, but I'm now hazy about how to do
that! Could someone point me in the right direction please?

Also, when I run the diagnostic program SiSoft Sandra on my XP PC,
under the 'Network (LAN)' heading it reports:
'Web Client Network: No domains found: No hosts detected!'
Given that the shed PC has been switched off for a year or so, how
exactly should I interpret that message please?

 

[Jim]

Ages ago, on this XP SP1 Home PC, I managed to setup an old W98 PC in
my shed/workshop, and was sporadically able to transfer files between
the two. I'd like to get rid of it, but I'm now hazy about how to do
that! Could someone point me in the right direction please?

You remove the reference to the old PC from the Hosts file.
You remove any references to the old PC from a router setup, if you have
one.
These are just housecleaning that really need never be done.

Also, when I run the diagnostic program SiSoft Sandra on my XP PC,
under the 'Network (LAN)' heading it reports:
'Web Client Network: No domains found: No hosts detected!'
Given that the shed PC has been switched off for a year or so, how
exactly should I interpret that message please?

Probably your XP machine cannot see itself.
The software cannot see the machine which is shut off.
If you had an ethernet connection, then there would be something wrong with
the W98 machine because ethernet
adapters are supposed to broadcast their MAC address. Not all adapters
broadcast the MAC address when the main
power is off.
So, I would interpret the message as showing that the machine that has not
been active for so long is really powered off.
Jim

 

[Chuck]

Ages ago, on this XP SP1 Home PC, I managed to setup an old W98 PC in
my shed/workshop, and was sporadically able to transfer files between
the two. I'd like to get rid of it, but I'm now hazy about how to do
that! Could someone point me in the right direction please?

Also, when I run the diagnostic program SiSoft Sandra on my XP PC,
under the 'Network (LAN)' heading it reports:
'Web Client Network: No domains found: No hosts detected!'
Given that the shed PC has been switched off for a year or so, how
exactly should I interpret that message please?

Hi Terry,

Do you need instructions how to get rid of the computer, or how do you transfer
files from it? ;-)

If the latter, start by telling us how it connects to your network.
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/background-information-useful-in.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/background-information-useful-in.html

I'm not familiar with Sisoft Sandra. If you don't have a network right now, you
might consider pulling the hard drive, and installing it in the other computer.
For a one time file transfer, that is by far a simpler solution in many cases.

 

[Guest]

I am also unsure how to cancel a network. It has been a bit pointless for me
and since I am not using it, perhaps it leaves the computers more vulnerable.
But I cannot see how to do that.

 

[Terry Pinnell]

Hi Terry,

Do you need instructions how to get rid of the computer, or how do you transfer
files from it? ;-)

If the latter, start by telling us how it connects to your network.
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/background-information-useful-in.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/background-information-useful-in.html

I'm not familiar with Sisoft Sandra. If you don't have a network right now, you
might consider pulling the hard drive, and installing it in the other computer.
For a one time file transfer, that is by far a simpler solution in many cases.

Thanks both, appreciate the replies.

My requirement is to get rid of the shed W98 PC on my network (and
then, in the interests of simplicity/reliability/performance, *remove*
the 'network', as that W98 PC is the only thing on it.

It is a wireless LAN network. I also have broadband via a router.

If I click My Network Places, and then Entire Network, I see 3
entries:
Microsoft Terminal Services
Microsoft Windows Network
Web Client Network

Opening the first gives an empty window.
Opening the last gives "Unable to browse the network.
The network is not present or not started."

Opening Microsoft Windows Network gives (after 20 seconds) the entry:
Mshome.
I *think* that, as its name implies, that's the name I gave the main
XP PC. R-clicking for Mshome Properties tells me nothing more. But in
that case, why would the network of this XP PC show itself as a
'component'?

Ideally, I'd simply like to remove the entire network at a stroke,
safely and with no other impact. (And that seems to be what Jez wants
too!)

Happy to provide any other information that would be useful.

Any help greatly appreciated please.

 

[Chuck]

Thanks both, appreciate the replies.

My requirement is to get rid of the shed W98 PC on my network (and
then, in the interests of simplicity/reliability/performance, *remove*
the 'network', as that W98 PC is the only thing on it.

It is a wireless LAN network. I also have broadband via a router.

If I click My Network Places, and then Entire Network, I see 3
entries:
Microsoft Terminal Services
Microsoft Windows Network
Web Client Network

Opening the first gives an empty window.
Opening the last gives "Unable to browse the network.
The network is not present or not started."

Opening Microsoft Windows Network gives (after 20 seconds) the entry:
Mshome.
I *think* that, as its name implies, that's the name I gave the main
XP PC. R-clicking for Mshome Properties tells me nothing more. But in
that case, why would the network of this XP PC show itself as a
'component'?

Ideally, I'd simply like to remove the entire network at a stroke,
safely and with no other impact. (And that seems to be what Jez wants
too!)

Happy to provide any other information that would be useful.

Any help greatly appreciated please.

Terry,

If the goal is to remove the network, then I think in this case doing a disk to
disk copy will do that with more ease, if you can do that. Your newer computer
probably can hold the entire contents of the Windows 98 hard drive in a small
corner of its hard drive free space.

If not, you're looking at several layers of challenges:
1) WiFi connectivity.
2) IP configuration.
3) File sharing, including Window 98 to XP.

I'll suggest my tutorials, which may give you some idea of a detail or two that
you may have overlooked up to now.

Windows 98 Issues:
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/05/older-operating-systems-windows-98.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/05/older-operating-systems-windows-98.html

File Sharing:
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/file-sharing-under-windows-xp.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/file-sharing-under-windows-xp.html

WiFi and IP:
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/08/networking-your-computers.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/08/networking-your-computers.html

 

[Terry Pinnell]

Terry,

If the goal is to remove the network, then I think in this case doing a disk to
disk copy will do that with more ease, if you can do that. Your newer computer
probably can hold the entire contents of the Windows 98 hard drive in a small
corner of its hard drive free space.

If not, you're looking at several layers of challenges:
1) WiFi connectivity.
2) IP configuration.
3) File sharing, including Window 98 to XP.

I'll suggest my tutorials, which may give you some idea of a detail or two that
you may have overlooked up to now.

Windows 98 Issues:
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/05/older-operating-systems-windows-98.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/05/older-operating-systems-windows-98.html

File Sharing:
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/file-sharing-under-windows-xp.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/file-sharing-under-windows-xp.html

WiFi and IP:
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/08/networking-your-computers.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/08/networking-your-computers.html

Thanks.

Wow - that seems dauntingly complicated! All that just to remove an
unwanted home network with only a single computer on it (apart from
the 'host' or whatever this is called)? I was thinking along the lines
of just navigating to the right place once someone told me where that
was, and clicking Delete ;-)

 

[Chuck]

Thanks.

Wow - that seems dauntingly complicated! All that just to remove an
unwanted home network with only a single computer on it (apart from
the 'host' or whatever this is called)? I was thinking along the lines
of just navigating to the right place once someone told me where that
was, and clicking Delete ;-)

OK, Terry,

Are you simply saying that you are totally finished with the Windows 98
computer? You don't want to transfer files from it?

If so, leave it off, you are done with it. If it's not online, and you don't
need it online, don't worry about it. It doesn't exist.

 

[Terry Pinnell]

OK, Terry,

Are you simply saying that you are totally finished with the Windows 98
computer? You don't want to transfer files from it?

If so, leave it off, you are done with it. If it's not online, and you don't
need it online, don't worry about it. It doesn't exist.

Thanks Chuck. Yes, that is effectively what I want, you're right. BUT
I am also concerned that my PC's performance may be being affected in
some obscure way by just *having* a network. The overhead and
complexity can't be a good thing, can it? I read (but don't fully
understand) threads referring to situations where the OS is 'looking'
for network connections, every time you do virtually any operation,
and I want to eliminate that risk.

 

[Chuck]

Thanks Chuck. Yes, that is effectively what I want, you're right. BUT
I am also concerned that my PC's performance may be being affected in
some obscure way by just *having* a network. The overhead and
complexity can't be a good thing, can it? I read (but don't fully
understand) threads referring to situations where the OS is 'looking'
for network connections, every time you do virtually any operation,
and I want to eliminate that risk.

Terry,

OK, if you have a single computer, and really want to remove the network, un
install File and Printer Sharing from the Local Area Connection Properties
wizard. That's if you're still going to connect it to the network, for Internet
access.

But if you're going to connect to the Internet, the performance hit from
non-existent File and Printer Sharing is negligible, compared to Internet
activity.

If you're not connecting to the Internet either, just remove the network cable.

So tell us - what do you intend to do with your computer?

 

[Terry Pinnell]

Terry,

OK, if you have a single computer, and really want to remove the network, un
install File and Printer Sharing from the Local Area Connection Properties
wizard. That's if you're still going to connect it to the network, for Internet
access.

But if you're going to connect to the Internet, the performance hit from
non-existent File and Printer Sharing is negligible, compared to Internet
activity.

If you're not connecting to the Internet either, just remove the network cable.

So tell us - what do you intend to do with your computer?

Thanks for the follow-up and for your patience.

Re your last question (assuming you mean my XP PC), the answer is
that, given your comments above, I'm now undecided!

One thing is definite: I see now that I cannot remove the network,
because it would remove broadband internet access via my wireless
router. That obvious point had escaped me when we started this
discussion ;-)

And, if the performance hit is marginal, clearly there's no point in
removing File and Printer Sharing. Also, of course, there are
*benefits* of keeping it in place, the very benefits that prompted me
to add the W98 PC to the network in the first place:
1. Easy file transfer to the shed (I play with electronics gadgets,
and so the W98 is used for that sort of stuff, and as an
oscilloscope).
2. Access to the internet while I'm in the shed.
(Both of those are dependent on signal strength, which is marginal,
and infuriating when it disappears altogether.)

But to keep things in perspective, on the rare occasions I use that
W98 PC, for 99.9% of the time it's in pure standalone mode.

However, I'm still left wondering if some aspect of my network
settings is contributing to the performance problems I'm getting (on
my XP SP1 PC). I'd simplistically hoped to switch 'the network' off to
test that. But one of the main performance problems I'm vexed about
*needs* net access, so that now rules out such a tidy experiment.

Is there any step-by-step 'audit' of network settings you can point me
to please? Even if I don't fully understand them, I could methodically
try different settings or whatever, to see if that makes any
difference.

 

[Terry Pinnell]

Terry,

If you have performance problems, or even think that you have them, I would
suggest that you start with Process Explorer, and find out for a certainty what
processes contribute to your problems.
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/04/watching-what-your-computer-is-doing.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/04/watching-what-your-computer-is-doing.html

If your computer is running XP SP1, now, THAT could be part of your problem.
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/08/if-you-have-windows-xp-without-sp2.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/08/if-you-have-windows-xp-without-sp2.html

Having done that, start malware analysis.
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/dealing-with-malware-adware-spyware.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/dealing-with-malware-adware-spyware.html

Thanks Chuck. I'll study those more closely tomorrow. Meanwhile, a few
initial comments:

Should I have Process Explorer (procexp.exe)? I don't see it anywhere.

I do use Filemon, but find it mostly incomprehensible.

I'm fairly confident my performance problems are not malware related.
I use several tools regularly, like Spybot and AdAware.

 

[Chuck]

Thanks for the follow-up and for your patience.

Re your last question (assuming you mean my XP PC), the answer is
that, given your comments above, I'm now undecided!

One thing is definite: I see now that I cannot remove the network,
because it would remove broadband internet access via my wireless
router. That obvious point had escaped me when we started this
discussion ;-)

And, if the performance hit is marginal, clearly there's no point in
removing File and Printer Sharing. Also, of course, there are
*benefits* of keeping it in place, the very benefits that prompted me
to add the W98 PC to the network in the first place:
1. Easy file transfer to the shed (I play with electronics gadgets,
and so the W98 is used for that sort of stuff, and as an
oscilloscope).
2. Access to the internet while I'm in the shed.
(Both of those are dependent on signal strength, which is marginal,
and infuriating when it disappears altogether.)

But to keep things in perspective, on the rare occasions I use that
W98 PC, for 99.9% of the time it's in pure standalone mode.

However, I'm still left wondering if some aspect of my network
settings is contributing to the performance problems I'm getting (on
my XP SP1 PC). I'd simplistically hoped to switch 'the network' off to
test that. But one of the main performance problems I'm vexed about
*needs* net access, so that now rules out such a tidy experiment.

Is there any step-by-step 'audit' of network settings you can point me
to please? Even if I don't fully understand them, I could methodically
try different settings or whatever, to see if that makes any
difference.

Terry,

If you have performance problems, or even think that you have them, I would
suggest that you start with Process Explorer, and find out for a certainty what
processes contribute to your problems.
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/04/watching-what-your-computer-is-doing.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/04/watching-what-your-computer-is-doing.html

If your computer is running XP SP1, now, THAT could be part of your problem.
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/08/if-you-have-windows-xp-without-sp2.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2006/08/if-you-have-windows-xp-without-sp2.html

Having done that, start malware analysis.
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/dealing-with-malware-adware-spyware.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/dealing-with-malware-adware-spyware.html

 

[Chuck]

Thanks Chuck. I'll study those more closely tomorrow. Meanwhile, a few
initial comments:

Should I have Process Explorer (procexp.exe)? I don't see it anywhere.

I do use Filemon, but find it mostly incomprehensible.

I'm fairly confident my performance problems are not malware related.
I use several tools regularly, like Spybot and AdAware.

Terry,

If I had to choose one diagnostic tool for my computer, it would be Process
Explorer. It's linked from my article cited above.

How old is the computer that's having performance problems? How much free disk
space does it have? Do you defrag regularly? Can you do a health check on the
disk drive?

For a single computer, I'd investigate any performance problems in this order:
1) Malware.
2) Hardware.
3) Software.
4) Network.

 

[Terry Pinnell]

Terry,

If I had to choose one diagnostic tool for my computer, it would be Process
Explorer. It's linked from my article cited above.

OK, thanks Chuck, now downloaded it.

I'm guessing that you and Mark Russinovich are programmers? I'm not,
and most of the output from PE is beyond me to interpret.

I tried an initial run of PE, with the application that's prompted my
quest, Google Earth (GE). I'll assume for the moment that you're not
familiar with it, as a little background is necessary to what follows.
GE runs fine here, *except* when I open a particular kind of file, a
'network link file'. That small 'shortcut type' file in turn then
downloads a large amount of data from a particular server (to which
the author has previously uploaded it), and it displays clever stuff
in GE. (Such as global cloud cover.) When I run that, GE takes 95-99%
of my CPU, as compared with no noticeable usage when doing other
things.

In PE, both situations show GE taking the same 43 processes. With a
network link open (or being opened - I'm never entirely sure it ever
finishes!) - PE reports CPU as 95%, which I already knew from Task
Manager (and the even more obvious fact that I could do virtually
nothing on the PC).

Same goes for TCPView, which I've also downloaded, after studying your
very readable article at
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/essential-tools-for-desktop-and.html#ProcessExplorer
thank you.

How old is the computer that's having performance problems?

This Athlon 1800 1 GB is about 5 years old. It's the sheer hassle I
anticipate in re-installing and re-tweaking that makes me put off my
next purchase! Plus the fact that, by and large, this PC is doing
pretty well. For example I make (encode and author) family DVDs,
generally regarded as intensive work for any PC, and have no real
problems. It's just the GE problem I described, plus sometimes very
slow Explore operation (opening folders can occasionally take 30 secs)
that frustrates me. Oh, and, if I'm honest, the occasional sudden
crash. Like the one I had as I was finishing composing this reply a
short while ago! Sudden black screen and a reboot. Something else to
fret about ;-(

I'm saving this text regularly as I type...

How much free disk space does it have?

Main partition is D: is 178 GB and has 88.7 GB free. My OS partition
is C:, which is 11.7 GB with 1.52 GB free. Other partitions are all
OK.

Do you defrag regularly?

Nightly, with Diskeeper in 'smart' mode.

Can you do a health check on the disk drive?

Used chkdsk /f on C: and D: a week or so ago, but I will do another.

 

[Chuck]

OK, thanks Chuck, now downloaded it.

I'm guessing that you and Mark Russinovich are programmers? I'm not,
and most of the output from PE is beyond me to interpret.

I tried an initial run of PE, with the application that's prompted my
quest, Google Earth (GE). I'll assume for the moment that you're not
familiar with it, as a little background is necessary to what follows.
GE runs fine here, *except* when I open a particular kind of file, a
'network link file'. That small 'shortcut type' file in turn then
downloads a large amount of data from a particular server (to which
the author has previously uploaded it), and it displays clever stuff
in GE. (Such as global cloud cover.) When I run that, GE takes 95-99%
of my CPU, as compared with no noticeable usage when doing other
things.

In PE, both situations show GE taking the same 43 processes. With a
network link open (or being opened - I'm never entirely sure it ever
finishes!) - PE reports CPU as 95%, which I already knew from Task
Manager (and the even more obvious fact that I could do virtually
nothing on the PC).

Same goes for TCPView, which I've also downloaded, after studying your
very readable article at
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/essential-tools-for-desktop-and.html#ProcessExplorer
thank you.


This Athlon 1800 1 GB is about 5 years old. It's the sheer hassle I
anticipate in re-installing and re-tweaking that makes me put off my
next purchase! Plus the fact that, by and large, this PC is doing
pretty well. For example I make (encode and author) family DVDs,
generally regarded as intensive work for any PC, and have no real
problems. It's just the GE problem I described, plus sometimes very
slow Explore operation (opening folders can occasionally take 30 secs)
that frustrates me. Oh, and, if I'm honest, the occasional sudden
crash. Like the one I had as I was finishing composing this reply a
short while ago! Sudden black screen and a reboot. Something else to
fret about ;-(

I'm saving this text regularly as I type...


Main partition is D: is 178 GB and has 88.7 GB free. My OS partition
is C:, which is 11.7 GB with 1.52 GB free. Other partitions are all
OK.

Nightly, with Diskeeper in 'smart' mode.


Used chkdsk /f on C: and D: a week or so ago, but I will do another.

Terry,

1) Excessive CPU use when running Google Earth. Google Earth is VERY CPU
intensive. IT's drawing a detailed map of the earth (or some portion of it).
If you have enough bandwidth, the CPU drain from Google Earth could be massive.

2) When you open folders in Windows Explorer, observe what's in the folders. A
large number of files or folders, for instance, can take time.

Terry, any computer system will always max out on something, if it's not running
idle. Sometimes you'll notice the maxed out state, other times you'll be doing
something else and won't notice. If you run GE, and your Internet service feeds
you data fast enough, you'll max out the CPU. If you have slow DSL, like I
have, you'll max out on network (Internet) traffic before you max out the CPU.
If you're typing, it's maxed out on the input (you).

You don't have to understand PE immediately. Just run it when you are using
Task Manager, and look at the additional metrics that it gives you. Process
Explorer simply has more metrics, for you to observe.

And no, I'm not a programmer. And the one time that I was in the room with Mark
Russinovich he was speaking to a crowd of several thousand and I was one
listening.

Now the black screen and system restart we should investigate. But that's not a
network issue. This could have numerous causes. Details please.
# How often does it do this.
# Are you doing anything specific when it does this.
# Any specific time of day or day of week when this happens more often.
# Is the computer attached to a UPS?
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/background-information-useful-in.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/background-information-useful-in.html
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/08/solving-network-problems-tutorial.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/08/solving-network-problems-tutorial.html
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/protect-your-hardware-use-ups.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/protect-your-hardware-use-ups.html

 

[Terry Pinnell]

Terry,

1) Excessive CPU use when running Google Earth. Google Earth is VERY CPU
intensive. IT's drawing a detailed map of the earth (or some portion of it).
If you have enough bandwidth, the CPU drain from Google Earth could be massive.

2) When you open folders in Windows Explorer, observe what's in the folders. A
large number of files or folders, for instance, can take time.

Terry, any computer system will always max out on something, if it's not running
idle. Sometimes you'll notice the maxed out state, other times you'll be doing
something else and won't notice. If you run GE, and your Internet service feeds
you data fast enough, you'll max out the CPU. If you have slow DSL, like I
have, you'll max out on network (Internet) traffic before you max out the CPU.
If you're typing, it's maxed out on the input (you).

You don't have to understand PE immediately. Just run it when you are using
Task Manager, and look at the additional metrics that it gives you. Process
Explorer simply has more metrics, for you to observe.

And no, I'm not a programmer. And the one time that I was in the room with Mark
Russinovich he was speaking to a crowd of several thousand and I was one
listening.

Now the black screen and system restart we should investigate. But that's not a
network issue. This could have numerous causes. Details please.
# How often does it do this.
# Are you doing anything specific when it does this.
# Any specific time of day or day of week when this happens more often.
# Is the computer attached to a UPS?
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/background-information-useful-in.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/06/background-information-useful-in.html
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/08/solving-network-problems-tutorial.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/08/solving-network-problems-tutorial.html
<http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/protect-your-hardware-use-ups.html>
http://nitecruzr.blogspot.com/2005/05/protect-your-hardware-use-ups.html

Thanks Chuck. I'll do some more methodical testing.

As for the crash (which does now take us well OT!), it's happened 3
times in the last fortnight. Can't point to any specific cause, or
even now remember precisely what I was doing. No UPS. I rather suspect
a monitor or graphics card hardware problem. I recently upgraded my
64MB NVidia Geforce2 MX/MX 400 drivers, but after reading that some
users had stability problems I reverted to my 2 year old one.

It may be totally unrelated, but just in case it rings any bells for
you... I recently posted in a couple of forums about over 100 invalid
ActiveX/COM entries being reported by Norton WinDoctor, CCleaner, etc.
(So far with no useful response.)

They mostly look like this:

Missing or Invalid Key: "DisplayServer.AppSettingsBasic"
Problem ProgID, "DisplayServer.AppSettingsBasic," refers to an
invalid ActiveX/COM entry,
"{9B5EC720-9A44-4811-8B9F-24BD53F2050D}."

Missing or Invalid Key: "DisplayServer.AppSettingsBasic.1"
Problem ProgID, "DisplayServer.AppSettingsBasic.1," refers to an
invalid ActiveX/COM entry,

Missing or Invalid Key: "Video_TVServer.VideoZoom"
Problem ProgID, "Video_TVServer.VideoZoom," refers to an invalid
ActiveX/COM entry,
"{D385E909-3F89-4ECD-B38F-AC11F9FE6F1C}."
etc

But I am seem unable to Delete any of these, either with Norton or
CCleaner.

As I say, longshot, but do you think it could have a bearing please?

 

[Chuck]

Thanks Chuck. I'll do some more methodical testing.

As for the crash (which does now take us well OT!), it's happened 3
times in the last fortnight. Can't point to any specific cause, or
even now remember precisely what I was doing. No UPS. I rather suspect
a monitor or graphics card hardware problem. I recently upgraded my
64MB NVidia Geforce2 MX/MX 400 drivers, but after reading that some
users had stability problems I reverted to my 2 year old one.

It may be totally unrelated, but just in case it rings any bells for
you... I recently posted in a couple of forums about over 100 invalid
ActiveX/COM entries being reported by Norton WinDoctor, CCleaner, etc.
(So far with no useful response.)

They mostly look like this:

Missing or Invalid Key: "DisplayServer.AppSettingsBasic"
Problem ProgID, "DisplayServer.AppSettingsBasic," refers to an
invalid ActiveX/COM entry,
"{9B5EC720-9A44-4811-8B9F-24BD53F2050D}."

Missing or Invalid Key: "DisplayServer.AppSettingsBasic.1"
Problem ProgID, "DisplayServer.AppSettingsBasic.1," refers to an
invalid ActiveX/COM entry,

Missing or Invalid Key: "Video_TVServer.VideoZoom"
Problem ProgID, "Video_TVServer.VideoZoom," refers to an invalid
ActiveX/COM entry,
"{D385E909-3F89-4ECD-B38F-AC11F9FE6F1C}."
etc

But I am seem unable to Delete any of these, either with Norton or
CCleaner.

As I say, longshot, but do you think it could have a bearing please?

They could have a relationship, Terry. They all appear to refer to display
components. However, all of that is somewhat outside the scope of Windows
Networking.

I suspect that you're now into the area where you would be best served by
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support.
<http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/...g=microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support>
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/...g=microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support