win2k and ME file sharing

[m4a2t0t]

when i get on my first puter and try to get files off the other i get an error that says not accesible i went to 2K puter and went to properties for my docs and it is set as shared.im kinda new to 2K so i dont know what im doing wrong.

[MosDef112]

You need to be an administrator or a valid user of that W2K box, whether as part of a domain or not, to be able to access that resource. W2K does user/password handshake, whereas ME and 98 only does password handshake.

[stallion]

You must have both computers using the same workgroup (I will assume you are not using a domain), and also you must create user on your win2k with the name you log into your network with....that will allow permission....

[m4a2t0t]

i had 2 different workgroups but now when i put in password it says password wasnt recognized im using the admin password thats the only account on the 2k boz

[greEd]

create the same username/password on the win98 machine as you have on the w2k box then try to access with that username/pass

[m4a2t0t]

Originally posted by greEd
create the same username/password on the win98 machine as you have on the w2k box then try to access with that username/pass

heh nice avatar is that a chicken and a rabbit..roflmao

[m4a2t0t]

err how do i do that
if i go into control panel only thing there is passwords and users, on ME machine i dont have a password..oh wait i think i know where its at now
edit: never mind i dont know where its at:(

[m4a2t0t]

^^^^^^^^

[newbie69]

is your windows 2k partition Ntfs or fat32? if it is ntfs all your windows 98/me computers which are fat32 won't be able to see your win2k computer or files therfore won't be able to share computer resources...

if thats not the case

check your ip's/workgroup/subnet (eg. class c , 255.255.255.0), if that doesnt work see if you have any firewalls running, it may have blocked access, if that doesnt work the conclusion is Win2k and Win9x are a horrible combination for networking (in most cases), either do win9x/winme with win9x/winme or win2k with win2k

[Da`ath]

I had a very similar problem sharing my printer to my 98 machine from my 2k machine. The answer is so simple its almost stupid. I solved the problem by enabling guest access in administrative tools>computer management>local users & groups>Users.

You will see guest is disabled by default. Enable it and everything is peechee.

[MosDef112]

Like I mentioned before.. W2K does domain to username/password handshaking, whereas you must logon from a domain controlled by a trusted domain controller, and that username/password combo must be either trusted by the trusting domain, or from the same domain you're logging onto.

[twwabw]

Originally posted by newbie69
is your windows 2k partition Ntfs or fat32? if it is ntfs all your windows 98/me computers which are fat32 won't be able to see your win2k computer or files therfore won't be able to share computer resources...

This is absolutely NOT TRUE !! Try to be sure of your facts before you confuse the poor guy even more.

An NTFS drive is completely accessible/viewable/editable from any networked PC connected to it, provided you have assigned valid user permissions to the share, and are logging onto to the other (9.x, ME, 3.x, DOS, whatever!) with a valid username and password.

The ONLY time NTFS in not accessible, is when the os of the SAME PC resides on a FAT partition, and you attempt to view an NTFS partition on the same PC.

Originally posted by newbie69
if that doesnt work the conclusion is Win2k and Win9x are a horrible combination for networking (in most cases), either do win9x/winme with win9x/winme or win2k with win2k

Hahaha- LMAO- this doesn't even warrant comment.

[MosDef112]

While I do agree that some of the replies do not offer anything near to what the solution to this person's problem would be, that should also NOT warrant your belittling attitude towards these users. I would strongly suggest you also seek out an answer yourself, since you did not offer a constructive post yourself. Or perhaps you get a kick out of ridiculing people like that when you don't know jack as well.

[twwabw]

Originally posted by MosDef112
While I do agree that some of the replies do not offer anything near to what the solution to this person's problem would be, that should also NOT warrant your belittling attitude towards these users. I would strongly suggest you also seek out an answer yourself, since you did not offer a constructive post yourself. Or perhaps you get a kick out of ridiculing people like that when you don't know jack as well.

Well.... in retrospect, I would agree that my response is somewhat belittling- some of it was meant to be. When you respond to someone's post of " if that doesnt work the conclusion is Win2k and Win9x are a horrible combination for networking (in most cases), either do win9x/winme with win9x/winme or win2k with win2k , it's hard to remain rational, don't you think? This is nonsense, and leads the person to believe he has no choice but to abondon his efforts, since he's been told it probably won't work anyway.

As far as accuracy of statements, I could elaborate further on my analogy of NTFS accessibility, if that would suit you. For a typical scenario, I would say it's true. Yes, I could list all the exceptions for you if you'd like, to confirm and check against the exceptions I'm sure you too, are aware of.

I'm sorry I didn't have time to complete a separate response to the original poster's question, but, as you know, and have contributed, if he follows the instructions others have already posted, he should resolve his issue.

My comments were terse, in the style of the poster I was responding to. Look up some of his posts. You'll see it's his usual style. Either bashing someone else, or boasting of his own networking bravado. Someone with his self-proclaimed (and many may likely be true) knowledge in so many different aspects of PC, and networking, had no business telling the person what he did- it's just not true.

I think you'll find, if you research some of the responses I've made while visiting SG, that I only respond favorably, and when I have something to offer. I don't get a kick out of ridiculing others, and virtually never do.

As to your comment of "

you don't know jack as well

I beg to differ. I won't bother to list qualifications, certifications, education, or anything else. Who cares.

Once again, my response was specifially pointed at newbie69. No mockery was made or implied of any other poster on this thread, or ANY other thread I have EVER posted on SG. If you don't like it, I guess that's just tough sh*t.

[MosDef112]

Agreed.. However, you can't "block the sun with your own hands." There will always be ignorance lingering around, even in forums like this where only professionals or somewhat knowledgeable people are supposed to contribute constructive and informative information. I do understand how tempting it can be to return someone's beligerent and unfounded posts in the same manner, but the truth of the matter is that it could only put a distasteful experience for others in these forums. This is my only quarrel with your post, albeit I do not fully disagree on your motive.

[m4a2t0t]

thanks for the replies i fixed by putting 2K on both boxes

[newbie69]

well yes i was mistaken with the fat/ntfs issue, but who did m4a2t0t listen too??

as in part of my post "if that doesnt work the conclusion is Win2k and Win9x are a horrible combination for networking (in most cases), either do win9x/winme with win9x/winme or win2k with win2k"

he did use win2k with win2k didn't he?

you could've said i was wrong in a nice manner instead of putting me down....you know what i mean twwabw

like instead of criticizing my posts up and down, you could've just typed out what was wrong and straight to the point to correct me, instead you were criticizing, criticizing, criticizing, criticizing then you corrected my post

btw thanks for the extra bit of knowledge, i appreciate it

[twwabw]

Originally posted by newbie69
well yes i was mistaken with the fat/ntfs issue, but who did m4a2t0t listen too??

I don't know actually.... he only stated he put W2K on both PC's.

Originally posted by newbie69
as in part of my post "if that doesnt work the conclusion is Win2k and Win9x are a horrible combination for networking (in most cases), either do win9x/winme with win9x/winme or win2k with win2k"

he did use win2k with win2k didn't he?


Yes, he did, but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing wrong, inefficient, or otherwise convoluted about combining any of these OS's when networking- they all work together. They are NOT a horrible combination. You just need to understand them, and know how to set them up.

Originally posted by newbie69
you could've said i was wrong in a nice manner instead of putting me down....you know what i mean twwabw

like instead of criticizing my posts up and down, you could've just typed out what was wrong and straight to the point to correct me, instead you were criticizing, criticizing, criticizing, criticizing then you corrected my post

Well, you're right there.... and for that, I apologize. It's not usually my style, and it was not right. Pretty much all posters at SG post in an effort to help. Whether or not the info. is correct, should have been addressed by me differently than I did, and once again, I apologize to you for it.

I was reacting to quite an emphatic post of yours, where you were stating, as fact, with no tone of question or doubt in the post, several major points that were simply not true. So, I responded in kind, but again, in a manner neither necessary nor appropriate.

Apologies, once again.

:(

[m4a2t0t]

err..i got to the part of the horrible combination and jus said fuk it, i was gonna install 2k anyways but i may go back to ME on the DELL.
sorry i wasnt checking this thread i stopped getting e-mail notifactions and then i started getting them again after like 10 people hqad posted

[newbie69]

thank you for the apology twwabw :)