Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Windows Explorer sees limited amount of computers on the n..

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 11:37:04 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Hi everyone,

I am using Windows 98 SE, logged on to a Windows Domain. In one of the network workgroups, there are probably around 5000 computers or so. When I browse this workgroup through Windows Explorer, I can only see anywhere between the first 2000 and 2200 computers alphabetically. (The numbers keep changing, sometimes it is 2055, sometimes 2083, etc.) I have not been able to find any article in the knowledge base or elsewhere that would describe some limitation in this regard. So is this a limitation, or possibly a bug? What could be done to resolve the problem?

Thanks,

Ivan
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 2:40:58 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I think you might have better luck asking your question in a networking
newsgroup.

microsoft.public.win98.networking
--
Regards

Ron Badour, MS MVP Windows 98
Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour
Knowledge Base Info:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo

"Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:%23FPcbjrSFHA.2432@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi everyone,
>
> I am using Windows 98 SE, logged on to a Windows Domain. In one of the
> network workgroups, there are probably around 5000 computers or so. When I
> browse this workgroup through Windows Explorer, I can only see anywhere
> between the first 2000 and 2200 computers alphabetically. (The numbers
> keep changing, sometimes it is 2055, sometimes 2083, etc.) I have not been
> able to find any article in the knowledge base or elsewhere that would
> describe some limitation in this regard. So is this a limitation, or
> possibly a bug? What could be done to resolve the problem?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ivan
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 6:39:22 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Thanks, Ron. I asked in the networking group too; so far I haven't gotten a response. I hope somebody will be able to provide some suggestions.

Ivan


"Ron Badour" <Sorry@NoAddress.com> wrote in message news:e0L6prtSFHA.2560@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I think you might have better luck asking your question in a networking
> newsgroup.
>
> microsoft.public.win98.networking
> --
> Regards
>
> Ron Badour, MS MVP Windows 98
> Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour
> Knowledge Base Info:
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo
>
> "Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> news:%23FPcbjrSFHA.2432@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I am using Windows 98 SE, logged on to a Windows Domain. In one of the
> > network workgroups, there are probably around 5000 computers or so. When I
> > browse this workgroup through Windows Explorer, I can only see anywhere
> > between the first 2000 and 2200 computers alphabetically. (The numbers
> > keep changing, sometimes it is 2055, sometimes 2083, etc.) I have not been
> > able to find any article in the knowledge base or elsewhere that would
> > describe some limitation in this regard. So is this a limitation, or
> > possibly a bug? What could be done to resolve the problem?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ivan
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 2:06:39 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Ivan Bútora wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I am using Windows 98 SE, logged on to a Windows Domain. In one of the
> network workgroups, there are probably around 5000 computers or so. When I
> browse this workgroup through Windows Explorer, I can only see anywhere
> between the first 2000 and 2200 computers alphabetically. (The numbers
> keep changing, sometimes it is 2055, sometimes 2083, etc.) I have not been
> able to find any article in the knowledge base or elsewhere that would
> describe some limitation in this regard. So is this a limitation, or
> possibly a bug? What could be done to resolve the problem?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ivan

I remember something about this one, but looking in my storage folder of all
the 9x issues and updates that ever were I can't find it now ...hmmm, I
vaguely remember reading something about that but I just cant recall the
resolve at the moment.........

Please do post back if you find out so that I can log it.

Rick
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 9:42:18 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Hi Rick,

if you could find something out, that'd be great, because it seems that no one is replying... One of the guys at the Office of Information Technology here suggested that it might have to do with the total number of characters that can be displayed (and that supposedly that is why the number of computers that Windows Explorer "sees" keeps changing), but it seems very odd to say the least, and I haven't been able to find any documentation on this. I'm just wondering if it's a bug, or if there is something wrong on my computer. I'll see if I can text it on another Win 9x system...

Ivan



"Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message news:o cruiu$SFHA.3056@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Ivan Bútora wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I am using Windows 98 SE, logged on to a Windows Domain. In one of the
> > network workgroups, there are probably around 5000 computers or so. When I
> > browse this workgroup through Windows Explorer, I can only see anywhere
> > between the first 2000 and 2200 computers alphabetically. (The numbers
> > keep changing, sometimes it is 2055, sometimes 2083, etc.) I have not been
> > able to find any article in the knowledge base or elsewhere that would
> > describe some limitation in this regard. So is this a limitation, or
> > possibly a bug? What could be done to resolve the problem?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ivan
>
> I remember something about this one, but looking in my storage folder of all
> the 9x issues and updates that ever were I can't find it now ...hmmm, I
> vaguely remember reading something about that but I just cant recall the
> resolve at the moment.........
>
> Please do post back if you find out so that I can log it.
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 4:01:55 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Ivan Bútora wrote:
> Hi Rick,
>
> if you could find something out, that'd be great, because it seems that no
> one is replying... One of the guys at the Office of Information Technology
> here suggested that it might have to do with the total number of
> characters that can be displayed (and that supposedly that is why the
> number of computers that Windows Explorer "sees" keeps changing), but it

Yeah that seems logical, after all, 5000 is not the norm for W9x systems.

> seems very odd to say the least, and I haven't been able to find any
> documentation on this. I'm just wondering if it's a bug, or if there is
> something wrong on my computer. I'll see if I can text it on another Win
> 9x system...

Yes absolutely see if the same thing happens on any other of the SE boxes
that have the same access that you do, and if they all do the same thing as
yours then the writing is on the wall.

I know I've come across this before, but for the life of me just can't recall
the details about it to remember... if I do I'll let you know - and if you do
let us know too k

Rick


>
> Ivan
>
>
>
> "Rick Chauvin" <justask@nospamz.com> wrote in message
> news:o cruiu$SFHA.3056@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Ivan Bútora wrote:
>> > Hi everyone,
>> >
>> > I am using Windows 98 SE, logged on to a Windows Domain. In one of the
>> > network workgroups, there are probably around 5000 computers or so.
>> > When I browse this workgroup through Windows Explorer, I can only see
>> > anywhere between the first 2000 and 2200 computers alphabetically. (The
>> > numbers keep changing, sometimes it is 2055, sometimes 2083, etc.) I
>> > have not been able to find any article in the knowledge base or
>> > elsewhere that would describe some limitation in this regard. So is
>> > this a limitation, or possibly a bug? What could be done to resolve the
>> > problem?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Ivan
>>
>> I remember something about this one, but looking in my storage folder of
>> all the 9x issues and updates that ever were I can't find it now ...hmmm,
>> I vaguely remember reading something about that but I just cant recall the
>> resolve at the moment.........
>>
>> Please do post back if you find out so that I can log it.
>>
>> Rick
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 5:01:45 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:37:04 -0400, Ivan Bútora <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote:

>I am using Windows 98 SE, logged on to a Windows Domain. In one of the
>network workgroups, there are probably around 5000 computers or so. When
>I browse this workgroup through Windows Explorer, I can only see anywhere
>between the first 2000 and 2200 computers alphabetically. (The numbers keep
>changing, sometimes it is 2055, sometimes 2083, etc.)

Let's hope these are not all offering full shares of all of C:\, or
any part of the startup axis. Else when any one of those 5000 PCs is
infected, chances are all the others will be too.

In such large installations, it's unlikely that the sysadmins would do
the right thing, i.e. take each PC off the LAN and formally clean it.
They will prolly mess around with network cleaning tools, so the
malware will likely flit from one PC to the other, forever.

>I have not been able to find any article in the knowledge base or
>elsewhere that would describe some limitation in this regard.

The limitations are not so much on your side, as on the PCs you are
trying to access. Windows comes in server and non-server versions,
and all non-server versions of Windows will limit the number of
systems that are allowed to access them at the same time:
- 5: WinME, XP Home
- 10: Win95xx, Win98xx, NT Workstation, Win2000 Pro, XP Pro

If you have 5000 workstations all banging away at each other via
peer-to-peer file sharing - an unlikely scenario in a
professionally-administered LAN, as 5000 PCs should be - then the
chances are that at any given moment, a large number of these may have
"too many" systems trying to access them. I'd expect you to be able
to see them, but not be allowed access.

What the system can see via File and Print Sharing is always likely to
be a bit wobbly. One could design the system to be constantly aware
of PCs as they come and go (they "come" when switched on and "go" when
shutdown), but the overhead (especially with 5000 boxen) would leave
your PC with little time to do anything else, and the network would be
saturated with "hello I'm here" keep-alive traffic.

So in reality, the "discovery" of systems is a bit lethargic, and
there seems to be no way to force a refresh of who'd who in the zoo
(it would be exploited as a DoS, if such facility existed).

If this is the problem, then using Search or Find or explicit network
path syntax should find the systems that Explorer doesn't list.

>So is this a limitation, or possibly a bug? What could be done to
>resolve the problem?

As above. Are these 5000 systems servers, or workstations? It seems
like a very odd way to run a network if they're workstations.



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 5:01:46 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Hi cquirke,

the setting I'm operating in is a campus network at Princeton University. Logging on to the Windows domain gives a computer access to all those Windows computers on the network which have sharing enabled. The particular workgroup that contains so many computers is the workgroup "PRINCETON", since many users configure their computers to be a part of this workgroup. There are some servers too, but mostly workstations.

Anyway, the point is that when I access this workgroup through Windows Explorer, I can currently see 2106 computers, and list cuts off somewhere at the letter "H". The question is why does Windows Explorer show only the first ~2100 computers *alphabetically*? (and yes, doing a search or using the \\computer syntax will let me do what I want, but still I'd like to figure out if this is a bug/limitation of Windows 98, or if it's something else)

Thanks,

Ivan



"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in message news:fge5719td920072bjp9ijiblvg1lc5s7d2@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:37:04 -0400, Ivan Bútora <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> >I am using Windows 98 SE, logged on to a Windows Domain. In one of the
> >network workgroups, there are probably around 5000 computers or so. When
> >I browse this workgroup through Windows Explorer, I can only see anywhere
> >between the first 2000 and 2200 computers alphabetically. (The numbers keep
> >changing, sometimes it is 2055, sometimes 2083, etc.)
>
> Let's hope these are not all offering full shares of all of C:\, or
> any part of the startup axis. Else when any one of those 5000 PCs is
> infected, chances are all the others will be too.
>
> In such large installations, it's unlikely that the sysadmins would do
> the right thing, i.e. take each PC off the LAN and formally clean it.
> They will prolly mess around with network cleaning tools, so the
> malware will likely flit from one PC to the other, forever.
>
> >I have not been able to find any article in the knowledge base or
> >elsewhere that would describe some limitation in this regard.
>
> The limitations are not so much on your side, as on the PCs you are
> trying to access. Windows comes in server and non-server versions,
> and all non-server versions of Windows will limit the number of
> systems that are allowed to access them at the same time:
> - 5: WinME, XP Home
> - 10: Win95xx, Win98xx, NT Workstation, Win2000 Pro, XP Pro
>
> If you have 5000 workstations all banging away at each other via
> peer-to-peer file sharing - an unlikely scenario in a
> professionally-administered LAN, as 5000 PCs should be - then the
> chances are that at any given moment, a large number of these may have
> "too many" systems trying to access them. I'd expect you to be able
> to see them, but not be allowed access.
>
> What the system can see via File and Print Sharing is always likely to
> be a bit wobbly. One could design the system to be constantly aware
> of PCs as they come and go (they "come" when switched on and "go" when
> shutdown), but the overhead (especially with 5000 boxen) would leave
> your PC with little time to do anything else, and the network would be
> saturated with "hello I'm here" keep-alive traffic.
>
> So in reality, the "discovery" of systems is a bit lethargic, and
> there seems to be no way to force a refresh of who'd who in the zoo
> (it would be exploited as a DoS, if such facility existed).
>
> If this is the problem, then using Search or Find or explicit network
> path syntax should find the systems that Explorer doesn't list.
>
> >So is this a limitation, or possibly a bug? What could be done to
> >resolve the problem?
>
> As above. Are these 5000 systems servers, or workstations? It seems
> like a very odd way to run a network if they're workstations.
>
>
>
> >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
> >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 9:55:11 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I am not a networking person--I can barely make my wireless network stay
working half the time <G>. I asked a MS person to comment on your question
and here is his response:

There are a number of possibilities here that could reduce number of
computers you see. Some of this may related to network's physical structure
and how it is segmented. Another can be related to its logical structure
(domains, trust relationships, etc). I am a little confused on the logical
structure here because the terms domains and workgroups appear to be used
interchangeably and they are very different organizational constructs.
The common problems I see with Windows 98 and browsing are in mixed
environments where systems with Win9x are side-by-side with Windows NT-based
systems. In many of those cases, browsing is either limited by the protocol
(IPX or NetBEUI vs. TCP/IP) or direct hosting (TCP/IP or IPX without
NetBIOS). The default for Windows 98, I think is to have NetBIOS enabled
with these protocols. The default for NT, 2000, and XP is to direct host
(good reasons from a domain perspective, see KB article 315267 The
Advantages of Direct Hosting of SMB over TCP/IP
(http://support.microsoft.com/?id=315267).

That the number changes frequently is not surprising. Besides the fact that
systems go up and down all the time, the fact a number of them might also be
browsemasters or potential browsemasters constantly going the election
processes, syncing and sharing lists at different intervals can lead to a
lot of shifting numbers.

This is all by design. There are lot of reasons why it might not be a good
idea to be see all of the systems in the domain ranging from security to
performance. The best way to focus on all this is to identify two specific
systems that are similar who can't see each other and see why they can't by
inventorying their dissimilarities in networking.

This is a big hairy answer but there isn't a lot of detail to go on here.

Hope it helps anyway.


--
Regards

Ron Badour, MS MVP Windows 98
Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour
Knowledge Base Info:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo

"Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:o wMFJ07SFHA.2768@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Thanks, Ron. I asked in the networking group too; so far I haven't gotten
> a response. I hope somebody will be able to provide some suggestions.
>
> Ivan
>
>
> "Ron Badour" <Sorry@NoAddress.com> wrote in message
> news:e0L6prtSFHA.2560@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> I think you might have better luck asking your question in a networking
>> newsgroup.
>>
>> microsoft.public.win98.networking
>> --
>> Regards
>>
>> Ron Badour, MS MVP Windows 98
>> Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour
>> Knowledge Base Info:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo
>>
>> "Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
>> news:%23FPcbjrSFHA.2432@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> > Hi everyone,
>> >
>> > I am using Windows 98 SE, logged on to a Windows Domain. In one of the
>> > network workgroups, there are probably around 5000 computers or so.
>> > When I
>> > browse this workgroup through Windows Explorer, I can only see anywhere
>> > between the first 2000 and 2200 computers alphabetically. (The numbers
>> > keep changing, sometimes it is 2055, sometimes 2083, etc.) I have not
>> > been
>> > able to find any article in the knowledge base or elsewhere that would
>> > describe some limitation in this regard. So is this a limitation, or
>> > possibly a bug? What could be done to resolve the problem?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Ivan
>>
>>
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 2:56:31 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 20:22:56 -0400, Ivan Bútora <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote:

>Hi cquirke

Hi!

>the setting I'm operating in is a campus network at Princeton University.

Ahh.

>Logging on to the Windows domain gives a computer access to all those
>Windows computers on the network which have sharing enabled. The
>particular workgroup that contains so many computers is the workgroup
>"PRINCETON", since many users configure their computers to be a part
>of this workgroup. There are some servers too, but mostly workstations.

OK. What's worrying me is what is shared - if it's "all of C" then
I'd worry about Startup droppers, should one out of those 2000+ users
"open" a Day Zero emaul (or IM) attackment.

I'd worry about that a LOT :-p

>Anyway, the point is that when I access this workgroup through
>Windows Explorer, I can currently see 2106 computers, and list
>cuts off somewhere at the letter "H". The question is why does
>Windows Explorer show only the first ~2100 computers
>*alphabetically*? (and yes, doing a search or using the
>\\computer syntax will let me do what I want, but still I'd like
>to figure out if this is a bug/limitation of Windows 98, or if it's
>something else)

It sounds a bit like a "max registry value size" type of scalability
thing to me, and I'd do a RegEdit serach for a distinctive PC name.

The alpha-sorting things sounds like Explorer is building a list
somewhere and silently exits when it runs out of some fixed global
resource that limits this unbounded per-instance data.

I'd also worry about WinME systems that create those awful yellow
folder shortcuts to every share they can find in the Network
Neighborhood. Nice slow fragmented dir chains there.

I'd also expect a bit of a LAN and system performance hit from all the
browse mastering elections or whatever F&PS does. It would be like
having 2000 documents open in Word, where at any given moment, one of
them is sure to be doing its every-15-minutes autosave, so the HD's
always burping away.

I don't think F&PS was ever meant to scale this high... it's unusual
to see it on this scale. Normally one would think things would be
server-centric so that few workstations would be sharing anything.

Actually, I'm a but surprised this works as well as it does :-)



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 8:32:11 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 17:55:11 -0500, "Ron Badour" wrote:

>I asked a MS person to comment on your question and here is his response:

>The common problems I see with Windows 98 and browsing are in mixed
>environments where systems with Win9x are side-by-side with Windows NT-based
>systems. In many of those cases, browsing is either limited by the protocol
>(IPX or NetBEUI vs. TCP/IP) or direct hosting (TCP/IP or IPX without
>NetBIOS). The default for Windows 98, I think is to have NetBIOS enabled
>with these protocols. The default for NT, 2000, and XP is to direct host
>(good reasons from a domain perspective, see KB article 315267 The
>Advantages of Direct Hosting of SMB over TCP/IP
>(http://support.microsoft.com/?id=315267).

More on "direct" vs. NetBIOS?

I've found it impossible to get XP to co-exist with Win9x on a LAN
(i.e. for everyone to "see" each other) unless the whole LAN is
converted to TCP/IP - which is a bad idea if you want to separate
Internet and LAN traffic with no need for shared Internet access.

When F&PS doesn't have to be carried by TCP/IP, firewall's easier!



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
!