Anyone in this group good at networking. Problem is with SE & ME. both
machines can browse the net, the router sees both, and if I play with browse
master and LM announce I can get the ME to see SE and browse files, but not
the other way around. I've been working on it for a few days searching the
net and haven't found any help.
And no replies in the networking group for these systems.

A couple of weeks ago I transferred some of the needed files via a cat5
without trouble. But I missed some and moved a known good wireless card to
the ME box to get the other needed files.

Norman

Re: network by AlmostBob

AlmostBob
Sun May 08 19:29:29 CDT 2005

on the machine that is NOT visible to the other
check the settings for sharing in 'my computer' right click a drive and
there should be a sharing option, If it is there check it to see if it is
enabled. If it isnt there goto control panel, networks and add 'file sharing
for microsoft networks'

--
Adaware http://www.lavasoft.de
spybot http://security.kolla.de
AVG free antivirus http://www.grisoft.com
Etrust/Vet/CA.online Antivirus scan
http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/virusinfo/scan.aspx
Panda online AntiVirus scan http://www.pandasoftware.com/ActiveScan/
Catalog of removal tools (1)
http://www.pandasoftware.com/download/utilities/
Catalog of removal tools (2)
http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/newsinfo/collateral.aspx?CID=40387
Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts file
http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
links provided as a courtesy, read all instructions on the pages before use

Grateful thanks to the authors and webmasters
_
"E_Net_Rider" <E_Net_Rider@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23KdrZpAVFHA.584@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Anyone in this group good at networking. Problem is with SE & ME. both
> machines can browse the net, the router sees both, and if I play with
browse
> master and LM announce I can get the ME to see SE and browse files, but
not
> the other way around. I've been working on it for a few days searching the
> net and haven't found any help.
> And no replies in the networking group for these systems.
>
> A couple of weeks ago I transferred some of the needed files via a cat5
> without trouble. But I missed some and moved a known good wireless card to
> the ME box to get the other needed files.
>
> Norman
>
>



Re: network by Dapper

Dapper
Sun May 08 20:17:04 CDT 2005

E-Net-Rider
Sounds like a simple configuration problem. Strongly suggest you
follow Carey Holzman's suggestion at the following site....it will
probably take you 10 minutes to find the culprit.
http://www.homenethelp.com/help/networking-me.asp

Hope this helps

Dan

"E_Net_Rider" <E_Net_Rider@hotmail.com> wrote in mes
sage news:%23KdrZpAVFHA.584@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Anyone in this group good at networking. Problem is with SE & ME.
both
> machines can browse the net, the router sees both, and if I play
with browse
> master and LM announce I can get the ME to see SE and browse files,
but not
> the other way around. I've been working on it for a few days
searching the
> net and haven't found any help.
> And no replies in the networking group for these systems.
>
> A couple of weeks ago I transferred some of the needed files via a
cat5
> without trouble. But I missed some and moved a known good wireless
card to
> the ME box to get the other needed files.
>
> Norman
>
>


Re: network by N

N
Mon May 09 12:29:37 CDT 2005

On Sun, 8 May 2005 16:13:09 -0400, E_Net_Rider wrote:

> Anyone in this group good at networking. Problem is with SE & ME. both
> machines can browse the net, the router sees both, and if I play with browse
> master and LM announce I can get the ME to see SE and browse files, but not
> the other way around. I've been working on it for a few days searching the
> net and haven't found any help.
> And no replies in the networking group for these systems.
>
> A couple of weeks ago I transferred some of the needed files via a cat5
> without trouble. But I missed some and moved a known good wireless card to
> the ME box to get the other needed files.

No, I am not you! Anyway, I have two Windows ME computers on a LAN. I have
never needed to play with the LM Announce settings. Just left them set to,
"No"; I believe that is the default.

I have one computer set to "Disabled", and the other set to "Enabled" for
the Browse Master settings. Default for both was "Automatic"; but I run a
server on one of the computers, which is powered on more than the other. I
figured that setting Browser Master to "Enabled" on the computer with the
server, and "Disabled" on the other would ensure that the computer with the
server was always the Browse Master.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

Re: network by E_Net_Rider

E_Net_Rider
Thu May 19 10:31:37 CDT 2005

Thanks very much for that link. I'll work through that site as time allows
and post back.
BTW, being reminded of this issue after visiting that site. Why is it that
only XP supports the newest level of wireless security? With all of the
associated trouble, why hasn't MS released an update to plug-in to all OS's?
Surely it can't be that difficult!
Norman

"Dapper Dan" <dapperdan@home.com> wrote in message
news:u57f9TDVFHA.928@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> E-Net-Rider
> Sounds like a simple configuration problem. Strongly suggest you
> follow Carey Holzman's suggestion at the following site....it will
> probably take you 10 minutes to find the culprit.
> http://www.homenethelp.com/help/networking-me.asp
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Dan
>
> "E_Net_Rider" <E_Net_Rider@hotmail.com> wrote in mes
> sage news:%23KdrZpAVFHA.584@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > Anyone in this group good at networking. Problem is with SE & ME.
> both
> > machines can browse the net, the router sees both, and if I play
> with browse
> > master and LM announce I can get the ME to see SE and browse files,
> but not
> > the other way around. I've been working on it for a few days
> searching the
> > net and haven't found any help.
> > And no replies in the networking group for these systems.
> >
> > A couple of weeks ago I transferred some of the needed files via a
> cat5
> > without trouble. But I missed some and moved a known good wireless
> card to
> > the ME box to get the other needed files.
> >
> > Norman
> >
> >
>



Re: network by Mike

Mike
Thu May 19 10:49:33 CDT 2005

Norman,

The simple answer is that Win 98 and Win Me are both out of support other
than for critical vulnerabilities
(http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;EN-US;LifeAn1).
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com



E_Net_Rider <E_Net_Rider@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks very much for that link. I'll work through that site as time
> allows and post back.
> BTW, being reminded of this issue after visiting that site. Why is it
> that only XP supports the newest level of wireless security? With all
> of the associated trouble, why hasn't MS released an update to
> plug-in to all OS's? Surely it can't be that difficult!


Re: network by E_Net_Rider

E_Net_Rider
Thu May 19 15:45:26 CDT 2005

That's the excuse, but security is critical?

Several years back, running anti viral programs was pretty spotty among home
users. Corporations were constantly upgrading trying to fend off the
barrage.
And then there was AOL. Pretty much rumored to be a major spreader, but then
they were the largest and it might be easier to move such around within a
single ISP. They didn't start giving out anti viral software just for the
heck of it. They had some major downages. MS and many other major
corporations did. So, in effect, the bigger corporations are buying the
software so the small guy can use it and help in the fight against the tidal
wave of attacks.
Slightly different scenario with 98 and ME, but those systems will likely be
around for years beyond the support. Especially in third world countries.
And from what I hear this wireless is like leaving the garage door open to
someone who knows what he is doing. And it seems to be becoming widely
available.
Sure third world is mostly because of economics, and most in this country
are pranksters. But there are those out there who sincerely would love to
shut down business, banking, etc. here. I'd bet that if those OS are still
widespread when MS plans on pulling their finger out of the dike that the
Dept of Homeland Security will have a talk with them. And if wireless
reaches the level of criticallity that viruses did about a year ago, maybe
they will be forced to patch it as well.
I know of a aircraft manufacturer, that has a few small government
contracts. The government wants some of it under deep lock and key because
such as the First Lady and other important people fly on them occaisonally.
Even though they have pretty tight security and use XP and other corporate
level systems and programs, they had to ban wireless last year.
"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:%23gKhKpIXFHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Norman,
>
> The simple answer is that Win 98 and Win Me are both out of support other
> than for critical vulnerabilities
> (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;EN-US;LifeAn1).
> --
> Mike Maltby MS-MVP
> mike.maltby@gmail.com
>
>
>
> E_Net_Rider <E_Net_Rider@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks very much for that link. I'll work through that site as time
> > allows and post back.
> > BTW, being reminded of this issue after visiting that site. Why is it
> > that only XP supports the newest level of wireless security? With all
> > of the associated trouble, why hasn't MS released an update to
> > plug-in to all OS's? Surely it can't be that difficult!
>



Re: network by Mike

Mike
Thu May 19 16:08:23 CDT 2005

There's really no point in debating the issue if you don't understand the
meaning of "unsupported". An extreme example I know but it's a bit like
criticising Ford for not retro fitting seat belts and air bags to their
Model T. In this case most older wireless cards don't even support WPA
being restricted to just WEP and most users of modern wireless cards are
going to be using them in a modern operating system rather than in legacy
systems such as Win Me.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com


E_Net_Rider <E_Net_Rider@hotmail.com> wrote:

> That's the excuse, but security is critical?
>
> Several years back, running anti viral programs was pretty spotty
> among home users. Corporations were constantly upgrading trying to
> fend off the barrage.
> And then there was AOL. Pretty much rumored to be a major spreader,
> but then they were the largest and it might be easier to move such
> around within a single ISP. They didn't start giving out anti viral
> software just for the heck of it. They had some major downages. MS
> and many other major corporations did. So, in effect, the bigger
> corporations are buying the software so the small guy can use it and
> help in the fight against the tidal wave of attacks.
> Slightly different scenario with 98 and ME, but those systems will
> likely be around for years beyond the support. Especially in third
> world countries. And from what I hear this wireless is like leaving
> the garage door open to someone who knows what he is doing. And it
> seems to be becoming widely available.
> Sure third world is mostly because of economics, and most in this
> country are pranksters. But there are those out there who sincerely
> would love to shut down business, banking, etc. here. I'd bet that
> if those OS are still widespread when MS plans on pulling their
> finger out of the dike that the Dept of Homeland Security will have a
> talk with them. And if wireless reaches the level of criticallity
> that viruses did about a year ago, maybe they will be forced to patch
> it as well.
> I know of a aircraft manufacturer, that has a few small government
> contracts. The government wants some of it under deep lock and key
> because such as the First Lady and other important people fly on them
> occaisonally. Even though they have pretty tight security and use XP
> and other corporate level systems and programs, they had to ban
> wireless last year.


Re: network by E_Net_Rider

E_Net_Rider
Fri May 20 15:57:29 CDT 2005

Double thanks Dan and to Carey. It seems I've got it working. I had read
where tcp/ip was being troublesome and it was better to use netbeui or
ipx/spx for protocols. I think that article suggested netbeui as the better,
but I had no idea about what might be required besides just loading them.
When time permits, I might just try netbeui in place of ipx/spx. think it
was supposed to be faster, and then somewhere else netbeui was recommended
over tcp/ip for security reasons.
I'll try to post back with updates or maybe contact Carey. She seems to know
what she is doing.
Norman

"Dapper Dan" <dapperdan@home.com> wrote in message
news:u57f9TDVFHA.928@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> E-Net-Rider
> Sounds like a simple configuration problem. Strongly suggest you
> follow Carey Holzman's suggestion at the following site....it will
> probably take you 10 minutes to find the culprit.
> http://www.homenethelp.com/help/networking-me.asp
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Dan
>
> "E_Net_Rider" <E_Net_Rider@hotmail.com> wrote in mes
> sage news:%23KdrZpAVFHA.584@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > Anyone in this group good at networking. Problem is with SE & ME.
> both
> > machines can browse the net, the router sees both, and if I play
> with browse
> > master and LM announce I can get the ME to see SE and browse files,
> but not
> > the other way around. I've been working on it for a few days
> searching the
> > net and haven't found any help.
> > And no replies in the networking group for these systems.
> >
> > A couple of weeks ago I transferred some of the needed files via a
> cat5
> > without trouble. But I missed some and moved a known good wireless
> card to
> > the ME box to get the other needed files.
> >
> > Norman
> >
> >
>



Re: network by Rick

Rick
Fri May 20 17:02:54 CDT 2005

TCP/IP is the most supported ('cuz the Internet runs on it); you'd have
to check but I think some other protocols are better in some respects
for technical reasons.

Rick


E_Net_Rider wrote:
> Double thanks Dan and to Carey. It seems I've got it working. I had read
> where tcp/ip was being troublesome and it was better to use netbeui or
> ipx/spx for protocols. I think that article suggested netbeui as the better,
> but I had no idea about what might be required besides just loading them.
> When time permits, I might just try netbeui in place of ipx/spx. think it
> was supposed to be faster, and then somewhere else netbeui was recommended
> over tcp/ip for security reasons.
> I'll try to post back with updates or maybe contact Carey. She seems to know
> what she is doing.
> Norman
>
> "Dapper Dan" <dapperdan@home.com> wrote in message
> news:u57f9TDVFHA.928@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
>>E-Net-Rider
>>Sounds like a simple configuration problem. Strongly suggest you
>>follow Carey Holzman's suggestion at the following site....it will
>>probably take you 10 minutes to find the culprit.
>> http://www.homenethelp.com/help/networking-me.asp
>>
>>Hope this helps
>>
>>Dan
>>
>>"E_Net_Rider" <E_Net_Rider@hotmail.com> wrote in mes
>>sage news:%23KdrZpAVFHA.584@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>Anyone in this group good at networking. Problem is with SE & ME.
>>
>>both
>>
>>>machines can browse the net, the router sees both, and if I play
>>
>>with browse
>>
>>>master and LM announce I can get the ME to see SE and browse files,
>>
>>but not
>>
>>>the other way around. I've been working on it for a few days
>>
>>searching the
>>
>>>net and haven't found any help.
>>>And no replies in the networking group for these systems.
>>>
>>>A couple of weeks ago I transferred some of the needed files via a
>>
>>cat5
>>
>>>without trouble. But I missed some and moved a known good wireless
>>
>>card to
>>
>>>the ME box to get the other needed files.
>>>
>>>Norman
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>