Still Awaiting Assistance

I am becoming substantially displeased with the fact that still no further
responses have been transmitted regarding this:

My brother and I each possess a Windows XP Service Pack II computer, which
are networked, his being the server and providing a shared connection. Both
of us also have shared directories. Despite the network's considerable
benefits, primarily in entertainment, intermittently:

1. Both or one of either of the computers' shared directory Network Places
shortcuts cease to exist.

2. Both or one of the computers cease to register in the workgroup
computers lists of both or one of our computers.

3. Whenever I attempt to access files via Internet Explorer while using the
shared connection, the computer believes that no such connection is
currently active and, instead, attempts to connect to the Internet, which is
always futile, as the domicile only possesses one telephone line.

I am substantially displeased by this, especially considering my conjecture
that the service pack is defective. I have even heard negative comments on
it. Perhaps the claims of Microsoft's software flaws being considerably
more common compared to those of a majority of other major companies are
true after all.

Compu-Pikachu wrote:
I am becoming substantially displeased with the fact that still no
further responses have been transmitted regarding this:

My brother and I each possess a Windows XP Service Pack II computer,
which are networked, his being the server and providing a shared
connection. Both of us also have shared directories. Despite the
network's considerable benefits, primarily in entertainment,
intermittently:
1. Both or one of either of the computers' shared directory Network
Places shortcuts cease to exist.

2. Both or one of the computers cease to register in the workgroup
computers lists of both or one of our computers.

3. Whenever I attempt to access files via Internet Explorer while
using the shared connection, the computer believes that no such
connection is currently active and, instead, attempts to connect to
the Internet, which is always futile, as the domicile only possesses
one telephone line.
I am substantially displeased by this, especially considering my
conjecture that the service pack is defective. I have even heard
negative comments on it. Perhaps the claims of Microsoft's software
flaws being considerably more common compared to those of a majority
of other major companies are true after all.

Your network is defective.
Either the NICs are cheap knockoffs of decent manufacturs or your router is
defective or you don't have the latest drivers for your NICs in Windows XP
or you have spyare/viruses or your cabling is in need of replacing.

Give us your configuration (hardware) fromm the PC to the router and down
the line to your other PC.
Give us your software configuration (what applications and protocol you have
installed and are using..)
Give us information on what YOU have done to resolve the issue.
Clean up both PCs and update with all security patches and hardware drivers.

I personally use IPX/SPX/NetBIOS Compatible protocol for internal
transfers - so the pots for file and print sharing remain closed (I am
behind a NAT).

--
- Shenan -
--
The information is provided "as is", it is suggested you research for
yourself before you take any advice - you are the one ultimately
responsible for your actions/problems/solutions. Know what you are
getting into before you jump in with both feet.

You said:
"I am becoming substantially displeased with the fact that
still no further responses have been transmitted regarding
this"

I say:
This is a free service. If you don't like the speed or
quality of the answers, go someplace else.


-----Original Message-----
I am becoming substantially displeased with the fact that
still no further
responses have been transmitted regarding this:

My brother and I each possess a Windows XP Service Pack
II computer, which
are networked, his being the server and providing a
shared connection. Both
of us also have shared directories. Despite the
network's considerable
benefits, primarily in entertainment, intermittently:

1. Both or one of either of the computers' shared
directory Network Places
shortcuts cease to exist.

2. Both or one of the computers cease to register in the
workgroup
computers lists of both or one of our computers.

3. Whenever I attempt to access files via Internet
Explorer while using the
shared connection, the computer believes that no such
connection is
currently active and, instead, attempts to connect to the
Internet, which is
always futile, as the domicile only possesses one
telephone line.

I am substantially displeased by this, especially
considering my conjecture
that the service pack is defective. I have even heard
negative comments on
it. Perhaps the claims of Microsoft's software flaws
being considerably
more common compared to those of a majority of other
major companies are
true after all.


.

"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message
...
Either the NICs are cheap knockoffs of decent manufacturs . . .

How can this be determined?

. . . or your router is defective

The only component connecting the computers is a Category V cable.

or you don't have the latest drivers for your NICs in Windows XP

Why would updated drivers be necessary? They functioned previously.

. . . or you have spyare/viruses . . .

I possess Spybot: Search & Destroy and scanned at least once within the
past week and many times prior to that.

or your cabling is in need of replacing.

How can that be determined?

Give us your software configuration (what applications and protocol you
have installed and are using..)

Are you merely referring to Internet programs?

The only protocol is the default.

Give us information on what YOU have done to resolve the issue.

I have been clueless.

Clean up both PCs and update with all security patches and hardware
drivers.

Automatic Windows updates are activated all of the time.

I personally use IPX/SPX/NetBIOS Compatible protocol for internal
transfers - so the pots for file and print sharing remain closed (I am
behind a NAT).

I have only heard of the term "NAT" a few times.

Please be aware that my networking knowledge, including that of protocols,
is extremely limited.

In fact, all I had done to configure the network was merely connect the
cable and execute the Network Setup Wizard.

wrote:
You said:
"I am becoming substantially displeased with the fact that
still no further responses have been transmitted regarding
this"

I say:
This is a free service. If you don't like the speed or
quality of the answers, go someplace else.

It is simply that so many threads are initiated daily on here and that a
majority of them are answered within just hours. Something appeared amiss.
In addition, I am desperate to rectify the malfunctions.

Your message's final sentence appeared to imply anger and/or animosity
towards me. Is this correct? If so, please be aware that I am not your
adversary.

My response implied nothing, certainly not anger. But you
have to understand that you get what you pay for.

-----Original Message-----
wrote:
You said:
"I am becoming substantially displeased with the fact
that
still no further responses have been transmitted
regarding
this"

I say:
This is a free service. If you don't like the speed or
quality of the answers, go someplace else.

It is simply that so many threads are initiated daily on
here and that a
majority of them are answered within just hours.
Something appeared amiss.
In addition, I am desperate to rectify the malfunctions.

Your message's final sentence appeared to imply anger
and/or animosity
towards me. Is this correct? If so, please be aware
that I am not your
adversary.


.

Shenan Stanley wrote:
Compu-Pikachu wrote:
You tell us the brand name of the nics or the chipset using something
like Device Manager or Belarc Advisor.

That was conjectured.

I am familiar with the Device Manager and its operation.

The brand is VIA Rhine II Fast Ethernet Adapter.

. . . or your router is defective

The only component connecting the computers is a Category V cable.

Crossover?

All not all such cables crossover ones? Is "Category V" synonymous with
"crossover"?

You updated to SP2. MANY drivers have had updates to fix differences
the service pack caused. SP2 was notthing short of a complete
makeover of Windows XP, IMHO.

Ah, it is to compensate for OTHER updates. Interesting.

No updates were available.


. . . or you have spyware/viruses . . .

I possess Spybot: Search & Destroy and scanned at least once within
the past week and many times prior to that.

Spybot Search and Destroy, although great, is far from adequate. I
recommend 5 or more Antispyware applications at any given time:

That is excessive. I am even opposed to having more than one anti-virus
program simultaneously installed, let alone executing.

Nevertheless, considering my safety practices, the probability of any
spyware currently existing on my computer is approximately one percent.

First - make sure you have NOT installed "Rogue AntiSpyware". There
are people out there who created AntiSpyware products that actually
install spyware of their own!

I have never installed any others, except AdAware, when I tried that first
and discovered that the other was superior.

Nevertheless, I had happened to had become slightly familiar with false
anti-spyware programs.

Replace it with a new cable.

Only one was purchased. The currency expenditure for another is
unacceptable.

Mainly.. P2P anywhere?

I have only heard of that term a few times, whose acronymic representation I
am aware is "point-to-point." Are these merely file sharing programs? If
so, the answer is, "Negative."

So TCP/IP?

Affirmative. That inquiry was anticipated. Even experts do not necessarily
memorize.

Okay - honesty.

What other logical action would exist? Do neurotypicals usually find
admitting being clueless embarrassing?

I have Asperger's syndrome/high-functioning autism.

That only gets critical Windows XP Patches. That does nothing for
your applications or drivers.

Upon transmitting this message, that shall be accomplished.

The modem's speed is approximately fifty-six kilobits per second.

Network Address Translation.

I had heard of the acronymic representation at least once but forgot.

My recommendation is that you get a HUB in your situation, a switch
would be better and a router would be icing on the cake.

Why? The two computers are inside adjacent bedrooms. In fact, almost all
transfers are instantaneous.

Read up!

Was that intended to express emotion? If so, which ones and why?

wrote:
But you
have to understand that you get what you pay for.

I was aware of that.

Compu-Pikachu wrote:
Shenan Stanley wrote:
Compu-Pikachu wrote:
You tell us the brand name of the nics or the chipset using something
like Device Manager or Belarc Advisor.

That was conjectured.

I am familiar with the Device Manager and its operation.

The brand is VIA Rhine II Fast Ethernet Adapter.

Yes - quite a horrid little chipset in my experience. I replaced many of
them with Linksys 10Mbit and got better performance and reliability in the
past.

Matter of fact - read this and act appropriately:
There is a known issue with the via rhine - an incorrect link speed setting.
Go to local area connection properties - configure - Advanced -
Connection Type - change from Auto-Negotiation to 100Base Tx Full Duplex.

. . . or your router is defective

The only component connecting the computers is a Category V cable.

Crossover?

All not all such cables crossover ones? Is "Category V" synonymous
with "crossover"?

No.
Cat5: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/C/Cat_5.html
Crossover: http://webopedia.internet.com/TERM/C...ver_cable.html

Given for your two computers to be communicating without a hub, it is a
crossover cable, but not necessarily cat5/5e.

You updated to SP2. MANY drivers have had updates to fix differences
the service pack caused. SP2 was nothing short of a complete
makeover of Windows XP, IMHO.

Ah, it is to compensate for OTHER updates. Interesting.

No updates were available.

It is not to compensate, but to take in the changes of the core system.
Much like going from Windows ME to XP.. Different drivers.

. . . or you have spyware/viruses . . .

I possess Spybot: Search & Destroy and scanned at least once within
the past week and many times prior to that.

Spybot Search and Destroy, although great, is far from adequate. I
recommend 5 or more Antispyware applications at any given time:

That is excessive. I am even opposed to having more than one
anti-virus program simultaneously installed, let alone executing.

Nevertheless, considering my safety practices, the probability of any
spyware currently existing on my computer is approximately one
percent.

Yeah - heard that before. heh
Did you know that Spybot effectiveness is less than 60% removal/location
ability (as are all other lone antispyware applications)?

First - make sure you have NOT installed "Rogue AntiSpyware". There
are people out there who created AntiSpyware products that actually
install spyware of their own!

I have never installed any others, except AdAware, when I tried that
first and discovered that the other was superior.

Nevertheless, I had happened to had become slightly familiar with
false anti-spyware programs.

I wish one was sufficient. If you insist on only one, I suggest the
Microsoft AntiSpyware (although you maybe should wait until it is out of the
Beta phase) - it is based off one of the best tested: Giant AntiSpyware.

Replace it with a new cable.

Only one was purchased. The currency expenditure for another is
unacceptable.

Affirmative.

Mainly.. P2P anywhere?

I have only heard of that term a few times, whose acronymic
representation I am aware is "point-to-point." Are these merely file
sharing programs? If so, the answer is, "Negative."

Generally so, yes. This is a good thing.

So TCP/IP?

Affirmative. That inquiry was anticipated. Even experts do not
necessarily memorize.

I still suggest IPX/SPX/NetBIOS in such small networks.
(Part 7)
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/814987

Okay - honesty.

What other logical action would exist? Do neurotypicals usually find
admitting being clueless embarrassing?

Pretty much by definition..
For those less informed:
http://home.att.net/~ascaris1/neurotypicality.html

I have Asperger's syndrome/high-functioning autism.

Not much to do with the problem at hand, though, eh?
But for those interested and uninformed:
http://www.aspergerssyndrome.org/

That only gets critical Windows XP Patches. That does nothing for
your applications or drivers.

Upon transmitting this message, that shall be accomplished.

The modem's speed is approximately fifty-six kilobits per second.

Yeah - dial up can be painful.

Network Address Translation.

I had heard of the acronymic representation at least once but forgot.

Nothing special and since you use dial-up - not truly necessary.

My recommendation is that you get a HUB in your situation, a switch
would be better and a router would be icing on the cake.

Why? The two computers are inside adjacent bedrooms. In fact,
almost all transfers are instantaneous.

In your case, with dial-up, I reconsidered my recommendation. Hubs and
Switches would make life easier and setup cheaper and the addition of other
machines simple - however - you seem to have no need for such things.

Read up!

Was that intended to express emotion? If so, which ones and why?

No emotion.. Enthusiastic suggestion, at most..

http://www.practicallynetworked.com/sharing/
You snipped the given link to the instruction set.
There are several there you might want to check over... BUT I am fairly
certain your issue is the network card/chipset at this point.
I have nothing but problems with that particular chipset.
Go Intel if possible, 3COM next. I realize that may not monetarily be an
option - so try the suggestion earlier about the network settings. However,
you could look for a deal online through these sites:

For Pricing/Opinions/Reviews on various products:
- http://www.pricewatch.com/
- http://www.dealsites.net/
- http://www.techbargains.com/
- http://www.resellerratings.com/
- http://www.epinions.com/

--
- Shenan -
--
The information is provided "as is", it is suggested you research for
yourself before you take any advice - you are the one ultimately
responsible for your actions/problems/solutions. Know what you are
getting into before you jump in with both feet.

"Compu-Pikachu" c o m p u - p i k a c h u @ v a l i n t . n e t wrote in
message ...

snipped

The only component connecting the computers is a Category V cable.

Crossover?

All not all such cables crossover ones? Is "Category V" synonymous with
"crossover"?

In your original post, you stated your problem was occurring intermittently,
so this may not be your problem, but... Category 5 cabling is *not*
synonymous with "Crossover". Category 5 is a reference to the TIA/EIA
standard used when manufacturing the cable. However, it is a term commonly
used to refer to 100 Mb network cabling that is standard (also referred to
as "patch" or "straight through").

"Crossover" is a reference to the pin arrangement for the 4 wire pairs. In
a "standard" 100 Mb cable, each pin corresponds directly to the pin on the
opposite side of the cable. In a crossover cable, two of the pins are
switched (ergo the term "crossover"). This allows a computer to communicate
directly with another computer without the need of an additional Layer 2 or
3 device such as a hub, bridge, switch or router. The only difference
between a patch cable and a crossover cable are two pins, but that
difference is significant.

If you are going to network two PC's directly together, you *must* have a
crossover cable. If you purchase a crossover cable commercially, it will
almost invariably state, very obviously, that it is "Crossover" or "X-over".
Frequently, these cables are yellow in color (simply for easy
identification, not for any technical reason). Additionally, it will likely
cost significantly more (BTW - there is no good reason for this price
increase except supply and demand.) Any cable labeled simply as "Cat 5" or
"Network Cable" will likely not be a crossover cable and will *not* work for
this type of networking scenario.

"Compu-Pikachu" c o m p u - p i k a c h u @ v a l i n t . n e t wrote in
message ...
I am becoming substantially displeased with the fact that still no further
responses have been transmitted regarding this:

My brother and I each possess a Windows XP Service Pack II computer, which
are networked, his being the server and providing a shared connection.
Both of us also have shared directories. Despite the network's
considerable benefits, primarily in entertainment, intermittently:

1. Both or one of either of the computers' shared directory Network
Places shortcuts cease to exist.

2. Both or one of the computers cease to register in the workgroup
computers lists of both or one of our computers.

3. Whenever I attempt to access files via Internet Explorer while using
the shared connection, the computer believes that no such connection is
currently active and, instead, attempts to connect to the Internet, which
is always futile, as the domicile only possesses one telephone line.

I am substantially displeased by this, especially considering my
conjecture that the service pack is defective. I have even heard negative
comments on it. Perhaps the claims of Microsoft's software flaws being
considerably more common compared to those of a majority of other major
companies are true after all.


Your easiest course of action would be to follow Shenan's advice and install
IPX/SPX on both computers. Go to the Network Connections folder. Right click
on Local Area Connection and pick Properties. Click Install then Protocol
then Add then NWLink IPX/SPX/NetBIOS Compatible Transport Protocol then OK.
You will probably have to restart your computer. Do this on both computers.
If this doesn't solve the problem let us know.

Kerry

Compu-Pikachu wrote:
wrote:

But you
have to understand that you get what you pay for.


I was aware of that.



I'll comment here just to make sure you are aware that this newsgroup is
not "run" by Microsoft even though they "host" it. The group is also not
a part of MS support. The people who post here are not paid for doing
so, they volunteer to help if and when they know the answer (and if they
can figure out the problem from the original poster's description).
Sometimes it takes a bit (or a lot) of questions and answers and trying
things to get to the root of a problem and find a solution. I realize
that someone with your syndrome might take things more literally than
most of the posters expect. Often, even the experts here take offence
when someone appears to have an "attitude" and seems to demand help. I
do not think that is what you are meaning to do. Have patience and work
through the steps that poster S. Stanley is suggesting, it may take some
time as no one has a system setup just exactly like yours and cannot see
what you are seeing on your screen so they have to ask what may seem
like boring questions on the path to solution. In troubleshooting it is
necessary to try one thing at a time to isolate the component (hardware
or software) that has caused the failure. If it worked previously, then
I believe it is reasonable to assume that it can work again, although a
software driver or a failed piece of hardware may have to be replaced.

By the way, those links given for networking have a lot of information
if you want to become more proficient and could give you something to
read while people here are helping you sort out the current problem.

HTH, Rodney

"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message
...
Yes - quite a horrid little chipset in my experience. I replaced many of
them with Linksys 10Mbit and got better performance and reliability in the
past.

Our computers were just purchased approximately nine months ago. The
malfunctions commenced transpiring about only two ago. Please explain that.

Matter of fact - read this and act appropriately:
There is a known issue with the via rhine - an incorrect link speed
setting. Go to local area connection properties - configure -
Advanced - Connection Type - change from Auto-Negotiation to 100Base Tx
Full Duplex.

It has been accomplished.

No.
Cat5: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/C/Cat_5.html
Crossover: http://webopedia.internet.com/TERM/C...ver_cable.html

The cable's packaging did read "crossover," and according to the latter
term's definition, it would be of that variety.

You updated to SP2. MANY drivers have had updates to fix differences
the service pack caused. SP2 was nothing short of a complete
makeover of Windows XP, IMHO.

Well, Windows Update should have warned me of that.

It is not to compensate, but to take in the changes of the core system.

Ah, of course, it would be considered adaptation.

Yeah - heard that before. heh
Did you know that Spybot effectiveness is less than 60% removal/location
ability (as are all other lone antispyware applications)?

Are you referring to SpyBot: Search & Destroy or spyware? In either case,
the answer is, "Negative."

I wish one was sufficient. If you insist on only one, I suggest the
Microsoft AntiSpyware (although you maybe should wait until it is out of
the Beta phase) - it is based off one of the best tested: Giant
AntiSpyware.

Microsoft is developing such a program? They must particularly be catching
on to things. It took them eons to implement a pop-up advertisement
blocker.

Generally so, yes. This is a good thing.

Why?

I still suggest IPX/SPX/NetBIOS in such small networks.
(Part 7)
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/814987

That has been accomplished.

What are the advantages and, if any, disadvantages, and what characterizes
IPX/SPX/NetBIOS?

http://home.att.net/~ascaris1/neurotypicality.html

That was interesting reading that provided me with a deeper insight into how
pathetic neurotypicals are.


Yeah - dial up can be painful.

Fortunately, I am not impatient.

In your case, with dial-up, I reconsidered my recommendation. Hubs and
Switches would make life easier and setup cheaper and the addition of
other machines simple - however - you seem to have no need for such
things.

Why did the realization that dial-up connections were being used cause the
reconsideration?

http://www.practicallynetworked.com/sharing/
You snipped the given link to the instruction set.

Please elucidate "instruction set."

The hyperlink was excluded, as it had no pertinence to my response.

"DJ Borell" wrote in message
...
. . . Category 5 cabling is *not* synonymous with "Crossover".

Stanley's most recent message evidenced that.

Category 5 is a reference to the TIA/EIA standard used when manufacturing
the cable.

As the first hyperlinked "Webopedia" document indicated.

However, it is a term commonly used to refer to 100 Mb network cabling
that is standard (also referred to as "patch" or "straight through").

Those terms are familiar.

Believe it or not, approximately four years ago, while I was still a senior
high school student, I had attended a semester of Cisco Networking, but I
had forgotten over time, especially since this two-computer network is the
only one that I have configured, possessed, or prepared.

"Crossover" is a reference to the pin arrangement for the 4 wire pairs.
In a "standard" 100 Mb cable, each pin corresponds directly to the pin on
the opposite side of the cable. In a crossover cable, two of the pins are
switched (ergo the term "crossover"). This allows a computer to
communicate directly with another computer without the need of an
additional Layer 2 or 3 device such as a hub, bridge, switch or router.
The only difference between a patch cable and a crossover cable are two
pins, but that difference is significant.

Ah, the Open System Interconnection model. Layers two and three refer to
the data link and network layers, respectively. Does my network use those?

If you are going to network two PC's directly together, you *must* have a
crossover cable. If you purchase a crossover cable commercially, it will
almost invariably state, very obviously, that it is "Crossover" or
"X-over".

That is an interesting coincidence, since, as just indicated earlier, the
cable's package read "crossover."

Frequently, these cables are yellow in color (simply for easy
identification, not for any technical reason).

I had wondered why ours was yellow.

It is interesting how Stanley beat you to some explanations, especially
since it was just by approximately seven minutes.

"Compu-Pikachu" c o m p u - p i k a c h u @ v a l i n t . n e t wrote in
message ...

Believe it or not, approximately four years ago, while I was still a
senior high school student, I had attended a semester of Cisco Networking,
but I had forgotten over time, especially since this two-computer network
is the only one that I have configured, possessed, or prepared.

You lose what you don't use, particularly with this stuff. I'd forget what
the OSI model is in two seconds if I didn't need to know it.

Ah, the Open System Interconnection model. Layers two and three refer to
the data link and network layers, respectively. Does my network use
those?

Your network is using only Layer 1 (Physical) devices -- the network cards.

That is an interesting coincidence, since, as just indicated earlier, the
cable's package read "crossover."

If the package said "Crossover", then they are. As I said, this may not
have been your issue, my intent was only to clear up the "Cat 5 synonymous
with Crossover" misconception.