Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Still Awaiting Assistance

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:38:43 PM

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

I am becoming substantially displeased with the fact that still no further
responses have been transmitted regarding this:

My brother and I each possess a Windows XP Service Pack II computer, which
are networked, his being the server and providing a shared connection. Both
of us also have shared directories. Despite the network's considerable
benefits, primarily in entertainment, intermittently:

1. Both or one of either of the computers' shared directory Network Places
shortcuts cease to exist.

2. Both or one of the computers cease to register in the workgroup
computers lists of both or one of our computers.

3. Whenever I attempt to access files via Internet Explorer while using the
shared connection, the computer believes that no such connection is
currently active and, instead, attempts to connect to the Internet, which is
always futile, as the domicile only possesses one telephone line.

I am substantially displeased by this, especially considering my conjecture
that the service pack is defective. I have even heard negative comments on
it. Perhaps the claims of Microsoft's software flaws being considerably
more common compared to those of a majority of other major companies are
true after all.

More about : awaiting assistance

Anonymous
March 7, 2005 11:02:54 PM

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

You said:
"I am becoming substantially displeased with the fact that
still no further responses have been transmitted regarding
this"

I say:
This is a free service. If you don't like the speed or
quality of the answers, go someplace else.


>-----Original Message-----
>I am becoming substantially displeased with the fact that
still no further
>responses have been transmitted regarding this:
>
>My brother and I each possess a Windows XP Service Pack
II computer, which
>are networked, his being the server and providing a
shared connection. Both
>of us also have shared directories. Despite the
network's considerable
>benefits, primarily in entertainment, intermittently:
>
>1. Both or one of either of the computers' shared
directory Network Places
>shortcuts cease to exist.
>
>2. Both or one of the computers cease to register in the
workgroup
>computers lists of both or one of our computers.
>
>3. Whenever I attempt to access files via Internet
Explorer while using the
>shared connection, the computer believes that no such
connection is
>currently active and, instead, attempts to connect to the
Internet, which is
>always futile, as the domicile only possesses one
telephone line.
>
>I am substantially displeased by this, especially
considering my conjecture
>that the service pack is defective. I have even heard
negative comments on
>it. Perhaps the claims of Microsoft's software flaws
being considerably
>more common compared to those of a majority of other
major companies are
>true after all.
>
>
>.
>
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 11:36:30 PM

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

anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com wrote:
> You said:
> "I am becoming substantially displeased with the fact that
> still no further responses have been transmitted regarding
> this"
>
> I say:
> This is a free service. If you don't like the speed or
> quality of the answers, go someplace else.

It is simply that so many threads are initiated daily on here and that a
majority of them are answered within just hours. Something appeared amiss.
In addition, I am desperate to rectify the malfunctions.

Your message's final sentence appeared to imply anger and/or animosity
towards me. Is this correct? If so, please be aware that I am not your
adversary.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 11:44:07 PM

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

My response implied nothing, certainly not anger. But you
have to understand that you get what you pay for.

>-----Original Message-----
>anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com wrote:
>> You said:
>> "I am becoming substantially displeased with the fact
that
>> still no further responses have been transmitted
regarding
>> this"
>>
>> I say:
>> This is a free service. If you don't like the speed or
>> quality of the answers, go someplace else.
>
>It is simply that so many threads are initiated daily on
here and that a
>majority of them are answered within just hours.
Something appeared amiss.
>In addition, I am desperate to rectify the malfunctions.
>
>Your message's final sentence appeared to imply anger
and/or animosity
>towards me. Is this correct? If so, please be aware
that I am not your
>adversary.
>
>
>.
>
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 12:12:10 AM

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

anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com wrote:
> But you
> have to understand that you get what you pay for.

I was aware of that.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 12:49:18 AM

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

Compu-Pikachu wrote:
> I am becoming substantially displeased with the fact that still no
> further responses have been transmitted regarding this:
>
> My brother and I each possess a Windows XP Service Pack II computer,
> which are networked, his being the server and providing a shared
> connection. Both of us also have shared directories. Despite the
> network's considerable benefits, primarily in entertainment,
> intermittently:
> 1. Both or one of either of the computers' shared directory Network
> Places shortcuts cease to exist.
>
> 2. Both or one of the computers cease to register in the workgroup
> computers lists of both or one of our computers.
>
> 3. Whenever I attempt to access files via Internet Explorer while
> using the shared connection, the computer believes that no such
> connection is currently active and, instead, attempts to connect to
> the Internet, which is always futile, as the domicile only possesses
> one telephone line.
> I am substantially displeased by this, especially considering my
> conjecture that the service pack is defective. I have even heard
> negative comments on it. Perhaps the claims of Microsoft's software
> flaws being considerably more common compared to those of a majority
> of other major companies are true after all.

Your network is defective.
Either the NICs are cheap knockoffs of decent manufacturs or your router is
defective or you don't have the latest drivers for your NICs in Windows XP
or you have spyare/viruses or your cabling is in need of replacing.

Give us your configuration (hardware) fromm the PC to the router and down
the line to your other PC.
Give us your software configuration (what applications and protocol you have
installed and are using..)
Give us information on what YOU have done to resolve the issue.
Clean up both PCs and update with all security patches and hardware drivers.

I personally use IPX/SPX/NetBIOS Compatible protocol for internal
transfers - so the pots for file and print sharing remain closed (I am
behind a NAT).

--
<- 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
March 8, 2005 12:49:19 AM

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

"Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e1BQRH5IFHA.2956@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Either the NICs are cheap knockoffs of decent manufacturs . . .

How can this be determined?

> . . . or your router is defective

The only component connecting the computers is a Category V cable.

> or you don't have the latest drivers for your NICs in Windows XP

Why would updated drivers be necessary? They functioned previously.

> . . . or you have spyare/viruses . . .

I possess Spybot: Search & Destroy and scanned at least once within the
past week and many times prior to that.

> or your cabling is in need of replacing.

How can that be determined?

> Give us your software configuration (what applications and protocol you
> have installed and are using..)

Are you merely referring to Internet programs?

The only protocol is the default.

> Give us information on what YOU have done to resolve the issue.

I have been clueless.

> Clean up both PCs and update with all security patches and hardware
> drivers.

Automatic Windows updates are activated all of the time.

> I personally use IPX/SPX/NetBIOS Compatible protocol for internal
> transfers - so the pots for file and print sharing remain closed (I am
> behind a NAT).

I have only heard of the term "NAT" a few times.

Please be aware that my networking knowledge, including that of protocols,
is extremely limited.

In fact, all I had done to configure the network was merely connect the
cable and execute the Network Setup Wizard.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 1:11:14 AM

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

"Compu-Pikachu" <c o m p u - p i k a c h u @ v a l i n t . n e t> wrote in
message news:112q7ichrnl4n7e@corp.supernews.com...
>I am becoming substantially displeased with the fact that still no further
>responses have been transmitted regarding this:
>
> My brother and I each possess a Windows XP Service Pack II computer, which
> are networked, his being the server and providing a shared connection.
> Both of us also have shared directories. Despite the network's
> considerable benefits, primarily in entertainment, intermittently:
>
> 1. Both or one of either of the computers' shared directory Network
> Places shortcuts cease to exist.
>
> 2. Both or one of the computers cease to register in the workgroup
> computers lists of both or one of our computers.
>
> 3. Whenever I attempt to access files via Internet Explorer while using
> the shared connection, the computer believes that no such connection is
> currently active and, instead, attempts to connect to the Internet, which
> is always futile, as the domicile only possesses one telephone line.
>
> I am substantially displeased by this, especially considering my
> conjecture that the service pack is defective. I have even heard negative
> comments on it. Perhaps the claims of Microsoft's software flaws being
> considerably more common compared to those of a majority of other major
> companies are true after all.
>

Your easiest course of action would be to follow Shenan's advice and install
IPX/SPX on both computers. Go to the Network Connections folder. Right click
on Local Area Connection and pick Properties. Click Install then Protocol
then Add then NWLink IPX/SPX/NetBIOS Compatible Transport Protocol then OK.
You will probably have to restart your computer. Do this on both computers.
If this doesn't solve the problem let us know.

Kerry
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 1:46:36 AM

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

Compu-Pikachu wrote:
>> Either the NICs are cheap knockoffs of decent manufacturs . . .
>
> How can this be determined?

You tell us the brand name of the nics or the chipset using something like
Device Manager or Belarc Advisor.

>> . . . or your router is defective
>
> The only component connecting the computers is a Category V cable.

Crossover?

>> or you don't have the latest drivers for your NICs in Windows XP
>
> Why would updated drivers be necessary? They functioned previously.

You updated to SP2. MANY drivers have had updates to fix differences the
service pack caused. SP2 was notthing short of a complete makeover of
Windows XP, IMHO.

>> . . . or you have spyware/viruses . . .
>
> I possess Spybot: Search & Destroy and scanned at least once within
> the past week and many times prior to that.

Spybot Search and Destroy, although great, is far from adequate. I
recommend 5 or more Antispyware applications at any given time:

First - make sure you have NOT installed "Rogue AntiSpyware". There are
people out there who created AntiSpyware products that actually install
spyware of their own! You need to avoid these:

Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware Products & Web Sites
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm

Also, you can always visit this site..
http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/unwanted.htm
For more updated information.

Then, my suggestion again is that you at least install the first five of
these: (Install, Run, Update, Scan with..)

Lavasoft AdAware (Free and up)
http://www.lavasoft.de/support/download/
(How-to: http://snipurl.com/atdn )

Spybot Search and Destroy (Free!)
http://www.safer-networking.net/en/download/index.html
(How-to: http://snipurl.com/atdk )

Bazooka Adware and Spyware Scanner (Free!)
http://www.kephyr.com/spywarescanner/
(How-to: http://snipurl.com/ate3 )

SpywareBlaster (Free!)
http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/sbdownload.html
(How-to: http://snipurl.com/ate6 )

IE-SPYAD (Free!)
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/resource.htm
(How-to: http://snipurl.com/ate7 )

CWShredder (Free!)
http://www.softbasket.com/download/s_8114.shtml

Hijack This! (Free)
http://mjc1.com/mirror/hjt/
( Tutorial: http://hjt.wizardsofwebsites.com/ )

ToolbarCop (Free!)
http://windowsxp.mvps.org/toolbarcop.htm

Browser Security Tests
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/BrowserSecurity/

Popup Tester
http://www.popuptest.com/

The Cleaner (49.95 and up)
http://www.moosoft.com/

>> or your cabling is in need of replacing.
>
> How can that be determined?

Replace it with a new cable.

>> Give us your software configuration (what applications and protocol
>> you have installed and are using..)
>
> Are you merely referring to Internet programs?

Mainly.. P2P anywhere?

> The only protocol is the default.

So TCP/IP?

>> Give us information on what YOU have done to resolve the issue.
>
> I have been clueless.

Okay - honesty.

>> Clean up both PCs and update with all security patches and hardware
>> drivers.
>
> Automatic Windows updates are activated all of the time.

That only gets critical Windows XP Patches. That does nothing for your
applications or drivers.

>> I personally use IPX/SPX/NetBIOS Compatible protocol for internal
>> transfers - so the pots for file and print sharing remain closed (I
>> am behind a NAT).
> I have only heard of the term "NAT" a few times.

Network Address Translation. Google for it.
My recommendation is that you get a HUB in your situation, a switch would be
better and a router would be icing on the cake.

> Please be aware that my networking knowledge, including that of
> protocols, is extremely limited.
>
> In fact, all I had done to configure the network was merely connect
> the cable and execute the Network Setup Wizard.

Read up!
http://www.practicallynetworked.com/sharing/

--
<- 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
March 8, 2005 1:46:37 AM

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

Shenan Stanley wrote:
> Compu-Pikachu wrote:
> You tell us the brand name of the nics or the chipset using something
> like Device Manager or Belarc Advisor.

That was conjectured.

I am familiar with the Device Manager and its operation.

The brand is VIA Rhine II Fast Ethernet Adapter.

>>> . . . or your router is defective
>>
>> The only component connecting the computers is a Category V cable.
>
> Crossover?

All not all such cables crossover ones? Is "Category V" synonymous with
"crossover"?

> You updated to SP2. MANY drivers have had updates to fix differences
> the service pack caused. SP2 was notthing short of a complete
> makeover of Windows XP, IMHO.

Ah, it is to compensate for OTHER updates. Interesting.

No updates were available.

>
>>> . . . or you have spyware/viruses . . .
>>
>> I possess Spybot: Search & Destroy and scanned at least once within
>> the past week and many times prior to that.
>
> Spybot Search and Destroy, although great, is far from adequate. I
> recommend 5 or more Antispyware applications at any given time:

That is excessive. I am even opposed to having more than one anti-virus
program simultaneously installed, let alone executing.

Nevertheless, considering my safety practices, the probability of any
spyware currently existing on my computer is approximately one percent.

> First - make sure you have NOT installed "Rogue AntiSpyware". There
> are people out there who created AntiSpyware products that actually
> install spyware of their own!

I have never installed any others, except AdAware, when I tried that first
and discovered that the other was superior.

Nevertheless, I had happened to had become slightly familiar with false
anti-spyware programs.

> Replace it with a new cable.

Only one was purchased. The currency expenditure for another is
unacceptable.

> Mainly.. P2P anywhere?

I have only heard of that term a few times, whose acronymic representation I
am aware is "point-to-point." Are these merely file sharing programs? If
so, the answer is, "Negative."

> So TCP/IP?

Affirmative. That inquiry was anticipated. Even experts do not necessarily
memorize.

> Okay - honesty.

What other logical action would exist? Do neurotypicals usually find
admitting being clueless embarrassing?

I have Asperger's syndrome/high-functioning autism.

> That only gets critical Windows XP Patches. That does nothing for
> your applications or drivers.

Upon transmitting this message, that shall be accomplished.

The modem's speed is approximately fifty-six kilobits per second.

> Network Address Translation.

I had heard of the acronymic representation at least once but forgot.

> My recommendation is that you get a HUB in your situation, a switch
> would be better and a router would be icing on the cake.

Why? The two computers are inside adjacent bedrooms. In fact, almost all
transfers are instantaneous.

> Read up!

Was that intended to express emotion? If so, which ones and why?
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 3:58:27 AM

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

"Compu-Pikachu" <c o m p u - p i k a c h u @ v a l i n t . n e t> wrote in
message news:112qcvv46bnc6f4@corp.supernews.com...

<snipped>

>>> The only component connecting the computers is a Category V cable.
>>
>> Crossover?
>
> All not all such cables crossover ones? Is "Category V" synonymous with
> "crossover"?

In your original post, you stated your problem was occurring intermittently,
so this may not be your problem, but... Category 5 cabling is *not*
synonymous with "Crossover". Category 5 is a reference to the TIA/EIA
standard used when manufacturing the cable. However, it is a term commonly
used to refer to 100 Mb network cabling that is standard (also referred to
as "patch" or "straight through").

"Crossover" is a reference to the pin arrangement for the 4 wire pairs. In
a "standard" 100 Mb cable, each pin corresponds directly to the pin on the
opposite side of the cable. In a crossover cable, two of the pins are
switched (ergo the term "crossover"). This allows a computer to communicate
directly with another computer without the need of an additional Layer 2 or
3 device such as a hub, bridge, switch or router. The only difference
between a patch cable and a crossover cable are two pins, but that
difference is significant.

If you are going to network two PC's directly together, you *must* have a
crossover cable. If you purchase a crossover cable commercially, it will
almost invariably state, very obviously, that it is "Crossover" or "X-over".
Frequently, these cables are yellow in color (simply for easy
identification, not for any technical reason). Additionally, it will likely
cost significantly more (BTW - there is no good reason for this price
increase except supply and demand.) Any cable labeled simply as "Cat 5" or
"Network Cable" will likely not be a crossover cable and will *not* work for
this type of networking scenario.
March 8, 2005 8:30:34 AM

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

Compu-Pikachu wrote:
> anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com wrote:
>
>>But you
>>have to understand that you get what you pay for.
>
>
> I was aware of that.
>
>

I'll comment here just to make sure you are aware that this newsgroup is
not "run" by Microsoft even though they "host" it. The group is also not
a part of MS support. The people who post here are not paid for doing
so, they volunteer to help if and when they know the answer (and if they
can figure out the problem from the original poster's description).
Sometimes it takes a bit (or a lot) of questions and answers and trying
things to get to the root of a problem and find a solution. I realize
that someone with your syndrome might take things more literally than
most of the posters expect. Often, even the experts here take offence
when someone appears to have an "attitude" and seems to demand help. I
do not think that is what you are meaning to do. Have patience and work
through the steps that poster S. Stanley is suggesting, it may take some
time as no one has a system setup just exactly like yours and cannot see
what you are seeing on your screen so they have to ask what may seem
like boring questions on the path to solution. In troubleshooting it is
necessary to try one thing at a time to isolate the component (hardware
or software) that has caused the failure. If it worked previously, then
I believe it is reasonable to assume that it can work again, although a
software driver or a failed piece of hardware may have to be replaced.

By the way, those links given for networking have a lot of information
if you want to become more proficient and could give you something to
read while people here are helping you sort out the current problem.

HTH, Rodney
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 11:47:01 AM

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

"DJ Borell" <dborell@_remove_techmedix.com> wrote in message
news:%23ufAYP6IFHA.3500@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> . . . Category 5 cabling is *not* synonymous with "Crossover".

Stanley's most recent message evidenced that.

> Category 5 is a reference to the TIA/EIA standard used when manufacturing
> the cable.

As the first hyperlinked "Webopedia" document indicated.

> However, it is a term commonly used to refer to 100 Mb network cabling
> that is standard (also referred to as "patch" or "straight through").

Those terms are familiar.

Believe it or not, approximately four years ago, while I was still a senior
high school student, I had attended a semester of Cisco Networking, but I
had forgotten over time, especially since this two-computer network is the
only one that I have configured, possessed, or prepared.

> "Crossover" is a reference to the pin arrangement for the 4 wire pairs.
> In a "standard" 100 Mb cable, each pin corresponds directly to the pin on
> the opposite side of the cable. In a crossover cable, two of the pins are
> switched (ergo the term "crossover"). This allows a computer to
> communicate directly with another computer without the need of an
> additional Layer 2 or 3 device such as a hub, bridge, switch or router.
> The only difference between a patch cable and a crossover cable are two
> pins, but that difference is significant.

Ah, the Open System Interconnection model. Layers two and three refer to
the data link and network layers, respectively. Does my network use those?

> If you are going to network two PC's directly together, you *must* have a
> crossover cable. If you purchase a crossover cable commercially, it will
> almost invariably state, very obviously, that it is "Crossover" or
> "X-over".

That is an interesting coincidence, since, as just indicated earlier, the
cable's package read "crossover."

> Frequently, these cables are yellow in color (simply for easy
> identification, not for any technical reason).

I had wondered why ours was yellow.

It is interesting how Stanley beat you to some explanations, especially
since it was just by approximately seven minutes.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 12:10:08 PM

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

"Rodney" <me@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:D 0k9e602l92@enews2.newsguy.com...
> I'll comment here just to make sure you are aware that this newsgroup is
> not "run" by Microsoft even though they "host" it.

I was uncertain.

> The group is also not a part of MS support.

That was conjectured.

> The people who post here are not paid for doing so, they volunteer to help
> if and when they know the answer (and if they can figure out the problem
> from the original poster's description).

I was aware of that.

> Sometimes it takes a bit (or a lot) of questions and answers and trying
> things to get to the root of a problem and find a solution.

Well, then a response should have been transmitted indicating that, rather
than leaving me in the dark.

> I realize that someone with your syndrome might take things more literally
> than most of the posters expect.

I am not any exception.

> Often, even the experts here take offence when someone appears to have an
> "attitude" and seems to demand help.

It was anticipated that either of the retransmissions could have induced
such a reaction, and although experts were not considered in this, it would
have been conjectured that they would have been marginally less likely to do
so.

> I do not think that is what you are meaning to do. Have patience and work
> through the steps that poster S. Stanley is suggesting, it may take some
> time as no one has a system setup just exactly like yours and cannot see
> what you are seeing on your screen so they have to ask what may seem like
> boring questions on the path to solution.

As indicated just earlier, I am not impatient.

Nevertheless, I am aware of such situations. The problem was that no
responses had been transmitted. At least, now, something is being
accomplished.

> In troubleshooting it is necessary to try one thing at a time to isolate
> the component (hardware or software) that has caused the failure.

Do I appear to be an individual who would have failed to realize something
that common sense and rudimentary logic would have dictated? Do my
Asperger's syndrome/high-functioning autism and vocabulary fail to evidence
my high intelligence to you?

In fact, I possess a Borg/computer/Vulcan-like mentality.

Please exercise caution to avoid patronizing me, if necessary, using phrases
such as "in case you are unaware."

> If it worked previously, then I believe it is reasonable to assume that it
> can work again, although a software driver or a failed piece of hardware
> may have to be replaced.

That was also almost evident.

> HTH, Rodney

What is "HTH"'s acronymic representation: "Horatio T. Hornblower"?
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 12:13:02 PM

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

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsystems.c*o*m> wrote in message
news:eAODMW6IFHA.3196@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

> Your easiest course of action would be to follow Shenan's advice and
> install IPX/SPX on both computers.

That was already accomplished.

> Go to the Network Connections folder. Right click on Local Area Connection
> and pick Properties. Click Install then Protocol then Add then NWLink
> IPX/SPX/NetBIOS Compatible Transport Protocol then OK. You will probably
> have to restart your computer. Do this on both computers.

Stanley provided a hyperlink to similar instructions, making the above
redundant. Is this a habit?

> If this doesn't solve the problem let us know.

My just earlier comment pertaining to common sense and rudimentary logic
also applies here.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 12:29:15 PM

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

< snip >
>
> Stanley provided a hyperlink to similar instructions, making the above
> redundant. Is this a habit?
>
< snip some more >
>
> My just earlier comment pertaining to common sense and rudimentary logic
> also applies here.
>

At first I thought you had a problem using English as a second language. Now
you are just being rude. People are trying to help you.

Troll? My compliments if so, well done.

Kerry
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 12:53:21 PM

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

Talk a little slower for us tech type people. Please forgive the fact
that most of us are merely white collar workers (Well my "P.U.S.A."
t-shirt actually has a blue collar). I don't know about the rest of
them here, but I have to rely on my spell and grammer :)  checker to
communicate at all.

Especially those of us who have been doing this for about 15 years or
so and have never called microsoft tech support - ever! for any
reason. You have to talk down to our level or we fail to grock you!
Okay¿ LOL
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 1:13:17 PM

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

If you don't have one, get a router and don't use connection sharing
if you are. That means patch cables, NIC cards and perferably a
Linksys router. Linksys is a very reliable way to go, especially for
support.
Go into network connections in the control panel and remove the local
area connection, make a new one on both computers. Use the wizard
again. Do yourself a favor and turn off file sharing until you have:
A) a software firewall and antivirus, B) better working knowledge of
computers and networking. That means you will need to crack open some
info and learn. Linksys.com is a good place to start.

I use ZoneAlarm Intenrnet security suite. One of the best software
firewalls and decent (if slightly slow full virus scanning) antivirus
capabilities.

IMO DO NOT USE NORTON PRODUCTS! Linksys has excellent support when
using their products. I have used both phone and realtime chat and
both are GREAT! I do not like Nortons support in any way shape or form
because it is mostly non-existant! Emailing them is futile, no phone
number to call. Pc Cillin has phone support and works quite well for a
set and forget security suite.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 2:59:16 PM

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

"Compu-Pikachu" <c o m p u - p i k a c h u @ v a l i n t . n e t> wrote in
message news:112rlo15kgh8l12@corp.supernews.com...

> Believe it or not, approximately four years ago, while I was still a
> senior high school student, I had attended a semester of Cisco Networking,
> but I had forgotten over time, especially since this two-computer network
> is the only one that I have configured, possessed, or prepared.

You lose what you don't use, particularly with this stuff. I'd forget what
the OSI model is in two seconds if I didn't need to know it.

> Ah, the Open System Interconnection model. Layers two and three refer to
> the data link and network layers, respectively. Does my network use
> those?

Your network is using only Layer 1 (Physical) devices -- the network cards.

> That is an interesting coincidence, since, as just indicated earlier, the
> cable's package read "crossover."

If the package said "Crossover", then they are. As I said, this may not
have been your issue, my intent was only to clear up the "Cat 5 synonymous
with Crossover" misconception.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 2:59:17 PM

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

"DJ Borell" <dborell@_remove_techmedix.com> wrote in message
news:%23YjJpAAJFHA.2072@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

> You lose what you don't use, particularly with this stuff. I'd forget
> what the OSI model is in two seconds if I didn't need to know it.

I was aware of that being the case with some knowledge.

> Your network is using only Layer 1 (Physical) devices -- the network
> cards.

That was conjectured, but what about the software?

> As I said, this may not have been your issue, my intent was only to clear
> up the "Cat 5 synonymous with Crossover" misconception.

My response merely pertained to the misconception.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 6:49:13 PM

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

"Slippery_one" <Slippery_one@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:%23uPoGqAJFHA.3076@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> If you don't have one, get a router and don't use connection sharing if
> you are.

The currency expenditure would be unacceptable. They probably even cost at
least a hundred dollars.

> That means patch cables, NIC cards and perferably a Linksys router.
> Linksys is a very reliable way to go, especially for support.

I would hate to have to replace hardware for computers that were only
purchased approximately nine months ago.

> Go into network connections in the control panel and remove the local area
> connection, make a new one on both computers. Use the wizard again. Do
> yourself a favor and turn off file sharing until you have: A) a software
> firewall and antivirus,

The computers already possess these.

B) better working knowledge of
> computers and networking.

Why would this be necessary? The network is merely used for chatting, file
sharing, and Netplay.

> I use ZoneAlarm Intenrnet security suite. One of the best software
> firewalls and decent (if slightly slow full virus scanning) antivirus
> capabilities.

Are you referring to the free version? It has been described as "crippled."
I am unwilling to purchase anything more.

> Emailing them [Symantec] is futile . . .

Why?
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 6:55:21 PM

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

"Slippery_one" <Slippery_one@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eOUU2eAJFHA.3812@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Talk a little slower for us tech type people.

Are you referring to using lesser-caliber vocabulary? I refuse. Besides,
dictionaries exist for a reason.

> Please forgive the fact that most of us are merely white collar workers
> (Well my "P.U.S.A." t-shirt actually has a blue collar).

How would this employment affect vocabulary?

What is "PUSA"'s acronymic representation?

"White-collar" requires hyphenation.

I don't know about the rest of
> them here, but I have to rely on my spell and grammer :)  checker to
> communicate at all.

"Grammar" was misspelled.

> Especially those of us who have been doing this for about 15 years or so
> and have never called microsoft tech support - ever! for any reason. You
> have to talk down to our level or we fail to grock you!

What is "grock"'s definition?

> Okay¿ LOL

What is humorous: something pertaining to "grock"?
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 6:57:43 PM

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

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsystems.c*o*m> wrote in message
news:eSFEERAJFHA.2132@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> At first I thought you had a problem using English as a second language.
> Now you are just being rude.

Huh? Why would it be believed that I am being disrespectful? This is
probably one of those cases where the behavior of an individual with
Asperger's syndrome/high-functioning autism has been misinterpreted as being
ill-intentioned.

> People are trying to help you.

I was aware of that and appreciate it.

> Troll?

That is preposterous.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 8:00:14 PM

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

"Compu-Pikachu" <c o m p u - p i k a c h u @ v a l i n t . n e t>
wrote in message news:112ser7sfe2hr1b@corp.supernews.com...
> "Slippery_one" <Slippery_one@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:eOUU2eAJFHA.3812@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Talk a little slower for us tech type people.
>
> Are you referring to using lesser-caliber vocabulary? I refuse.
> Besides, dictionaries exist for a reason.

Indeed they do Dr. Smith.

>> Please forgive the fact that most of us are merely white collar
>> workers (Well my "P.U.S.A." t-shirt actually has a blue collar).

http://www.presidentsrock.com/

>
> How would this employment affect vocabulary?
>
> What is "PUSA"'s acronymic representation?
>
> "White-collar" requires hyphenation.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?stuffed+shirt

> I don't know about the rest of
>> them here, but I have to rely on my spell and grammer :)  checker to
>> communicate at all.
>
> "Grammar" was misspelled.

REaLly?

>
>> Especially those of us who have been doing this for about 15 years
>> or so and have never called microsoft tech support - ever! for any
>> reason. You have to talk down to our level or we fail to grock you!
>
> What is "grock"'s definition?

http://www.grok.com/

Dr. Smith
http://www.computercrowsnest.com/sfnews2/02_april/news0...


>> Okay¿ LOL
>
> What is humorous:
U
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 9:25:59 PM

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

Condescending is probably more descriptive.

Tom

"Compu-Pikachu" <c o m p u - p i k a c h u @ v a l i n t . n e t> wrote in
message news:112sevicbb9078e@corp.supernews.com...
| "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsystems.c*o*m> wrote in message
| news:eSFEERAJFHA.2132@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
| > At first I thought you had a problem using English as a second language.
| > Now you are just being rude.
|
| Huh? Why would it be believed that I am being disrespectful? This is
| probably one of those cases where the behavior of an individual with
| Asperger's syndrome/high-functioning autism has been misinterpreted as
being
| ill-intentioned.
|
| > People are trying to help you.
|
| I was aware of that and appreciate it.
|
| > Troll?
|
| That is preposterous.
|
|
March 9, 2005 8:01:43 AM

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

I have edited the portions of the post that were not part of this
response and that were not necessary to it's understanding. In case you
are not aware, that is common practise and appropriate in lengthy posts
and threads.

> Do I appear to be an individual who would have failed to realize something
> that common sense and rudimentary logic would have dictated? Do my
> Asperger's syndrome/high-functioning autism and vocabulary fail to evidence
> my high intelligence to you?
>

I cannot make reasonable assumptions about your common sense or logic
other than you are here in the newsgroup asking questions because you
were not able to figure out the solution to the problem on your own. I
do know that considerable information exists on the Internet regarding
home networks but if I make assumptions about you based on that they may
not be appropriate or correct.

Not all people with AS possess a high IQ, some are only in the normal
range, although they may function with high vocabulary skills in either
case. Therefore, I could not make reasonable assumptions about you
personally at this point.


> In fact, I possess a Borg/computer/Vulcan-like mentality.
>

I grok that (reference from the Martian language in "Stranger in a
Strange Land - roughly translated as understand). In fact, I have
experienced "bots" (you'll figure that one out if you don't already
know) that could respond to newsgroup posts in a manner very similar to
yours. In my opinion, your attention to detail and clear responses are
refreshing in posts for help and, ultimately, likely to elicit the
desired solution.


> Please exercise caution to avoid patronizing me, if necessary, using phrases
> such as "in case you are unaware."
>

No, I (and others) post as they see fit. It is up to you to deal with
the emotional issue of whether or not you feel patronized. Newsgroups
are a microcosm of the World and, as such, include people in a spectrum
from nice and respectful to those who are just plain rude or short
tempered. In theory, (I say that because I can't really know your
motivation) you are here because you need help with an problem, you will
find that help more easily if you ignore any ego issues that come from
other posters or any that might be your own. Many of the experts here
spend a lot of their volunteer time helping others and don't, or in some
cases aren't able to, structure their answers in a form that you find
acceptable. You are in control of taking the advice you need from the
technical stuff (wheat from the chaff).


> What is "HTH"'s acronymic representation: "Horatio T. Hornblower"?
>

In this case it is an abbreviation for Hope This Helps. It's a fairly
common one used on newsgroups following a response to a technical
question. Could be use sarcastically, however, I really do hope to be
helpful.

Rodney
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 8:06:08 AM

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

"Tom Pepper Willett" <tompepper@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:uzFvI7DJFHA.3340@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Condescending is probably more descriptive.

That is just as inaccurate. I possess a strict anti-patronization policy.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 8:18:23 AM

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

"Slippery_one" <Slippery_one@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eTioYNEJFHA.3348@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> http://www.presidentsrock.com/

Ah, I once heard of a musical band referred to as that.

> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?stuffed+shirt

Am I being described as such? If so, is it due to the grammatical
correction? If true, I merely rectify mistakes for the benefit of those who
made them. Please do not develop animosity for me.

> REaLly?

Is that humor at my expense? Nevertheless, the answer is, "Affirmative."

> http://www.grok.com/

Then you are referring to my attempts to comprehend?

> Dr. Smith
> http://www.computercrowsnest.com/sfnews2/02_april/news0...

How does this equate to me: Smith being cultured and possessing an
excellent command of English?

>> What is humorous:
> U

What about me is such?
March 9, 2005 8:46:03 AM

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

Compu-Pikachu wrote:
> My brother and I each possess a Windows XP Service Pack II computer, which
> are networked, his being the server and providing a shared connection. Both
> of us also have shared directories. Despite the network's considerable
> benefits, primarily in entertainment, intermittently:
>
> 1. Both or one of either of the computers' shared directory Network Places
> shortcuts cease to exist.
>

It probably would be helpful to determine and state the conditions under
which this happens. (i.e. Does this occur when one of the computers has
been powered down and/or rebooted?)


> 2. Both or one of the computers cease to register in the workgroup
> computers lists of both or one of our computers.
>

As above, the conditions may be helpful for troubleshooting.

Are you familiar with the "ping" command?


> 3. Whenever I attempt to access files via Internet Explorer while using the
> shared connection, the computer believes that no such connection is
> currently active and, instead, attempts to connect to the Internet, which is
> always futile, as the domicile only possesses one telephone line.
>

From the "whenever", can we assume that this condition is permanent not
intermittent or is this included in the "intermittently:"? Can we also
assume that this is also something that once worked and now does not?
Additionally, have you checked the ICS (Internet connection sharing)
setup on your brothers computer to see if it still appears to be setup
and working correctly? Can we also assume that his computer connects to
the Internet without problems?


> I am substantially displeased by this, especially considering my conjecture
> that the service pack is defective. I have even heard negative comments on
> it. Perhaps the claims of Microsoft's software flaws being considerably
> more common compared to those of a majority of other major companies are
> true after all.
>

Some people had issues with service pack 2, many of those were related
to them not having read suggested information prior to installing the
SP. There were conflicts with some software and drivers, however, many
computers took the SP with it's enhanced security features and worked
fine with no issues. There is considerable debate about your final
point, however, to repeat it here or let it become part of this thread
would very likely not be productive in finding the answers you need
about your computers.

It would be interesting, and perhaps important, to know if the problems
you're having only started after installation of SP2.

Rodney
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 10:47:20 AM

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

>
> Huh? Why would it be believed that I am being disrespectful? This is
> probably one of those cases where the behavior of an individual with
> Asperger's syndrome/high-functioning autism has been misinterpreted as
> being ill-intentioned.
>

I've just read up on Asperger's Syndrome. It was enlightening.

As to your network problem. In my course of business I have seen
intermittent problems with two computers networked via a crossover cable
utilizing the on-board ethernet ports. If you power up one computer and the
other is not powered up the port is not properly initialized and Windows
does not recognize it. You must power up both computers within a few seconds
of one another or power up one, wait until Windows is running, power up the
other computer, wait until Windows is running, then restart the first
computer. If this turns out to be the cause of your problem it can be solved
by utilizing one of these methods. 1) Make sure both computers are powered
up at the same time. 2) Install a hub or switch and use regular CAT 5
ethernet cables instead of the crossover cable. As long as the hub or switch
is powered up before either of the computers, the on-board ethernet ports
will be properly initialized. 3) Or lastly, install PCI ethernet cards in
both computers, disable the on-board ethernet ports, and use the newly
installed PCI cards with your existing crossover cable to connect the
computers.

I hope one of these suggestions helps to solve your problem.

Kerry
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 12:56:00 PM

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

"Compu-Pikachu" <c o m p u - p i k a c h u @ v a l i n t . n e t>
wrote in message news:112tt5refuv819e@corp.supernews.com...
>
> That is just as inaccurate. I possess a strict anti-patronization
> policy.


You are going to need to work on it! Set aside at least six hours a
day practicing. Get yourself a job as a dishwasher at a greasy spoon
for a couple weeks. It will help you.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 12:57:47 PM

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

"Compu-Pikachu" <c o m p u - p i k a c h u @ v a l i n t . n e t>
wrote in message news:112ttsq2ku48u92@corp.supernews.com...
> "Slippery_one" <Slippery_one@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:eTioYNEJFHA.3348@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> http://www.presidentsrock.com/
>
> Ah, I once heard of a musical band referred to as that.

One very fun band of musicians to whitness. Very fun!

>
>> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?stuffed+shirt
>
> Am I being described as such? If so, is it due to the grammatical
> correction? If true, I merely rectify mistakes for the benefit of
> those who made them. Please do not develop animosity for me.

Relax. Chill. I suspect you get lots of this treatment and thrive on
it. Do people start moving away from you at parties? Or are they all
like you at the party? LOL

>> REaLly?
>
> Is that humor at my expense? Nevertheless, the answer is,
> "Affirmative."

Iwasintentionalizingmymistakedness. ;) 


>> http://www.grok.com/
>
> Then you are referring to my attempts to comprehend?

Most of us (on planet Earth) are so far below you that your subtle
insults are lost on us. Do people seem to look at you like a deer
transfixed in the headlights of a car do when you are talking to them?
Do their eyes glaze and do they start to sway as if hypnotized? Or do
you just avoid going to that part of town? LOL

>> Dr. Smith
>> http://www.computercrowsnest.com/sfnews2/02_april/news0...
>
> How does this equate to me: Smith being cultured and possessing an
> excellent command of English?
>
>>> What is humorous:
>> U
>
> What about me is such?

Explaining it wouldn't help you understand it, if you have to ask. I'd
say "look in the mirror" but I suspect you are parked there.
March 9, 2005 5:31:51 PM

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

>
> That is just as inaccurate. I possess a strict anti-patronization policy.
Apply the KISS and RTFM principles here. And oh, by the way--don't use such
big 10-syllable words. You don't know how to do it properly.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 5:35:42 PM

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

"Ray" <greymaus@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:uwhCKcOJFHA.3596@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
>>
>> That is just as inaccurate. I possess a strict anti-patronization
>> policy.
> Apply the KISS and RTFM principles here. And oh, by the way--don't
> use such big 10-syllable words. You don't know how to do it
> properly.

I counted to 8 once! Most hardest thing I evrdid.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 9:51:01 PM

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

Shenan Stanley communicated:
> Great! Has there been any change in performance now? Since the response
> stating it had been accomplished was on the 7th of March and it is now the
> 9th - I assume you might have had a chance to see if this helped. This
> was done on both machines, correct?

I had not yet gotten around to operating his computer, due to him using it
and my forgetting to do so whenever he was not.

Shenan Stanley communicated:
> Not really - some things are still the end-users responsibility. After
> all, with the billions upon billions of possible computer configurations
> out there - it HAS to logically be left to the end-user and the
> manufacturer of the hardware components of the PCs in question to insure
> they are compatible (or not) with the different Operating Systems.
> Microsoft does have pages upon pages discussing SP2.. One of the more
> simplistic (for most end-users) to look at is:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/sp2_whattoknow.m...

Now, THAT was to which I was referring.

Shenan Stanley communicated:
> And yes, it did take them some time to include a popup blocker in their
> Internet Explorer application - one that works fairly well in my opinion.

Ah, so that is why.

I acquiesce with your assessment.

Shenan Stanley communicated:
> I still prefer Firefox and still suggest the Google toolbar to anyone
> having trouble with such things, however.

My brother and I formerly used it until Internet Explorer's blocker was
implemented.

Shenan Stanley communicated:
> Most uses for P2P are far from honorable - in that people transfer
> questionable (both in terms of security and legality) media over such
> applications.

Ah, I am familiar with that.

Shenan Stanley communicated:
> I am not saying that there are not legitimate uses for P2P, just that the
> activity of transporting "warez" over such a medium is more prevalent.

It had appeared so.

Shenan Stanley communicated:
> How is your problem today?

Again, I had not yet gotten around to operating his computer, due to him
using it and my forgetting to do so whenever he was not. I shall order him
to permit me to accomplish this immediately.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 10:09:16 PM

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

Slippery One communicated:
> Relax. Chill.

My Vulcan-like mentality also includes substantial mental discipline and
weak or possibly non-existent emotions.

Typically, it is I (with emphasis) who would be behesting individuals to
calm themselves.

Slippery One communicated:
> I suspect you get lots of this treatment and thrive on it.

The frequency is approximately forty percent. Despite this, many
individuals, especially foreigners have appreciated my corrections.

Why would I thrive on animosity? That is illogical.

> Do people start moving away from you at parties? Or are they all like you
> at the party? LOL

I never attend parties, nor do I particularly care for social activities. I
do not possess social requirements. In fact, I prefer solitude, as it
avoids the chaos of neurotypicals' emotions and illogic.

However, I have been esteemed by some of my former classmates, especially in
high school. Some have even been amazed by my memorization of pi to fifty
decimal digits.

Slippery One communicated:
> Iwasintentionalizingmymistakedness.

It could have still been intentional to MAKE the humor at my expense.

Slippery One communicated:
> Most of us (on planet Earth) are so far below you that your subtle insults
> are lost on us.

I have not harassed any of you.

Slippery One communicated:
> Do people seem to look at you like a deer transfixed in the headlights of
> a car do when you are talking to them? Do their eyes glaze and do they
> start to sway as if hypnotized? Or do you just avoid going to that part of
> town? LOL

I have never noticed, but that has probably never or rarely transpired,
especially considering that I had always been unaware of such.

Slippery One communicated:
> Explaining it wouldn't help you understand it, if you have to ask.

Why?

Slippery One communicated:
> I'd say "look in the mirror" but I suspect you are parked there.

Please elucidate.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 10:27:23 PM

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

Rodney communicated:
> I have edited the portions of the post that were not part of this response
> and that were not necessary to it's understanding. In case you are not
> aware, that is common practise and appropriate in lengthy posts and
> threads.

I am familiar with the practice and even engage in it, as I have in this
thread.

Rodney communicated:
> I cannot make reasonable assumptions about your common sense or logic
> other than you are here in the newsgroup asking questions because you were
> not able to figure out the solution to the problem on your own.

Again, my substantial logical abilities are evident.

Rodney communicated:
> Not all people with AS possess a high IQ, some are only in the normal
> range, although they may function with high vocabulary skills in either
> case. Therefore, I could not make reasonable assumptions about you
> personally at this point.

I was aware of that, but my vocabulary provides sufficient evidence,
especially compounded with my condition.

Rodney communicated:
> No, I (and others) post as they see fit. It is up to you to deal with the
> emotional issue of whether or not you feel patronized. Newsgroups are a
> microcosm of the World and, as such, include people in a spectrum from
> nice and respectful to those who are just plain rude or short tempered. In
> theory, (I say that because I can't really know your motivation) you are
> here because you need help with an problem, you will find that help more
> easily if you ignore any ego issues that come from other posters or any
> that might be your own. Many of the experts here spend a lot of their
> volunteer time helping others and don't, or in some cases aren't able to,
> structure their answers in a form that you find acceptable. You are in
> control of taking the advice you need from the technical stuff (wheat from
> the chaff).

That is an excellent point, but patronizing is offensive, which is the only
reason that I did not appreciate it, not for any emotional reasons. In
fact, I did not even feel anything as a result.

The conjecture is correct.

Why would I have been concered with ego issues? My purpose here is to
acquire assistance.

Rodney communicated:
> In this case it is an abbreviation for Hope This Helps. It's a fairly
> common one used on newsgroups following a response to a technical
> question.

Yes, I have noticed at least a few individuals assisting on Microsoft
newsgroups communicate the phrase, which would probably explain why it is
likely common.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 10:32:51 PM

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

Rodney communicated:
> It probably would be helpful to determine and state the conditions under
> which this happens. (i.e. Does this occur when one of the computers has
> been powered down and/or rebooted?)

The description of "intermittent" was literal.

Rodney communicated:
> Are you familiar with the "ping" command?

Affirmative. Why?

Rodney communicated:
> From the "whenever", can we assume that this condition is permanent not
> intermittent or is this included in the "intermittently:"?

The latter.

Rodney communicated:
> Can we also assume that this is also something that once worked and now
> does not?

This appears to have transpired since upgrading Windows XP to Service Pack
II, which is why it is probable that it is responsible.

Rodney communicated:
> Additionally, have you checked the ICS (Internet connection sharing) setup
> on your brothers computer to see if it still appears to be setup and
> working correctly?

It has actually been executed once or twice since the aforementioned
upgrade.

Rodney communicated:
> Can we also assume that his computer connects to the Internet without
> problems?

Affirmative.

Rodney communicated:
> Some people had issues with service pack 2, many of those were related to
> them not having read suggested information prior to installing the SP.

Another individual who is substantially proficient at computers, more so
than I am, had informed me that he/she had experienced one of the same
anomalies with that version.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 10:34:12 PM

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

Slippery One communicated:
> You are going to need to work on it! Set aside at least six hours a day
> practicing.

Why? It is almost infallible. I am substantially careful about such
things, being extremely analytical.

Slippery One communicated:
> Get yourself a job as a dishwasher at a greasy spoon for a couple weeks.
> It will help you.

Huh? How shall that? Is this a jest?
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 10:35:39 PM

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

Ray communicated:
> Apply the KISS and RTFM principles here.

How am I not?

Ray communicated:
> And oh, by the way--don't use such big 10-syllable words. You don't know
> how to do it properly.

My phrasing is substantially eloquent.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 10:45:09 PM

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

Kerry Brown communicated:
> If you power up one computer and the other is not powered up the port is
> not properly initialized and Windows does not recognize it. You must power
> up both computers within a few seconds of one another or power up one,
> wait until Windows is running, power up the other computer, wait until
> Windows is running, then restart the first computer.

Then Windows cannot recognize the computer even after it has initialized
later?

Nevertheless, that solution is an excessive hassle.
March 10, 2005 6:33:16 AM

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

>
>>Are you familiar with the "ping" command?
>
>
> Affirmative. Why?
>

It can be a used as a method of testing the connection between two
computers on a network when they don't show up in the GUI (graphical
user interface).


>
>>Can we also assume that this is also something that once worked and now
>>does not?
>
>
> This appears to have transpired since upgrading Windows XP to Service Pack
> II, which is why it is probable that it is responsible.
>

If it is a given that no other changes to the system or hardware failure
occurred, I agree with the logic of your assessment of a probable cause.
In that case, the first thing I would have tried would have been to
uninstall the SP and see if the problem ceased.



>>Some people had issues with service pack 2, many of those were related to
>>them not having read suggested information prior to installing the SP.
>
>
> Another individual who is substantially proficient at computers, more so
> than I am, had informed me that he/she had experienced one of the same
> anomalies with that version.
>


Ah, perhaps the solution that worked for his/her computer could shed
some light on the problem that you are having. Do you know what that
solution was? Which anomaly was involved?


Another poster has mentioned something that is a feature of networks,
when one computer boots up, it takes a period of time for it to show up
in the network GUI (I think it can be as long as 15 minutes), during
that time it would be possible to not have access to shared resources.

The intermittent troubles you mention could sometimes be caused by poor
connections in network cables where they join to the network card,
especially if the cables are situated where they could be moved
inadvertently by feet under a desk or something like that. What I would
try would be to unplug the cable and reseat it into it's connector,
noting if it appears to seat firmly without any noticeable looseness.


When describing the troubles you are having it might be effective to
describe them in a manner as if you are explaining it to a simple
individual. For example: My brother's computer is on and connected to
the Internet. Our computers are setup for me to connect to the Internet
through ICS on his computer. When I try to connect I receive this error
message "xxxx insert error message here xxx" (give the exact message).

It may be tedious to go into such detail for each problem which you
experience, however, someone who is trying to help you troubleshoot may
see a pattern in the failures that could help them decide what component
of the system to test. Regardless of your logical skill, this pattern
may only be apparent to someone with more experience and training.

Rodney
March 10, 2005 9:23:52 AM

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

> Rodney communicated:
>
>>I cannot make reasonable assumptions about your common sense or logic
>>other than you are here in the newsgroup asking questions because you were
>>not able to figure out the solution to the problem on your own.
>
>
> Again, my substantial logical abilities are evident.
>

They were not to me at the time I wrote that comment.


> Rodney communicated:
>
>>Not all people with AS possess a high IQ, some are only in the normal
>>range, although they may function with high vocabulary skills in either
>>case. Therefore, I could not make reasonable assumptions about you
>>personally at this point.
>
>
> I was aware of that, but my vocabulary provides sufficient evidence,
> especially compounded with my condition.
>

No, I do not agree. As stated, because high vocabulary skills do not
necessarily indicate high IQ in AS individuals I would not assume you
were one of the high ones. In fact, you may have an extremely high IQ or
be a savant. Over time, and through communication, I may come to some
conclusion about you personally but that is not absolutely necessary for
the purposes of this newsgroup, which is to help you get your network
functioning reliably again. You do present ability with logic, however,
I haven't seen a high degree of an ability to apply that to
troubleshooting. Nothing wrong with that, I expect after you've sorted
out the present problem you will have learned a fair bit about that
through the testing process.


> Why would I have been concered with ego issues? My purpose here is to
> acquire assistance.
>

It may be effective to be aware of and concerned with the ego issues of
others of whom you are requesting assistance, even if you have none of
your own. There are many with expert computer knowledge who have poor
social skills, it is to your advantage to keep as many lines of
communication open as possible. One of the strengths of technical
newsgroups is that any bad advice you receive is usually critiqued by an
expert or two so that you know not to follow it. If some people have put
you in their killfile (so that they don't see posts from you) because
they think you are a troll or wasting their time or are ungrateful for
their help, there is a danger of losing the attention of the one person
who may have experience with the problem you're having. Granted, in the
present case, the problem is not complex enough for that to be a factor,
the next time you have to post for assistance it might be.

Are you aware that not everyone who posts is really looking for
assistance? Certain words or phrasing sometimes elicit responses from
some of the people who read and post regularly and some post to elicit
responses from you and by responses I mean unhelpful or off topic ones.
It's very difficult to be sure that a poster's motivation is really to
obtain assistance, at least, at the beginning.


> Rodney communicated:
>
>>In this case it is an abbreviation for Hope This Helps. It's a fairly
>>common one used on newsgroups following a response to a technical
>>question.
>
>
> Yes, I have noticed at least a few individuals assisting on Microsoft
> newsgroups communicate the phrase, which would probably explain why it is
> likely common.
>

Fairly common even on non-Microsoft newsgroups and with instant
messaging users too.

Rodney
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 11:08:34 AM

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

>> If you power up one computer and the other is not powered up the port is
>> not properly initialized and Windows does not recognize it. You must
>> power up both computers within a few seconds of one another or power up
>> one, wait until Windows is running, power up the other computer, wait
>> until Windows is running, then restart the first computer.
>
> Then Windows cannot recognize the computer even after it has initialized
> later?

Yes. If the ethernet port is not initalized when Windows tries to load the
driver for it, it will not work until the PC is powered down. I have only
seen this happen with some motherboards utilizing an on-board ethernet port
and two computers connected with a crossover cable. It is an intermittant
problem.

>
> Nevertheless, that solution is an excessive hassle.
>
Nevertheless, in the situation described above it rectifies the problem. A
more permanent solution is to install a hub or switch but this would require
the installation of additional equipment.

This may not be the solution to your problem but it is a valid
troubleshooting step to determine the root cause of your problem. It will
confirm or eliminate one possible cause and will only cost you the time
involved.

Kerry
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 9:40:04 PM

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

"Rodney" <me@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:D 0pbap028rm@enews1.newsguy.com...
> It can be a used as a method of testing the connection between two
> computers on a network when they don't show up in the GUI (graphical user
> interface).

The connection always still remains. This has been tested via other
methods. We are always still able to access one another's shared
directories through View Workgroup Computers.

"Rodney" <me@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:D 0pbap028rm@enews1.newsguy.com...
> Ah, perhaps the solution that worked for his/her computer could shed some
> light on the problem that you are having. Do you know what that solution
> was? Which anomaly was involved?

No solution was implemented.


"Rodney" <me@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:D 0pbap028rm@enews1.newsguy.com...
> Another poster has mentioned something that is a feature of networks, when
> one computer boots up, it takes a period of time for it to show up in the
> network GUI (I think it can be as long as 15 minutes), during that time it
> would be possible to not have access to shared resources.

That never transpires. In fact, we are capable of chatting as soon as both
computers have initialized.

"Rodney" <me@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:D 0pbap028rm@enews1.newsguy.com...
> The intermittent troubles you mention could sometimes be caused by poor
> connections in network cables where they join to the network card,
> especially if the cables are situated where they could be moved
> inadvertently by feet under a desk or something like that.

They have never inadvertently become disconnected.

"Rodney" <me@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:D 0pbap028rm@enews1.newsguy.com...
> When describing the troubles you are having it might be effective to
> describe them in a manner as if you are explaining it to a simple
> individual. For example: My brother's computer is on and connected to the
> Internet. Our computers are setup for me to connect to the Internet
> through ICS on his computer. When I try to connect I receive this error
> message "xxxx insert error message here xxx" (give the exact message).

> It may be tedious to go into such detail for each problem which you
> experience, however, someone who is trying to help you troubleshoot may
> see a pattern in the failures that could help them decide what component
> of the system to test. Regardless of your logical skill, this pattern may
> only be apparent to someone with more experience and training.

Of course, but that is a reason for inquiries. However, evidently, they
shall not always be presented.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 9:44:41 PM

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

"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsystems.c*o*m> wrote in message
news:exWsWtYJFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Nevertheless, in the situation described above it rectifies the problem. A
> more permanent solution is to install a hub or switch but this would
> require the installation of additional equipment.

> This may not be the solution to your problem but it is a valid
> troubleshooting step to determine the root cause of your problem. It will
> confirm or eliminate one possible cause and will only cost you the time
> involved.

For now, I shall wait to determine whether the local area connection
reconfigurations have successfully rectified the malfunctions. It is not
uncommon for them to avoid transpiring for twenty-four consecutive hours.
(The computers are typically used for approximately ten hours daily.)
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 10:37:37 PM

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

"Compu-Pikachu" <c o m p u - p i k a c h u @ v a l i n t . n e t> wrote in
message news:11321grmekesj9a@corp.supernews.com...
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsystems.c*o*m> wrote in message
> news:exWsWtYJFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Nevertheless, in the situation described above it rectifies the problem.
>> A more permanent solution is to install a hub or switch but this would
>> require the installation of additional equipment.
>
>> This may not be the solution to your problem but it is a valid
>> troubleshooting step to determine the root cause of your problem. It will
>> confirm or eliminate one possible cause and will only cost you the time
>> involved.
>
> For now, I shall wait to determine whether the local area connection
> reconfigurations have successfully rectified the malfunctions. It is not
> uncommon for them to avoid transpiring for twenty-four consecutive hours.
> (The computers are typically used for approximately ten hours daily.)
>

Let us know how you make out.

Kerry
March 11, 2005 6:51:45 AM

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

> The connection always still remains. This has been tested via other
> methods. We are always still able to access one another's shared
> directories through View Workgroup Computers.
>

This is good information to have for troubleshooting. For example it
indicates that your network interface is activated and the hardware is
functioning. It would have been good information to have included with
your original trouble description. Some of the suggestions of other
posters would not have been made if they had known the connection was
still functioning.


>>Ah, perhaps the solution that worked for his/her computer could shed some
>>light on the problem that you are having. Do you know what that solution
>>was? Which anomaly was involved?
>
>
> No solution was implemented.
>

Okay. But, which anomaly was involved. If there was a pattern indicated
by, for example, same hardware on both computers and both failures were
subsequent to installation of SP2, then it would be prudent to look on
the Internet for other examples of the same and what was the solution to
those.


>>Another poster has mentioned something that is a feature of networks, when
>>one computer boots up, it takes a period of time for it to show up in the
>>network GUI (I think it can be as long as 15 minutes), during that time it
>>would be possible to not have access to shared resources.
>
>
> That never transpires. In fact, we are capable of chatting as soon as both
> computers have initialized.
>

By "chatting" can I assume you mean an instant messaging service of some
kind? This would have also been good information to state along with the
original problem description.


>>The intermittent troubles you mention could sometimes be caused by poor
>>connections in network cables where they join to the network card,
>>especially if the cables are situated where they could be moved
>>inadvertently by feet under a desk or something like that.
>
>
> They have never inadvertently become disconnected.
>

Sure, I wouldn't even have suggested testing that if I had known the
information that you were still able to connect or chat.


>>When describing the troubles you are having it might be effective to
>>describe them in a manner as if you are explaining it to a simple
>>individual. For example: My brother's computer is on and connected to the
>>Internet. Our computers are setup for me to connect to the Internet
>>through ICS on his computer. When I try to connect I receive this error
>>message "xxxx insert error message here xxx" (give the exact message).
>
>
>>It may be tedious to go into such detail for each problem which you
>>experience, however, someone who is trying to help you troubleshoot may
>>see a pattern in the failures that could help them decide what component
>>of the system to test. Regardless of your logical skill, this pattern may
>>only be apparent to someone with more experience and training.
>
>
> Of course, but that is a reason for inquiries. However, evidently, they
> shall not always be presented.
>

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by this. Do you mean the
details shall not always be presented? That would be counter-productive
to obtaining a solution in the most efficient manner. Or, do you mean
the pattern shall not always be presented? If that, then you are
correct, however, since I realize you are interested and learning from
this, I would mention any pattern I thought I saw. Others may not,
however, if they suggest a workable solution, that is secondary.

Rodney
March 11, 2005 7:38:08 AM

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

Something else from your description that I am not sure I understand
correctly.

> The connection always still remains. This has been tested via other
> methods. We are always still able to access one another's shared
> directories through View Workgroup Computers.
>

In your first post for this thread you stated:

"2. Both or one of the computers cease to register in the workgroup
computers lists of both or one of our computers."

If a computer has not 'registered' what steps do you take to access it?
I assumed you meant 'wasn't showing' by "ceased to register", did you
mean something else?

Rodney
Anonymous
March 11, 2005 10:56:23 AM

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

"Rodney" <me@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:D 0s0or02g8v@enews1.newsguy.com...
>> The connection always still remains. This has been tested via other
>> methods. We are always still able to access one another's shared
>> directories through View Workgroup Computers.
>
> This is good information to have for troubleshooting. For example it
> indicates that your network interface is activated and the hardware is
> functioning. It would have been good information to have included with
> your original trouble description. Some of the suggestions of other
> posters would not have been made if they had known the connection was
> still functioning.

Yes, that was just realized upon reading your preceding response in this
level of the thread.


"Rodney" <me@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:D 0s0or02g8v@enews1.newsguy.com...
> Okay. But, which anomaly was involved. If there was a pattern indicated
> by, for example, same hardware on both computers and both failures were
> subsequent to installation of SP2, then it would be prudent to look on the
> Internet for other examples of the same and what was the solution to
> those.

The one involving the unawareness of shared connections being active.


"Rodney" <me@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:D 0s0or02g8v@enews1.newsguy.com...
> By "chatting" can I assume you mean an instant messaging service of some
> kind?

It is "chat" in the general computer-related sense.


"Rodney" <me@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:D 0s0or02g8v@enews1.newsguy.com...
>> Of course, but that is a reason for inquiries. However, evidently, they
>> shall not always be presented.
>
> I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by this. Do you mean the
> details shall not always be presented?

Negative.

"Rodney" <me@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:D 0s0or02g8v@enews1.newsguy.com...
> Or, do you mean the pattern shall not always be presented?

Negative.

"Rodney" <me@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:D 0s0or02g8v@enews1.newsguy.com...
> If that, then you are correct, however, since I realize you are interested
> and learning from this, I would mention any pattern I thought I saw.
> Others may not, however, if they suggest a workable solution, that is
> secondary.

I was referring to individuals who assist me not always considering that
such information would be necessary and, therefore, not presenting
inquiries, which would necessitate my providing the data beforehand.
!