Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How share program files folder on LAN?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 11:55:40 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On my Home LAN I cannot see contents of the Program Files Folder on other
PCs.
On those PC the entired C drive is set to share yet that folder will still
not allow access.
When attempting to set share permission on that particular folder, the
option is shaded out and not available to make as share.

Is there a way to set the sharing for ALL folders on the C drive? I am the
admin on all PCs.

thanks for any tips
January 16, 2005 12:09:02 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Control who can access files and folders in WindowsXP.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/security/learn...

"jtsnow" wrote:

> On my Home LAN I cannot see contents of the Program Files Folder on other
> PCs.
> On those PC the entired C drive is set to share yet that folder will still
> not allow access.
> When attempting to set share permission on that particular folder, the
> option is shaded out and not available to make as share.
>
> Is there a way to set the sharing for ALL folders on the C drive? I am the
> admin on all PCs.
>
> thanks for any tips
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 3:11:01 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

jtsnow wrote:
> On my Home LAN I cannot see contents of the Program Files Folder on other
> PCs.
> On those PC the entired C drive is set to share yet that folder will still
> not allow access.
> When attempting to set share permission on that particular folder, the
> option is shaded out and not available to make as share.
>
> Is there a way to set the sharing for ALL folders on the C drive? I am the
> admin on all PCs.
>
> thanks for any tips
>
>
--------

Microsoft, in it's infinite wisdom, does not seem to allow you to share
all folders. There are some they just won't let you touch remotely.

There are others however, like Documents&Settings which don't seem to
allow you to access them just by setting "C" for share, but if you go
into the sub folders individually and set them to share, then they will.

And why they removed the ability to set passwords on share access like
Win98 already had totally eludes me. They removed one level of security
from the system. They tell you not to worry, just upgrade to XP Pro,
but that's a cop out. They simply reduced the OS security for no
apparent reason IMHO.

Anyhow, mostly you can share your C disk (with everyone on the net) but
you may need to do some tinkering to get there. And if you're trying to
backup stuff from selected subdirectories which don't allow sharing you
may need to copy them to a sharable subdirectory first.

Good luck....

Bill
Related resources
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 3:11:02 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

ok...thanks....guess im SOL then on the program files folder


"Bill Martin -- (Remove NOSPAM from address)" <wylie@earthNOSPAMlink.net>
wrote in message news:u2W5b5%23%23EHA.2700@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> jtsnow wrote:
>> On my Home LAN I cannot see contents of the Program Files Folder on other
>> PCs.
>> On those PC the entired C drive is set to share yet that folder will
>> still not allow access.
>> When attempting to set share permission on that particular folder, the
>> option is shaded out and not available to make as share.
>>
>> Is there a way to set the sharing for ALL folders on the C drive? I am
>> the admin on all PCs.
>>
>> thanks for any tips
> --------
>
> Microsoft, in it's infinite wisdom, does not seem to allow you to share
> all folders. There are some they just won't let you touch remotely.
>
> There are others however, like Documents&Settings which don't seem to
> allow you to access them just by setting "C" for share, but if you go into
> the sub folders individually and set them to share, then they will.
>
> And why they removed the ability to set passwords on share access like
> Win98 already had totally eludes me. They removed one level of security
> from the system. They tell you not to worry, just upgrade to XP Pro, but
> that's a cop out. They simply reduced the OS security for no apparent
> reason IMHO.
>
> Anyhow, mostly you can share your C disk (with everyone on the net) but
> you may need to do some tinkering to get there. And if you're trying to
> backup stuff from selected subdirectories which don't allow sharing you
> may need to copy them to a sharable subdirectory first.
>
> Good luck....
>
> Bill
January 16, 2005 8:56:00 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

jtsnow wrote:
> On my Home LAN I cannot see contents of the Program Files Folder on other
> PCs.
> On those PC the entired C drive is set to share yet that folder will still
> not allow access.
> When attempting to set share permission on that particular folder, the
> option is shaded out and not available to make as share.
>
> Is there a way to set the sharing for ALL folders on the C drive? I am the
> admin on all PCs.
>
> thanks for any tips
>
>
Why would you *want* to share the program folder? very few programs can
run over a Network, they need to be installed on each machine.
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 8:56:01 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Gordon wrote:

> Why would you *want* to share the program folder? very few programs can
> run over a Network, they need to be installed on each machine.

One reason: Some programs insist on storing their configuration stuff
within their installation subdirectory. That makes it difficult then to
do remote backups from another machine on the network. You may not want
to execute remotely, or backup all the installation stuff, but you would
still like to backup anything that gets changed after installation.

Bill
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 8:56:02 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

yea its for backup...im not running the programs remote. I want to
backup the program files folder
thx

"Bill Martin -- (Remove NOSPAM from address)" <wylie@earthNOSPAMlink.net>
wrote in message news:ubfmQDA$EHA.2580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Gordon wrote:
>
>> Why would you *want* to share the program folder? very few programs can
>> run over a Network, they need to be installed on each machine.
>
> One reason: Some programs insist on storing their configuration stuff
> within their installation subdirectory. That makes it difficult then to
> do remote backups from another machine on the network. You may not want
> to execute remotely, or backup all the installation stuff, but you would
> still like to backup anything that gets changed after installation.
>
> Bill
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 8:56:03 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Your installation CDs are your backup. Downloaded installation files should
be placed in My Documents for backup.
"jtsnow" <jtsnow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:TCzGd.11268$Tf5.1983@lakeread03...
> yea its for backup...im not running the programs remote. I want to
> backup the program files folder
> thx
>
> "Bill Martin -- (Remove NOSPAM from address)" <wylie@earthNOSPAMlink.net>
> wrote in message news:ubfmQDA$EHA.2580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Gordon wrote:
>>
>>> Why would you *want* to share the program folder? very few programs can
>>> run over a Network, they need to be installed on each machine.
>>
>> One reason: Some programs insist on storing their configuration stuff
>> within their installation subdirectory. That makes it difficult then to
>> do remote backups from another machine on the network. You may not want
>> to execute remotely, or backup all the installation stuff, but you would
>> still like to backup anything that gets changed after installation.
>>
>> Bill
>
>
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 8:56:04 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

this guy is a dweeb!

lmfao!

"Chuck Davis" <newsgroup at anthemwebs dot com> wrote in message
news:eW8G4sB$EHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Your installation CDs are your backup. Downloaded installation files
> should be placed in My Documents for backup.
> "jtsnow" <jtsnow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:TCzGd.11268$Tf5.1983@lakeread03...
>> yea its for backup...im not running the programs remote. I want to
>> backup the program files folder
>> thx
>>
>> "Bill Martin -- (Remove NOSPAM from address)" <wylie@earthNOSPAMlink.net>
>> wrote in message news:ubfmQDA$EHA.2580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>> Gordon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why would you *want* to share the program folder? very few programs can
>>>> run over a Network, they need to be installed on each machine.
>>>
>>> One reason: Some programs insist on storing their configuration stuff
>>> within their installation subdirectory. That makes it difficult then to
>>> do remote backups from another machine on the network. You may not want
>>> to execute remotely, or backup all the installation stuff, but you would
>>> still like to backup anything that gets changed after installation.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 9:08:19 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

jtsnow wrote:
> On my Home LAN I cannot see contents of the Program Files Folder on
> other PCs.
> On those PC the entired C drive is set to share yet that folder will
> still not allow access.
> When attempting to set share permission on that particular folder, the
> option is shaded out and not available to make as share.

That's weird, mine is not. Did you try copying, moving or renaming the
folder?

> Is there a way to set the sharing for ALL folders on the C drive? I
> am the admin on all PCs.

Did you try using the default C$ share?
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 9:08:20 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

did not try copying or renaming.

what is C$?

thanks

"André Gulliksen" <andre.gulliksen@start.no> wrote in message
news:34vle4F4g76baU1@individual.net...
> jtsnow wrote:
>> On my Home LAN I cannot see contents of the Program Files Folder on
>> other PCs.
>> On those PC the entired C drive is set to share yet that folder will
>> still not allow access.
>> When attempting to set share permission on that particular folder, the
>> option is shaded out and not available to make as share.
>
> That's weird, mine is not. Did you try copying, moving or renaming the
> folder?
>
>> Is there a way to set the sharing for ALL folders on the C drive? I
>> am the admin on all PCs.
>
> Did you try using the default C$ share?
>
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 9:26:58 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In news:eW8G4sB$EHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl,
Chuck Davis <newsgroup at anthemwebs dot com> typed:

> Your installation CDs are your backup. Downloaded installation
> files
> should be placed in My Documents for backup.


There are no rules for where such files *should* be kept.
Downloaded installation files should be placed in whatever folder
you find convenient for that purpose. I don't keep mine in "My
Documents," because they are *not* documents and I would find
that confusing. I keep mine in a folder I've created called
\downloads.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup



> "jtsnow" <jtsnow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:TCzGd.11268$Tf5.1983@lakeread03...
>> yea its for backup...im not running the programs remote. I
>> want
>> to backup the program files folder
>> thx
>>
>> "Bill Martin -- (Remove NOSPAM from address)"
>> <wylie@earthNOSPAMlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:ubfmQDA$EHA.2580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>> Gordon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why would you *want* to share the program folder? very few
>>>> programs can run over a Network, they need to be installed
>>>> on each
>>>> machine.
>>>
>>> One reason: Some programs insist on storing their
>>> configuration
>>> stuff within their installation subdirectory. That makes it
>>> difficult then to do remote backups from another machine on
>>> the
>>> network. You may not want to execute remotely, or backup all
>>> the
>>> installation stuff, but you would still like to backup
>>> anything
>>> that gets changed after installation.
>>> Bill
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 9:58:08 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

jtsnow wrote:
> what is C$?

In XP, 2000 and NT all drives are by default shared, with a $ appended to
the drive letter. Thus all your drives are by default shared as C$, D$ etc.
The $ means that the shares will not be seen when browsed for, but they can
be connected to manually.
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 11:28:10 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Chuck Davis wrote:
> Your installation CDs are your backup. Downloaded installation files should
> be placed in My Documents for backup.
> "jtsnow" <jtsnow@yahoo.com> wrote in message

You must not have read the part about some programs also writing their
configuration stuff into the installation subdirectory. So the issue
isn't backing up the basic installation CD, it's backing up things that
change after installation. For some programs...

Bill
Anonymous
January 17, 2005 10:45:27 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Salut/Hi Ken Blake,

le/on Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:26:58 -0700, tu disais/you said:-

>In news:eW8G4sB$EHA.1936@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl,
>Chuck Davis <newsgroup at anthemwebs dot com> typed:
>
>> Your installation CDs are your backup. Downloaded installation
>> files
>> should be placed in My Documents for backup.
>
>
>There are no rules for where such files *should* be kept.
>Downloaded installation files should be placed in whatever folder
>you find convenient for that purpose. I don't keep mine in "My
>Documents," because they are *not* documents and I would find
>that confusing. I keep mine in a folder I've created called
>\downloads.

Well well, great minds think alike. I do exactly the same.

Do you only keep the latest version of programs there, or what? I found
about four different versions of a couple of programs that's had active
development over a number of years, and I was chagrined to see that I had 6
(count 'em) versions of Panda virus definitions dating from when I used it
(2 years ago!).

I have to say that I find the sub folders with My Documents to be near to
pushing the limits of what is meant by "documents" I prefer to define "My
music", "my videos" "my pictures" quite separately. In fact, although this
is quite a long way from the way Msoft conceives of it, I would much prefer
to organise my disk completely differently.

C:\ exclusively for Windows.
D:\ exclusively for applications that I have installed (taking "I" broadly)
E:\ exclusively for application data that I have created. (letters, scanned
docs, pictures and so on)
F:\ for anything else.

Then all I have to do us to carry out a back up on the whole of E to have
all my personal stuff safe. I can re-install applications to D:/ from CD
(where I always keep a back up of "download" and I don't need to touch C:\

Unfortunately not all programs are flexible enough for that and some won't
let me have ANY say.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website
Anonymous
January 17, 2005 10:45:28 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In news:nc1ou09jfhetia2jcp6q9ke0hvecmkkis9@4ax.com,
Ian Hoare <ianhoare@angelfire.com> typed:

> Salut/Hi Ken Blake,
>
> le/on Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:26:58 -0700, tu disais/you said:-

>>There are no rules for where such files *should* be kept.
>>Downloaded installation files should be placed in whatever
>>folder
>>you find convenient for that purpose. I don't keep mine in "My
>>Documents," because they are *not* documents and I would find
>>that confusing. I keep mine in a folder I've created called
>>\downloads.
>
> Well well, great minds think alike. I do exactly the same.
>
> Do you only keep the latest version of programs there, or what?
> I
> found about four different versions of a couple of programs
> that's
> had active development over a number of years, and I was
> chagrined to
> see that I had 6 (count 'em) versions of Panda virus
> definitions
> dating from when I used it (2 years ago!).


Hi, Ian. Good to see you participating actively here.

Since I have plenty of free disk space, I still have everything
I've ever downloaded on this machine. That's partly because I
think there just possibly *might* be a situation where I'd want
to go back to an old version of something, and partly (mostly?)
because I'm too lazy to clean it out.

Of course if disk space were ever to become an issue, that would
be one of the first folders I'd clean up.


> I have to say that I find the sub folders with My Documents to
> be
> near to pushing the limits of what is meant by "documents" I
> prefer
> to define "My music", "my videos" "my pictures" quite
> separately. In
> fact, although this is quite a long way from the way Msoft
> conceives
> of it, I would much prefer to organise my disk completely
> differently.


And that's fine. The best organization scheme is the one that
works for you. I don't think anybody to feel any compulsion to
keep pictures in ...\My Documents\My Pictures, and the same is
true with all the other such folders.

A important part of the rationale for how most people should
organize their data should be how they do theirr backups. It's
clumsy, and perhaps error-prone if every time you do a backup,
you have to pick and choose files and folders scattered all over
the place. But since *my* personal scheme is to use Drive Image
to make a complete copy of the drive, I don't worry about that
aspect of where things are stored.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
Anonymous
January 18, 2005 9:10:45 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

<SNIP>

Ian Hoare <ianhoare@angelfire.com> wrote in
news:nc1ou09jfhetia2jcp6q9ke0hvecmkkis9@4ax.com:

>
> I have to say that I find the sub folders with My Documents to be near
> to pushing the limits of what is meant by "documents" I prefer to
> define "My music", "my videos" "my pictures" quite separately. In
> fact, although this is quite a long way from the way Msoft conceives
> of it, I would much prefer to organise my disk completely differently.
>
> C:\ exclusively for Windows.
> D:\ exclusively for applications that I have installed (taking "I"
> broadly) E:\ exclusively for application data that I have created.
> (letters, scanned docs, pictures and so on)
> F:\ for anything else.
>
> Then all I have to do us to carry out a back up on the whole of E to
> have all my personal stuff safe. I can re-install applications to D:/
> from CD (where I always keep a back up of "download" and I don't need
> to touch C:\
>
> Unfortunately not all programs are flexible enough for that and some
> won't let me have ANY say.
>

don't you hate that ? i'm pretty particular about the hd structure on my
computer, and there's always an app of two that has to screw everything
up.

another thing that bug's me is program's that won't let you install to a
path with spaces in it, ala Program Files. for instance, the company
worked for just got OrCAD v10, an electronic schematic and a PC board
design program. every version since 6 (?) that i have used was installed
to the Program Files folder. so v10 is released and in this one you MUST
install to a path with no spaces, forcing you to add another root
subdirectory that totally doesn't fit my install structure.
Anonymous
January 18, 2005 9:31:09 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Salut/Hi DanS,

le/on Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:10:45 -0600, tu disais/you said:-

>> Unfortunately not all programs are flexible enough for that and some
>> won't let me have ANY say.
>
>don't you hate that ?

Yes I do. And in fact it's one of the major beefs I had with Microsoft. I
bought a computer, and it is mine. I have the right to do with it anything I
damn well choose, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I DON'T like the
restrictions imposed by Microsoft in their licence, which IMO is actually
the most effective and original thing that the company ever did. (I'm
exaggerating slightly for effect), but HAVE to accept them in order to use a
functioning O/S with decent applications.

I found that Microsoft were one of the most high handed when it came to
taking over the structure of my disk and directories/subdirectories. They've
improves somewhat, and XP is far better (IMO) in that respect. BUT, for
example, their creation of a non standard "My Document" area, which is
outside the normal directory structure is unhelpful.

> i'm pretty particular about the hd structure on my computer, and there's
>always an app of two that has to screw everything up.

Yup. I think one of the worst offenders in that respect, for all I use it
and like it very much for its functionality is Corel's Wordperfect, which
leaves bits of itself scattered all over hell's half acre. Their default
choice of "My Documents" for files is typical. Who in their right mind would
organise their files into a totally non-standard and unstructured place.

>another thing that bugs me is program's that won't let you install to a
>path with spaces in it, ala Program Files.

I can't say I've had any of these. (I agree with you by the way).

I have c:\Program Files because I have to, for badly behaved programs that
give me no choice, and then D:\Program Files for the rest!

>to the Program Files folder. so v10 is released and in this one you MUST
>install to a path with no spaces, forcing you to add another root
>subdirectory that totally doesn't fit my install structure.

I'd complain to your company's IT dept, assuming it has one, or failing that
to the company themselves, demanding that they refund their brain dead
software. They won't of course, but they WILL be made aware of the
irritation they've caused.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website
Anonymous
January 18, 2005 9:31:10 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In news:l3hqu05nd39v3mh2vl77fdhess7m5o0jas@4ax.com,
Ian Hoare <ianhoare@angelfire.com> typed:


> BUT, for example, their creation of a
> non standard "My Document" area, which is outside the normal
> directory structure is unhelpful.



Ian, "My Documents" is not really outside the normal directory
structure. It's normally found in
C:\Documents and Settings\your user name\My Documents

What you're seeing as outside the normal directory structure is
what's called a "namespace," and is just a pointer to the actual
folder itself.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 12:32:21 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

<SNIP>

Ian Hoare <ianhoare@angelfire.com> wrote in

> Yup. I think one of the worst offenders in that respect, for all I use
> it and like it very much for its functionality is Corel's Wordperfect,
> which leaves bits of itself scattered all over hell's half acre. Their
> default choice of "My Documents" for files is typical. Who in their
> right mind would organise their files into a totally non-standard and
> unstructured place.
>

i've got to say it, so....how many micro$oft engineers does it take to
change a lightbulb ?

.......none....they just make darkness the standard.

i'm sure you've heard that one before though.

but anyway, another peeve is the whole 'My' folder's thing....My Webs, My
Pictures, My Music, My Downloads, etc. you can delete them all but they
come right back at some point. it wasn't more than 6 months ago that i
found out how to stop that from happening......

regsvr32 /u mydocs.dll

or if it still comes back after a while, just rename mydocs.dll to
something else or delete it altogether. no more 'My Folders', except for
the 'My Documents' of course.

MICROSOFT JUST DOESN'T GET IT. i'm sure that a very large percentage of
users out there don't want all the stuff installed on default that is
installed. any computer i've worked on/installed windows to/fixed, i start
by disabling probably up to a dozen services that aren't needed. then go
thru and cleanup the harddrive of other stuff, like 'Online Services'. who
want's to use the built-in CD burning of XP when it is rudimentary and very
basic when every CDr drive comes with REAL burning software.

i personally would go back to Windows95, if i could, just for the
'liteness' of it, but unfortunately, XP can't be beat for stability and the
eye candy is nice, Win98 is was still 'lite' enough.

i thought this was an interesting project:

http://www.etek.chalmers.se/~e8gus/nano98/ , a very basic Win98 system that
on 4.3 Megs in size with a GUI. a very lite start.

regards,

DanS
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 3:26:48 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Comments inline:

DanS wrote:
> Who want's to use the built-in CD burning of XP
> when it is rudimentary and very basic when every CDr drive comes with
> REAL burning software.

Not necessarily. If the OEM (if it is an OEM) chooses not to include
software - even if they received it when they bought the CD-R or DVD-RW/+RW
drive - then the end user may have no choice. There are also those
consumers who expect to have everything when they install Windows XP. The
chants of "Where is Word?" or "I have the Windows XP Firewall - doesn't that
cover the AntiVirus/AntiSpyware as well?" can be found on these newsgroups.

> i personally would go back to Windows95, if i could, just for the
> 'liteness' of it, but unfortunately, XP can't be beat for stability
> and the eye candy is nice, Win98 is was still 'lite' enough.

You are correct. Windows 98 was nice (SE) - although stable is not a word I
would use with it and secure is one that should not even be associated with
it. Fast and simple.. sure. Windows 95? I would never go back to it.

XP is a vast improvement and not even in the same family line - as that line
was technically discontinued. But even the hardcore people who love Windows
NT/2000 hated it for one of the very reasons you listed as good -
"eye-candy". This is what i began getting rid of immediately.

> i thought this was an interesting project:
>
> http://www.etek.chalmers.se/~e8gus/nano98/ , a very basic Win98
> system that on 4.3 Megs in size with a GUI. a very lite start.

There are projects out there that rip Windows XP to a "lite" status as well.
You lose som much stability, however.. I install dozens of machines in a
given week and with these instals I have made my registry files and other
scripts do the tweaking for me. Tweaks from such pages as winguides.com and
setting many services to manual due to research on sites like:

Task List Programs
http://www.answersthatwork.com/Tasklist_pages/tasklist....

Black Viper's Service List and Opinions (XP)
http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm

Processes in Windows NT/2000/XP
http://www.reger24.de/prozesse/

Startups
http://www.pacs-portal.co.uk/startup_content.php

While I am the last to tout Windows XP's greatness - as I use other
operating systems alongside my Windows XP boxes - I do say that I have seen
WIndows XP win over some administrators that *did* go against everything
Microsoft. Yeah - sure - it requires tweaking - but this is the first in
the NT line that actually targetted consumers instead of just businesses.
For someone like me - it was easy enough to fix.. And for people who know
someone like me - same thing. A little tweaking here and there, a little
cut-down on some of the more annoying features and Windows XP runs great and
has some extra features that can, without a doubt, "save your butt".

--
<- Shenan ->
--
The information is provided "as is", it is suggested you research for
yourself before you take any advice - you are the one ultimately
responsible for your actions/problems/solutions. Know what you are
getting into before you jump in with both feet.
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 10:57:28 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Shenan Stanley" <news_helper@hushmail.com> wrote in
news:eIwdb$e$EHA.3924@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl:

<SNIP>

>> i personally would go back to Windows95, if i could, just for the
>> 'liteness' of it, but unfortunately, XP can't be beat for stability
>> and the eye candy is nice, Win98 is was still 'lite' enough.
>
> You are correct. Windows 98 was nice (SE) - although stable is not a
> word I would use with it and secure is one that should not even be
> associated with it. Fast and simple.. sure. Windows 95? I would
> never go back to it.

secure is how you make it.

> XP is a vast improvement and not even in the same family line - as
> that line was technically discontinued. But even the hardcore people
> who love Windows NT/2000 hated it for one of the very reasons you
> listed as good - "eye-candy". This is what i began getting rid of
> immediately.

i too was alway's the first to remove the eye-candy, like fading menu's,
but there's the small bit's that should have just been the way they are
in XP from the start of windows, ie- desktop icon text with a transparent
background.

>
>> i thought this was an interesting project:
>>
>> http://www.etek.chalmers.se/~e8gus/nano98/ , a very basic Win98
>> system that on 4.3 Megs in size with a GUI. a very lite start.

> There are projects out there that rip Windows XP to a "lite" status as
> well. You lose som much stability, however..

do you have any link's to these ? i would be very interested. i'm under
the impression you can do this with XP embedded, build an XP image for a
desktop including ONLY the compnents yo want to include.

> I install dozens of
> machines in a given week and with these instals I have made my
> registry files and other scripts do the tweaking for me. Tweaks from
> such pages as winguides.com and setting many services to manual due to
> research on sites like:
>
> Task List Programs
> http://www.answersthatwork.com/Tasklist_pages/tasklist....
>
> Black Viper's Service List and Opinions (XP)
> http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm
>
> Processes in Windows NT/2000/XP
> http://www.reger24.de/prozesse/
>
> Startups
> http://www.pacs-portal.co.uk/startup_content.php
>
> While I am the last to tout Windows XP's greatness - as I use other
> operating systems alongside my Windows XP boxes - I do say that I have
> seen WIndows XP win over some administrators that *did* go against
> everything Microsoft. Yeah - sure - it requires tweaking - but this
> is the first in the NT line that actually targetted consumers instead
> of just businesses. For someone like me - it was easy enough to fix..
> And for people who know someone like me - same thing. A little
> tweaking here and there, a little cut-down on some of the more
> annoying features and Windows XP runs great and has some extra
> features that can, without a doubt, "save your butt".
>

i don't disagree at all, but i do believe the following:

there are 2 kinds of users out there. users like you and me (i'm an old
DOS guy that resisted the switch to Windows as long I possibly
could......until i realized you could run multiple programs
simultaneously) that know top to bottom how a computer works and can fix
just about any problem. then the other group of users, people that know
almost nothing short of pressing the power button, to the one's that know
just enough to be dangerous (hoping not to offend anyone).

it would be great if during the install process, for the 'expert' users,
you could have a lot more control over what is installed, and where......

'Windows XP support's multiple users. Each user's personal documents,
files and setting's are stored in a folder named after the Username. The
default location for the User folder's are C:\Documents and Settings.
Would you like to change this location ?'

wouldn't that be a great dialog box during installation ? or....

'Windows XP SP2 now includes 'Security Center', a built in firewall, that
helps protect you while online. If you already have a firewall, it may
not be necessary to install the 'Security Center'. Do you want to install
the Microsoft Security Center ?'

obviously since the PC has really gone mainstream since the early 90's,
the majority of the user's wouldn't want this, but IMO, a good percentage
would really like to see this. i know i would.

or better yet, an option to do a 'minimal' install, installing just the
VERY basic components required to NOT be considerd 'safe mode', that will
support networking, sound, and device driver installation's. the OS would
then telll you when something was trying to utilize a component that
wasn't installed.....

'The application (whatever) has tried to use the Windows Shadow Copy
Service. This service has not been installed. The program trying to
access it may not work without this service. Would you like to install
this component now ?'

obviously you'd have to keep the WindowsXP CD handy, but a small price to
pay for a sleek, non-bloated O/S.

regards,

DanS
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 5:50:21 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

DanS wrote:


>
> there are 2 kinds of users out there. users like you and me (i'm an old
> DOS guy that resisted the switch to Windows as long I possibly
> could......until i realized you could run multiple programs
> simultaneously) that know top to bottom how a computer works and can fix
> just about any problem. then the other group of users, people that know
> almost nothing short of pressing the power button, to the one's that know
> just enough to be dangerous (hoping not to offend anyone).


When the automobile was new technology, every driver was expected to
know how to resurface a cone clutch and to have the materials and tools
on board to do the job halfway to church on Sunday morning.

Like the car, the computer is morphing from an enthusiast's toy to a
tool. Whether it is used for business or at home, for work or pleasure,
it is now expected to be a simple and reliable. I use mine to write for
publication, to do financial analysis, for communication, and
occasionally for entertainment. I don't know and really don't care
what's going on with flying electrons, bits, bytes, partitions, blahblah.

The PC today is like the car of the 1930s. Lots of nice features, but
you still have to know how to gap the plugs, set the timing, lash the
valves, and ya have to do all that stuff regularly or the damned thing
won't run. The PC owner has to know enough to be dangerous.

And I still can't figure out how to make my PC and laptop talk to one
another. Thank God for restore points that allow me to go back every
time I try and get them both fubar!
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 3:53:02 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

I am having a similar problem. I have a 6 PC peer to peer network using XP
Pro. I have 3 files on the C Drive of PC#1 that I would like to share with
any network user and allow them full access to those files only, and would
like to password protect those 3 files.

This is in a school environment and I have the techer set up under the login
"Adviser" as an administrator and the other users set up under the login
"Students" as limited accounts. I do not want the students to be able to
install programs or run or download executables

I understand from your answer below that XP Pro has that option, but I can't
find it anywhere. Am I mistaken? If not, could you advise me to password
protect spcific files?

"Bill Martin -- (Remove NOSPAM from addre" wrote:

> jtsnow wrote:
> > On my Home LAN I cannot see contents of the Program Files Folder on other
> > PCs.
> > On those PC the entired C drive is set to share yet that folder will still
> > not allow access.
> > When attempting to set share permission on that particular folder, the
> > option is shaded out and not available to make as share.
> >
> > Is there a way to set the sharing for ALL folders on the C drive? I am the
> > admin on all PCs.
> >
> > thanks for any tips
> >
> >
> --------
>
> Microsoft, in it's infinite wisdom, does not seem to allow you to share
> all folders. There are some they just won't let you touch remotely.
>
> There are others however, like Documents&Settings which don't seem to
> allow you to access them just by setting "C" for share, but if you go
> into the sub folders individually and set them to share, then they will.
>
> And why they removed the ability to set passwords on share access like
> Win98 already had totally eludes me. They removed one level of security
> from the system. They tell you not to worry, just upgrade to XP Pro,
> but that's a cop out. They simply reduced the OS security for no
> apparent reason IMHO.
>
> Anyhow, mostly you can share your C disk (with everyone on the net) but
> you may need to do some tinkering to get there. And if you're trying to
> backup stuff from selected subdirectories which don't allow sharing you
> may need to copy them to a sharable subdirectory first.
>
> Good luck....
>
> Bill
>
!