Domstic network mystert

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lindsay.Rollo@paradisedotnetdotnz, Oct 30, 2009.

  1. 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 ?
    Lindsay.Rollo@paradisedotnetdotnz, Oct 30, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lindsay.Rollo@paradisedotnetdotnz

    Ron McNulty Guest

    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"
    <> 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 ?
    Ron McNulty, Oct 30, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lindsay.Rollo@paradisedotnetdotnz

    EMB Guest

    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.
    EMB, Oct 30, 2009
    #3
  4. In message <hce9c5$fja$>, EMB wrote:

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


    And while we're not trolling, why stop there?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 30, 2009
    #4
  5. Lindsay.Rollo@paradisedotnetdotnz

    Enkidu Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message <hce9c5$fja$>, 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.
    Enkidu, Oct 30, 2009
    #5
  6. Lindsay.Rollo@paradisedotnetdotnz

    EMB Guest

    Enkidu wrote:
    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >> In message <hce9c5$fja$>, 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.
    EMB, Oct 31, 2009
    #6
  7. In article <hcg8ab$r1h$>, 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.
    Peter Huebner, Oct 31, 2009
    #7
  8. Lindsay.Rollo@paradisedotnetdotnz

    Gordon Guest

    On 2009-10-30, 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 ?


    Oh, you kept it open eh
    Gordon, Oct 31, 2009
    #8
  9. Lindsay.Rollo@paradisedotnetdotnz

    Gordon Guest

    On 2009-10-30, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
    > In message <hce9c5$fja$>, 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
    Gordon, Oct 31, 2009
    #9
  10. Lindsay.Rollo@paradisedotnetdotnz

    Gordon Guest

    On 2009-10-30, Enkidu <> wrote:
    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >> In message <hce9c5$fja$>, 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.
    Gordon, Oct 31, 2009
    #10
  11. Lindsay.Rollo@paradisedotnetdotnz

    Gordon Guest

    On 2009-10-30, Ron McNulty <> wrote:
    > 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...
    >


    Right, here we go again. Usenet has the policy of bottom posting. Please
    join the rest of us.
    Gordon, Oct 31, 2009
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Charles Law
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,009
    Charles Law
    Sep 14, 2004
  2. Rush

    My Network Places | Entire Network ??

    Rush, Sep 21, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,801
  3. =?Utf-8?B?Ul9DX0Jyb3duX0py?=

    lost use of network printer connceted via wireless network after p

    =?Utf-8?B?Ul9DX0Jyb3duX0py?=, Nov 5, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    974
    =?Utf-8?B?Ul9DX0Jyb3duX0py?=
    Nov 5, 2004
  4. Bill Babakian

    Network did not assign network address

    Bill Babakian, Nov 21, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    12,955
    Bill Babakian
    Nov 21, 2004
  5. =?Utf-8?B?am9raW5kYTE=?=

    No "Wireless Network Connection" available in network connection

    =?Utf-8?B?am9raW5kYTE=?=, Nov 27, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    19,072
    preeuzee
    Oct 16, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page