Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 8/25/2001 5:31:53 AM EDT
How can I get my Windows 95 machine to access my Windows 2000 drives on my LAN? It's prompted for a password, but I can't see in Win2k where the heck to assign a password to the drive!
Link Posted: 8/25/2001 5:47:06 AM EDT
I am new at this but will take a stab at it. When you installed Win 2000 you assigned an Administrators password right?? Try using that password when ascessing from the Win 95 machine. I hope this helps. Let me know cause I am interested myself. sgtar15
Link Posted: 8/25/2001 5:51:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/25/2001 5:53:19 AM EDT by wakebrdr]
On the network in my office, if you try to access a network drive like that you are prompted for a username and password, and need to enter DOMAINNAME\USERNAME as the username and then your password. Use the account that works on the W2K box. Hope this helps.
Link Posted: 8/25/2001 6:10:03 AM EDT
Okay, I did some research and found this info. First you must be logged on under the administrator account. 1. Goto the control panel 2. open Administrative tools 3. open computer management 4. open disk management on the left window 5. right click on the drive that you want to share select properties 6. click the sharing tab 7. in that window, click a dot in the "share this folder" button 8. then go down to the "new share" button which will open up a new window 9. in the new window type in the [i]network[/i] name of the Win95 computer 10. set the permissions in the same window and restart. Again, I am not sure if this will work but it sure sounds right[:D] Good luck sgtar15
Link Posted: 8/25/2001 6:38:14 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/25/2001 6:47:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/25/2001 6:49:08 AM EDT by chris_williams]
This is one area that I do have some expertise in (I am a local area network engineer). The reason it is promting you for a password is because one of the computers is not in a domain, probably your 95 machine. In order to put it in the domain you need to change it from workgroup to your domain name, but you must have an administrator account to do this. Once your workstation is in the domain and your shares on the server are set up to allow you access it will no longer prompt you for a password. It the server is stand alone it is looking for you to log into the server with a local account in which case you need to know a local account and password on the server. To login to the server enter MACHINENAME\USERNAME where machinename is the name of the server and username is the name of a local account on the server in question. And the password. This is a pain in the butt way to do things though and you would be much better off just adding all resources in question to the domain so that you will only have to login once to access all of your resources. Chris Williams
Link Posted: 8/26/2001 12:21:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By lazyengineer: How can I get my Windows 95 machine to access my Windows 2000 drives on my LAN? It's prompted for a password, but I can't see in Win2k where the heck to assign a password to the drive!
View Quote
Is the drive in the 2000 machine NTFS? Aviator [img]www.dredgeearthfirst.com/aviator.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 8/26/2001 12:49:47 PM EDT
Step 1: get a Linux CD, any one will do (RedHat is good and easy) Step 2: Reboot the computer, and wipe the M$ crap off your server hard drive Step 3: Set up Samba networking. Linux + Samba = better Windoze server than Windoze server. Go figure. nuk Best way to accelerate a M$ Windoze box? 9.8 m/sec^2
Link Posted: 8/26/2001 1:06:29 PM EDT
You cannot access an NTFS share from Windows 95 UNLESS you are in a Domain. You need to set up Active Directory, if it isn't already been deployed. Personally, dump MIcrosoft. Novell NetWare 5.1 & soon 6.0 would be a good alternative. Linux is too hard to use. for most people. Novell's File System (Traditional & NSS) and Directory Services (NDS E-Directory) are much better than NTFS & ADS. NOte: NetWare can not be configured (completely) at the Console. You would need to use Console1 or NetWare Administrator to configure the network. NetWrae allows easy configuration of the entire Network from a single point of administration, unlike Microsoft. Though, Windows 2000 now has a few good features with Microsoft Management Console. Generally, for a TRUE Client-Server environment, Novell NetWare is the Best. For a mixed Client-Server/Peer-To-Peer Windows is probably the best. Personally, I dislike both IIS & Apache for different reasons. IIS is insecure and Apache is not user-friendly. Both WebSphere (IBM) & FastTrack (NetScape) are better alternatives for Web Servers. Again, if you cannot have a domain, set the drives up as Virtual Directories on IIS and access them through Internet Explorer. Chris Carr A+, MCP (Windows 2000 Pro.), CNA (NetWare 5)
Link Posted: 8/26/2001 6:15:00 PM EDT
It sounds like the Win2K PC doesn't have a share point setup. If a share point exists then you need the correct permission to read/write files to that share point.
Link Posted: 8/26/2001 8:21:58 PM EDT
Thanks' for the tips, but I'm still having troubles. The first password I tried was the administrator password. Yes, the Win2K machine is formated in NTFS. Neither computer is set up to have a domain name, but rather a workgroup name. I prefer this for compatibility reasons with work notebooks which I have no OS control over. The Win95 Machine is in the same workgroup. When the Win95 machine tries to access the shared drive on my win2k machine, it is prompted for a password. It is not prompted for any kind of user name. I've tried the directions posted by stgar15, but it didn't work. What is Active Directory?
Link Posted: 8/26/2001 8:56:25 PM EDT
NetWare 5.1 & soon 6.0 would be a good alternative. Linux is too hard to use.
View Quote
Wow, they're still in business? Learning is only as hard as you want it to be. [:P]
Link Posted: 8/26/2001 9:11:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2001 9:19:10 PM EDT by nuk]
Personally, dump MIcrosoft. Novell NetWare 5.1 & soon 6.0 would be a good alternative. Linux is too hard to use. for most people
View Quote
Not entirely. Many of the mainstream Linux releases are getting ridiculously easy to setup. Enough so that some of the masochist geek-types are migrating to the BSD derivatives. It's not 'cool' and 'elite' unless it's painful to setup, for them. If you want a nice, easy to use distro for strictly SOHO/SME use, try www.e-smith.org They maintain a GPL version of the product. The main company did well enough that they got bought by Mitel Networks, which is keeping the GPL version around. Basically, w/ E-Smith, you can d/l the iso (~20-30MB), burn it, and pop it in your little server, do initial setup from a local monitor via their screen based setup tool, and then almost everything subsequently can be done via secure web interface. It's whole purpose is to be a nice, simple, clean LAN server for people who get tired of the BS fees for M$ stuff (e-smith commercial is $595, period. No per seat BS) that integrates seamlessly into the network. It uses a highly modified version of RedHat Linux, one of the Linux industry leaders, so it's running on a stable base. Worth checking out. www.e-smith.com is the commercial page. It also has a user-ran support board as well (commercial clients get commercial support separately). The new commercial version is called 'SME Server' (SME = Small/Medium Enterprise) HTH, nuk [sniper] Oh, BTW, one of the local computer shops / cyber cafes uses e-smith to run the guts of their LAN. So I think it can handle what you need.
Link Posted: 8/26/2001 9:12:51 PM EDT
The reason I asked, and cc48510 picked up on this is that Windows 98 cannot use an NTFS formatted drive unless it is part of a domain. Aviator [img]www.dredgeearthfirst.com/aviator.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 8/26/2001 10:04:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cc48510: Linux is too hard to use. for most people.
View Quote
Actually Linux and Solaris are very user friendly.... the downfall is they are very particular on who the become friends with... [smash]
Link Posted: 8/27/2001 1:03:11 AM EDT
lazyengineer, Active Directory is Microsoft's version of NDS. It is a program that allows Easy Administration from a single point. ADS is still in its Infancy compared to NDS which has been around for years. ADS came out with Windows 2000. IN NDS and ADS you have your servers, domains, etc. in one place. ADS is required to use Exchange, and numerous other server programs. As well as allowing access to NTFS drives from Windows 9x. But, as I said you can use IIS, though it is insecure to share your drives over the Network as an Intranet. Add the drives as Virtual Directories, then access them from IE by typing http://192.168.24.1/{virtual directory} or if you set up DNS then http://{host}.{domain}/{virtual directory}. As for Linux, I installed a copy a few years ago and dumped it within a few weeks. Half of my hardware wasn't supported, including both my Network Card and Modem. It didn't properly support my Video Card and the screen looked like shit. It was a pain to set up, but was doable. The GUI seemed rather primitive. I did better using the command line with Unix commands than Navigating my way through their GUI. I could have dealt with the video, but I couldn't remotely access (telnet) due to my NIC and Modem being unsupported. I got a copy about a year ago that was easier to use, but still didn't support half my hardware. For the most part I can count on Novell and MS to support my hardware. Linux is free, which is enticing though. Both MS and Novell cost about the same, though Novell isn't as Anal as MS ala Activation. And Novell has about the same specs as Linux unlike MS which has outrageous specs. Or Windows XP, which is a resource hog. I installed NT 4 Server, 2000 Server, NetWare 5.0, NetWare 5.1, and Linux at various times and tended to dislike MS and Linux. Novell takes some learning, but is easier than Unix/Linux and a hell lot more Secure than MS Windows. Here's a joke: Why does MS call it Windows ? Because all you have to doesn't take much to break in.
Link Posted: 8/27/2001 4:26:06 AM EDT
As for Linux, I installed a copy a few years ago and dumped it within a few weeks. Half of my hardware wasn't supported, including both my Network Card and Modem. It didn't properly support my Video Card and the screen looked like shit. It was a pain to set up, but was doable. The GUI seemed rather primitive. I did better using the command line with Unix commands than Navigating my way through their GUI. I could have dealt with the video, but I couldn't remotely access (telnet) due to my NIC and Modem being unsupported. I got a copy about a year ago that was easier to use, but still didn't support half my hardware. For the most part I can count on Novell and MS to support my hardware. Linux is free, which is enticing though.
Christ, what the hell do you have for a NIC and modem? USB, or winmodem type stuff?? Even if you tried Linux a year ago, you might do well to try it again periodically. Linux makes progress in leaps and bounds, and a year ago is a long time in the world of Open Source. I will admit that Linux does have a good bit to go before it's ready as a general purpose desktop OS. Workstation, it's pretty much there, w/ the exception of some specialized apps like CAD. As far as a server, unless you _need_ stuff like 64-way processor support or some such, it'll do the job 24x7x365 if you do yours, and maintain it. It doesn't claim to be fire-n-forget. There still has to be a warm body somewhere to make sure that updates are applied as needed. As a note here, I'm not open advocating the use of Linux on the desktop. It takes an inordinate desire to tinker to be able to cope w/a *nix desktop in all its glory at this point in time. I think, though, that most people who want a file/print server, or a web/database server, or a _especially_ a firewall/gateway/router box, need to seriously reconsider the Linux option before blindly sticking M$ on a machine. The costs difference alone equalizes out some of the sweat equity you have to invest in learning how to competently admin a Linux box. If that's not your bag, something like SME server should be a great mid-point... Anyway, that's my take on it. On a side note: Is Netware actually coming out w/ a new version? I though they were mostly still hanging on by their teeth in old offices and what not that hadn't upgraded in a coon's age, and had heard it had security vulnerabilities big enough to drive a truck thru (though that's true of about any OS that isn't maintained by a competent person). It'd be cool for M$ to get some grief from someone they'd written off as dead and buried. [sniper] nuk
Link Posted: 8/27/2001 1:36:16 PM EDT
Yes, Novell is stilla round though they are being slowly driven into the ground by MS. NetWare 6 was scheduled for release this year. I saw Groupwise 6 recently, so it may well be out already. One nice thing is that you install and go, unlike Linux. I'll have to try the newest version of Linux when I get the chance. I saw a version that worked with my hardware, but it was designed as a Desktop rather than server. I was using an older version of RedHat Linux. By the way, I hear that Novell has a deal with RedHat to provide NDS with its Pro. Server software. NDS is Novell's best part. ADS isn't anwhere near as good and until Recently Linux didn't have Full Directory Services. Linux and Novell are supposed to work well together unlike MS Windows NT. NetWare supposedly cured most of its vulnerabilities at versions 4.x and 5.x. Versions 3.x and earlier had some major vulnerabilites. Netware 3.11 - 4.0 is about equal to Windows NT NetWare 4.11 - 5.0 is about equal to Windows 2000 NetWare 5.1 - 6.0 is supposed to be better than Windows 2000
Link Posted: 8/27/2001 4:57:36 PM EDT
lazyengineer - Go into the COmputer Management on the Win2k box and create an account for the Win9x machine user. Use the same name that the Win9x user logs in with. Make the password the same as that used on the Win9x box or just leave it blank. Go to sharing on the context menu of the drive you want to share on the WIn2k machine, name the share and grant access to "Everyone" Log into the win9x machine and share files to your hearts content. If the win9x machine isn't set up to request a username/password, just reconfigure it so it does.
Link Posted: 8/27/2001 5:10:43 PM EDT
DavidC got it right!!!!
Link Posted: 8/27/2001 5:37:42 PM EDT
That's it! Thank you DavidC! I got a bit of a bonus question now. How do I manually force IRQ addresses for my PCI cards? It's autoassigning and refusing to allow me to maunually set the IRQ. I have two devices on IRQ 11 right now, and in theory that's ok, but I have other's free and would like to move my NIC to IRQ 4, (I dissabled the serial port already), my PCI Modem to IRQ 10, and leave my vid card on the currently shared IRQ 11. The reason for all this finagling is I'm having hard lock-ups in my computer, which I thought Win2K was supposed to avoid, and want to remove the IRQ sharing as one possible candidate. The lockup's themselves seem to be occuring in the video preview mode of Morpheaus. Whenever I click on a bible study video half way through the download (to see if I got what I want), it locks up. -Lazy
Link Posted: 8/27/2001 6:56:57 PM EDT
cc48510, if you want a copy of the latest RedHat 7.1 discs, I have a subscription to KRUD, which is RedHat+errata+extras. I get new CD's about every month, so it keeps me up to date and all. If you want a copy, let me know and I'll burn you a set. Same for e-smith 4.1.2 nuk
Link Posted: 8/28/2001 7:44:13 AM EDT
lazyengineer - Successfully forcing PCI IRQ changes is very difficult and is usually dependent upon the system board AND the devices in the PCI slots. For example, there are certain NICs that will let you think you've forced an IRQ change, but actually don't allow it. If you have a piece of software that is causing the system to lock up (and not to get in a very long time out condition; you may need to wait more than a minute or two on a heavily loaded system to get console response back), it's likely a bug in the software, and not an OS/Hardware problem, regadless of the OS. An ill behaved app may not be relinquishing processor control the way it is supposed to. You might want to try a different app to view the video and see if the same problem crops up. FWIW, until last July 1st I was Lab Director and Senior Technical Editor for Windows 2000 Magazine. I'm now a Senior Contributing Editor and I write weekly and monthly columns on Windows 2000 technical issues as a part time job with them. I'm currently CTO of a software development company.
Link Posted: 8/28/2001 4:42:23 PM EDT
Nuk, E-Mail me.
Link Posted: 8/28/2001 5:11:36 PM EDT
A bit late...but as you saw, DavidC got it. DavidC...when's is Windows 2000 magazine testing an AR-15?
Link Posted: 8/28/2001 5:51:50 PM EDT
DavidC is right on the money. As far as the lock-up problem you are having, PCI is pretty good about sharing IRQ's especially if you have a newer machine and of course Windows 2000. I'm not familiar with the particular program you are using but it sounds like a graphics program of some kind. If your not getting a Blue Screen of Death (BSOD) then I tend to think it is not an IRQ problem. You might try finding a newer set of video drivers or as far as that goes make sure you of the latest drivers for all the hardware you have. If you have increased or decreased memory since installing 2000 then be sure and set your paging file for 1.5 times the ram you have installed. Do This! Right click on My Computer and select Management. Go to Device Manager and check to see that none of the devices show any problems. You will see little yellow warning signs if there are. Then check to see that 2000 properly detected all of your hardware. Sometimes it will install what it thinks to be the right drivers and most times they WILL work but they are wrong nevertheless. If the right drivers are not installed then the hardware will do strange things. Part of those problems will be not sharing memory, I/O, and IRQ's as they should. I see this quite often.
Top Top