Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Domstic network mystert

Reply
Thread Tools

Domstic network mystert

 
 
Lindsay.Rollo@paradisedotnetdotnz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2009
I have a simple file sharing and internet access network for three
computers via a 4-port Netgear RP614 router.

A XP Atheros AR8131 O/b adapter

B XP VIA Rhine II O/b adapter

C 2000 Intel 8255 O/b adapter

All adapters reported as working properly in Device Manager

A can see and transfer to B & C

B can see and transfer to A & C

C and see and transfer to B but not see A

Suggestions for possible solutions ?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ron McNulty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2009
Hi Lindsay

Check that all computers use exactly the same netmask - Windows has
some arcane rules as to what constitutes a workgroup.

I got bitten once...

Regards

Ron

On Oct 30, 8:49*pm, "Lindsay.Rollo@paradisedotnetdotnz"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I have a simple file sharing and internet access network for three
> computers via a 4-port Netgear RP614 router.
>
> A * * * XP * * * * * * *Atheros AR8131 O/b adapter
>
> B * * * XP * * * * * * *VIA Rhine II O/b adapter
>
> C * * * 2000 * *Intel 8255 O/b adapter
>
> All adapters reported as working properly in Device Manager
>
> A can see and transfer to B & C
>
> B can see and transfer to A & C
>
> C and see and transfer to B but not see A
>
> Suggestions for possible solutions ?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
EMB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2009
Lindsay.Rollo@paradisedotnetdotnz wrote:
> I have a simple file sharing and internet access network for three
> computers via a 4-port Netgear RP614 router.
>
> A XP Atheros AR8131 O/b adapter
>
> B XP VIA Rhine II O/b adapter
>
> C 2000 Intel 8255 O/b adapter
>
> All adapters reported as working properly in Device Manager
>
> A can see and transfer to B & C
>
> B can see and transfer to A & C
>
> C and see and transfer to B but not see A
>
> Suggestions for possible solutions ?


Seriously, and not trolling, upgrade the Windows 2000 to XP. Not only
does Windows 2000 often give this sort of problem in peer-to-peer
networks, but it is now unsupported by Microsoft.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2009
In message <hce9c5$fja$(E-Mail Removed)>, EMB wrote:

> Seriously, and not trolling, upgrade the Windows 2000 to XP.


And while we're not trolling, why stop there?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2009
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <hce9c5$fja$(E-Mail Removed)>, EMB wrote:
>
>> Seriously, and not trolling, upgrade the Windows 2000 to XP.

>
> And while we're not trolling, why stop there?
>

What's trolling about that? It is evident that similar machines of
similar configurations are likely to communicate better than disparate
machines with different OSes. Personally I'd have said that Win2000 and
WinNT machines worked better together than Win2000 and XP ever did and
that totally XP networks gave more problems than Win2000 only networks
did, but EMB sees it differently and I've no problems with that.
Different experiences and all that.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.
 
Reply With Quote
 
EMB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2009
Enkidu wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> In message <hce9c5$fja$(E-Mail Removed)>, EMB wrote:
>>
>>> Seriously, and not trolling, upgrade the Windows 2000 to XP.

>>
>> And while we're not trolling, why stop there?
> >

> What's trolling about that? It is evident that similar machines of
> similar configurations are likely to communicate better than disparate
> machines with different OSes. Personally I'd have said that Win2000 and
> WinNT machines worked better together than Win2000 and XP ever did and
> that totally XP networks gave more problems than Win2000 only networks
> did, but EMB sees it differently and I've no problems with that.
> Different experiences and all that.


No, I see it your way BUT an all XP network generally gives less grief
than a mixed 2000/XP network when using simple file sharing. Once you
get to domain level networking mixed 2000 and XP networks function just
fine.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter Huebner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2009
In article <hcg8ab$r1h$(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> No, I see it your way BUT an all XP network generally gives less grief
> than a mixed 2000/XP network when using simple file sharing. Once you
> get to domain level networking mixed 2000 and XP networks function just
> fine.
>
>


Yes, mixed xp and 2000 can be a pain. Been there, done that, it boiled
down to a wrangle over who's master browser i.i.r.c. but it's been a
while since I had to deal with _that_ nightmare scenario. Took aaages to
sort.

As usual, there's stuff about it on www.wown.com

-P.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2009
On 2009-10-30, Lindsay.Rollo@paradisedotnetdotnz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I have a simple file sharing and internet access network for three
> computers via a 4-port Netgear RP614 router.
>
> A XP Atheros AR8131 O/b adapter
>
> B XP VIA Rhine II O/b adapter
>
> C 2000 Intel 8255 O/b adapter
>
> All adapters reported as working properly in Device Manager
>
> A can see and transfer to B & C
>
> B can see and transfer to A & C
>
> C and see and transfer to B but not see A
>
> Suggestions for possible solutions ?


Oh, you kept it open eh
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2009
On 2009-10-30, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
> In message <hce9c5$fja$(E-Mail Removed)>, EMB wrote:
>
>> Seriously, and not trolling, upgrade the Windows 2000 to XP.

>
> And while we're not trolling, why stop there?


However, you seem to have failed to follow your own advice Lawrence. Please
continue
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2009
On 2009-10-30, Enkidu <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> In message <hce9c5$fja$(E-Mail Removed)>, EMB wrote:
>>
>>> Seriously, and not trolling, upgrade the Windows 2000 to XP.

>>
>> And while we're not trolling, why stop there?


> What's trolling about that?


Indeed, and yet trolls need to be challenged. In away they are.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No "Wireless Network Connection" available in network connection =?Utf-8?B?am9raW5kYTE=?= Wireless Networking 7 10-16-2012 07:32 AM
Network did not assign network address Bill Babakian Wireless Networking 3 11-21-2004 08:15 PM
lost use of network printer connceted via wireless network after p =?Utf-8?B?Ul9DX0Jyb3duX0py?= Wireless Networking 0 11-05-2004 08:34 PM
My Network Places | Entire Network ?? Rush Wireless Networking 0 09-21-2004 09:43 PM
Network Computer Reboots when Laptop Connects to Wireless Network Charles Law Wireless Networking 7 09-14-2004 02:11 PM



Advertisments