Homegroup and Windows 10?

Is anyone looking at Homegroup in Windows 10? It seems to have all the same
bugs as Win 8 and 7 did. Can't create a homegroup can only join one.
Problem is a Homegroup has not been created on my network???

So I try to join the homegroup and get no Homegroup not available on this
network???

I'm seeing all the same suggested fixes out there that don't work ie,
- Make sure IVP6 is checked, etc

It seems, Nothing I can see out there works after years of suggestions.

Windows 10 to the rescue, Mercifully

They did do a Fairley good job re; Windows.old actually being useful for
something...

ArtReid wrote:
Is anyone looking at Homegroup in Windows 10? It seems to have all the
same bugs as Win 8 and 7 did. Can't create a homegroup can only join one.
Problem is a Homegroup has not been created on my network???

So I try to join the homegroup and get no Homegroup not available on
this network???

I'm seeing all the same suggested fixes out there that don't work ie,
- Make sure IVP6 is checked, etc

It seems, Nothing I can see out there works after years of suggestions.

Windows 10 to the rescue, Mercifully

They did do a Fairley good job re; Windows.old actually being useful for
something...

So, you can tell right away, that whatever
configuration mistake you made in Windows 7, was
*preserved* by your upgrade install.

If you want a *change in behavior*, do a *clean install*
of Win10 on a separate hard drive. Then, follow the usual
recipe for creating a home group.

*******

Some of the comments at the end here, are telling.

https://technet.microsoft.com/library/ee449421.aspx

This tech has limits. It's specifically intended for
Home users, using some version like Home Premium. In
other words, not a version with Domain Join capability
(like the guy with a copy of Enterprise). As who knows
what permission model will be inherited if that happens.

It assumes a simple networking model. Notice how people
with wireless bridges are broken. Make sure all the
computers are on the same subnet, or adjust things
so they can at least communicate with one another.

It requires you to click the "Home" button when first
setting up networking. You can't do Homegroup, if you
selected the higher security setting used when sitting
with your laptop at Starbucks and using their Wifi.

You've done something... now it's just a matter
of figuring out what.

I've never tested HomeGroup, because it would be
a giant waste of test time, for no gain. If you can
successfully bust HomeGroup, then regular sharing
is bound to work better.

I don't know what problem HomeGroup was solving,
but it's not something I want here. I've got enough
stuff in the "busted queue" right now thanks :-) I've
got weeks of work to do...

Paul

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 23:55:16 -0400, Paul wrote:

I've never tested HomeGroup, because it would be
a giant waste of test time, for no gain. If you can
successfully bust HomeGroup, then regular sharing
is bound to work better.

I don't know what problem HomeGroup was solving,
but it's not something I want here. I've got enough
stuff in the "busted queue" right now thanks :-) I've
got weeks of work to do...

HomeGroup is just an easier alternative to Workgroups, when setting up
sharing, assuming that all of the machines are running a Windows version
that supports it. I've personally helped a lot of people set up sharing via
the Workgroup method, but doing the same via HomeGroup is faster and drop
dead simple.

I use neither method myself, though, preferring instead to access the
various shares by IP address.

Char Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 23:55:16 -0400, Paul wrote:

I've never tested HomeGroup, because it would be
a giant waste of test time, for no gain. If you can
successfully bust HomeGroup, then regular sharing
is bound to work better.

I don't know what problem HomeGroup was solving,
but it's not something I want here. I've got enough
stuff in the "busted queue" right now thanks :-) I've
got weeks of work to do...

HomeGroup is just an easier alternative to Workgroups, when setting up
sharing, assuming that all of the machines are running a Windows version
that supports it. I've personally helped a lot of people set up sharing via
the Workgroup method, but doing the same via HomeGroup is faster and drop
dead simple.

I use neither method myself, though, preferring instead to access the
various shares by IP address.


So do you have a mental model, of what sort of environment
Homegroup expects ?

Is it limited to a subnet ? Could I homegroup with
people around the world ? Or are there some restrictions ?

My assumption is, it's intended for the simplest possible
setup, like a single LAN segment in someone's home. And doesn't
tolerate "general networking" all that well. I would not
expect a tutorial article, to dwell on that sort of detail,
to make it easier to debug.

I guess the closest equivalent of "restricted", would
be like the limitations of ICS (Internet Connection Sharing).
Which is just barely "networking" as we know it.

I'd set up a packet tracer, set up a couple machines and
test it and see what it gets up to, but that's a lot of
work for a feature I believe should not exist... Microsoft
should have put their energy into making regular sharing
work smoother. Homegroup appears to be a way to "promote
Libraries", rather than a serious effort to fix networking
for people.

Paul

On 07/17/2015 08:25 AM, Char Jackson wrote:

[snip]

I use neither method myself, though, preferring instead to access the
various shares by IP address.


I prefer something similar, but I have a local DNS server (Dnsmasq on
DD-WRT) so can use names like Gary.LAN

BTW (OT), yes I was thinking of Star Trek while naming that PC.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Theology-An effort to explain the unknowable by putting it into terms
of the not worth knowing." [H.L. Mencken]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 10:58:04 -0400, Paul wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 23:55:16 -0400, Paul wrote:

I've never tested HomeGroup, because it would be
a giant waste of test time, for no gain. If you can
successfully bust HomeGroup, then regular sharing
is bound to work better.

I don't know what problem HomeGroup was solving,
but it's not something I want here. I've got enough
stuff in the "busted queue" right now thanks :-) I've
got weeks of work to do...

HomeGroup is just an easier alternative to Workgroups, when setting up
sharing, assuming that all of the machines are running a Windows version
that supports it. I've personally helped a lot of people set up sharing via
the Workgroup method, but doing the same via HomeGroup is faster and drop
dead simple.

I use neither method myself, though, preferring instead to access the
various shares by IP address.


So do you have a mental model, of what sort of environment
Homegroup expects ?

Is it limited to a subnet ? Could I homegroup with
people around the world ? Or are there some restrictions ?

My assumption is, it's intended for the simplest possible
setup, like a single LAN segment in someone's home. And doesn't
tolerate "general networking" all that well. I would not
expect a tutorial article, to dwell on that sort of detail,
to make it easier to debug.

My assumption is like yours, that it's intended for a single subnet. If you
need to network across subnets, especially if a WAN link is involved, I'd
probably use a VPN. If it's across subnets within a LAN, a dual-homed PC
works well. You can stack multiple IP's on a single NIC, so you don't even
need multiple NICs.


I guess the closest equivalent of "restricted", would
be like the limitations of ICS (Internet Connection Sharing).
Which is just barely "networking" as we know it.

I'd set up a packet tracer, set up a couple machines and
test it and see what it gets up to, but that's a lot of
work for a feature I believe should not exist... Microsoft
should have put their energy into making regular sharing
work smoother. Homegroup appears to be a way to "promote
Libraries", rather than a serious effort to fix networking
for people.

What's the tie-in with Libraries? Those seem to be two entirely different
and unrelated features to me.

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 14:35:48 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 07/17/2015 08:25 AM, Char Jackson wrote:

[snip]

I use neither method myself, though, preferring instead to access the
various shares by IP address.


I prefer something similar, but I have a local DNS server (Dnsmasq on
DD-WRT) so can use names like Gary.LAN

For well over a decade now, I've been telling myself that one day I'm going
to set up DHCP address reservation or dnsmasq entries, but it hasn't
happened. I'm used to using IP addresses, which are hardcoded in each of the
PCs that I want to access. DHCP is used for other things that I don't need
to access, like the TV, the AV receiver, the Roku, the media player, and on
and on. Like you, I run dd-wrt on several devices, so my excuse is that I'm
too lazy to do it.

BTW (OT), yes I was thinking of Star Trek while naming that PC.

I just binge watched the entire first season (again) of ST:TOS. Good stuff.