Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 63

Thread: Windows XP Home Networking Guide




  1. #11

    Default

    Unreg, u can't do it with XP. sadly, u can't set passwords on the shares :( all u can do is give certain users permissions to access it...

    Ungulate, u HAVE to bind TCP/IP to file and print sharing...u just don't bind it to TCP/IP for the dial up adpater...if u have a NIC then it has to be bound to it...(well it does automatically neway)...pretty much, don't bind File and Print Sharing to dial up adapters TCP/IP (which it doesn't do by default neway)...hope that answers ur question

    Bahamut Zer0, yeah ive heard that one too...i think it is true, i haven't tried anything myself tho..

    :bounce:
    At the request of wiggo ;)

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    test

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    2

    Default

    thanks for replying, Grim Reaper.

    I'm afraid my question is still at large. hehe
    Please allow me to clarify :)

    I have an NIC that is directly connected to ADSL/Cable, no dial-up adapter.
    I understand that TCP/IP must be bound to the NIC. That sounds fine and dandy to me.

    Now, we want to have File Sharing too. From my understanding, it can be bound to different protocols (is that right? Like, Netbeui, TCP/IP, etc) back in Windows 98.

    So here comes my question:
    In WinXP, IF file sharing is bound to TCP/IP, what is the likelihood of someone hacking into my computer seeing as TCP/IP is also used to access the Internet.

    I hope that clears up my question :)
    Thank you so much for your time!

    Cheers!

    Ungulate

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    Nice article.

    1. I don't think XP Pro has a "settings" option under start. You seem to have go to "My Network Places" > "View Network Connections" to get there. I have installed Win XP Pro on several systems and even my WinXP Pro (pre-intalled) Dell laptop doesn't have a "settings" option under start.

    2. Another thing is that I don't get the (paraphrasing) "Cat 6 cable can transfer data at speeds from one computer on the network to another faster than 2 hard drives in the same computer could." Is Cat 6 really faster than ATA/133/166's actual transfer rates and will Cat 6 become a standard before serial ATA drives become available (can't remember actual transfer speeds).

    Thanks,

    Dave (too lazy to register for one post :))

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    New England Highlands, Australia
    Posts
    21,907

    Default

    Yes Cat6 has the possability there to be very fast, but that's if better standards than the present PCI one come in as that would totally saturate that bus. :smokin:

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggo
    Yes Cat6 has the possability there to be very fast, but that's if better standards than the present PCI one come in as that would totally saturate that bus. :smokin:
    its called 64bit PCI wiggo ;) :p

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    New England Highlands, Australia
    Posts
    21,907

    Default

    Even at the speeds their talkin' that may become saturated to it's the new AMD and Intel buses that are needed to handle that sort of bandwidth. :smokin:

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,464

    Default

    fine tehn.... 128 bit PCI :p :devil win

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    Nice guide. But I'd like to make a few comments.

    XP by default uses simplified sharing so as not to confuse beginners, but you can enable an advanced version of it, with a few more options.

    Also, you mention BNC as an outdated technology. This is true indeed, but you fail to mention it's only advantage in a home enviroment - it doesn't require a hub or a switch, therefore it costs much less than an UTP setup.

    Finally, some more comments not strictly related to home computing...

    "The Default gateway and Preferred DNS server entries are used to tell your computer what computer on the network to use for access to the Internet... This is just an example of how advanced and clever Windows XP’s Internet Connection Sharing (ICS) really is"

    Gihihi. This has nothing to do with XP's cleverness, this is how you should configure your TCP/IP stack, according to the RFCs. It was the same with Win'95, and it was the same twenty years ago...

    "there’d be no chance in seeing 64-bit operations in the near future if Windows 95 or NT were never conceived"

    LOL! You mean that the already existing 64 bit operating systems, like True64, Solaris, HP-UX, IRIX, Digital Unix or AIX can thank their existence to Windows 95? Muhahaha, what a strange point of view ;) Come on, Microsoft operating systems were always the last to implement the change to the next level of operation width. There's nothing wrong or surprising with this either, as MS were mostly concentrating on the desktop field.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    The first time I set up a network using WinXP I used the Network Setup Wizard and it caused all manner of chaos, apart from the fact that it didn't work. I went through the Wizard over an over again on all XP Computers and I could not get two XP computers talking to each other. I did the same on two different XP networks with no luck.

    So next time, I did it ALL by hand and left the Network Setup Wizard alone - This time it all worked fine and there has been no looking back since.

    I'm not a professional but I do know what I am doing as the processes described in the article are the ones I follow normally.

    Also, perhaps you should have mentioned in the tutorial that by not assigning static IP addresses, the computers will all negotiate their IP addresses, slowing things down. Typically, in my network, I experienced access delays of 2 minutes before computers could be accessed if not using static IP addresses.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •