Now here's an odd one . . .

Post #217,353 by Andrew Grygus 8/3/05 10:37:36 PM Reply	Now here's an odd one . . . Client's network is mixed Windows 2000 Pro and Windows 98 SE. Networking was working fine, but now the accounting PC which is Windows 2000 Pro can see and access only Windows 98 SE computers. Using "NET VIEW \\name" against any known Windows 2000 computer gives a "network path not found" error. Windows 98 SE computers can access this Windows 2000 computer and use files on it. Windows 2000 computers see it in the browse list but get a "path not found" when trying to access it. TCP/IP is working fine, Windows 2000 computers can be pinged and Internet access works fine. Uninstalling NetBEUI and reinstalling it did no good. Anybody seen this? [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #217,355 by Another Scott 8/3/05 11:01:46 PM Reply	I saw something like that at work. Warning: My memory on this is a little fuzzy... I had a Win95B machine that was visible to only some XP and 2k machines in the same Workgroup, and vice versa, but it was never consistent. I never could figure out what the problem was. Eventually it got to the point that the Win95B machine was invisible to most of the network. Installing just about every networking protocol on the Win95B machine helped for a while, but that didn't resolve the problem. I gave up and just had TCP/IP and NetBIOS on the Win95B machine, accepted that it wouldn't be a full member, and recently replaced it with a Win2k PC. We had a related problem recently where Win2k and XP machines weren't consistently visible in the same Workgroup. Someone eventually surmized that there was some battle between which PC on the network was going to be the Master Browser (IIRC), and it was somehow solved. I know even less of the details in that case. I think there's some sort of problem with the communication between the Win9x and 2k+ machines that eventually will bite one. The best solution seems to be to replace the 9x machines. But MS wouldn't make them incompatible on purpose, naaaah... I hope this helps tickle a solution for you. Luck! Cheers, Scott.
Post #217,358 by Andrew Grygus 8/3/05 11:19:08 PM Reply	Thanks, but that's just backwards from here. This errant Windows 2000 computer gets along fine with all the Windows 98 SE boxes but can't see or be seen by the other Windows 2000 boxes. I could see it the other way around, but this is kinda weird. All the Windows 98 SE computers all can see all the computers on the network, 98 or W2K, and access any that have shares. To check master browser problems we shut down all the computers and brought them up one at a time. No change at any stage. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #217,359 by Another Scott 8/3/05 11:30:44 PM Reply	Flakey hub or switch somewhere? I know it's unlikely, but maybe there's a flakey [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=208819\|switch] in the path from the Win2k machine. Does the bad Win2k machine have a system name or IP address that conflicts with another Win2k machine? Typo in the [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=184447\|hosts] file? No, I don't think a bad switch would really act the way you describe, or the other things, but when you've checked everything, you have to check something else. I'm about all tapped out. Luck! Cheers, Scott.
Post #217,376 by Andrew Grygus 8/4/05 1:43:50 AM Reply	Switched switch ports with a working W2K box . . . . . no effect. The good one was still good and the bad one still bad. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #217,392 by static 8/4/05 6:01:42 AM Reply	Microsoft and SMB. It is known that Microsoft use Samba's code to teach their own progranners how SMB works. This is because their own code is such a hodge-podge of bugfixes on bugfixes. This is also the reason why Samba has been accused of optionitis over the years. What I'm trying to lead up to is that Microsoft don't need to engineer incompatibilities between 98 and 2k: they have simpley acreted over time. Wade. Save Fintlewoodlewix
Post #217,547 by Ashton 8/4/05 5:04:29 PM Reply	Love. It. - perspicacious employment of__acreted (and note the Noblesse oblige in not speling that accreted ;-) ie Fuck off, CRC... <anticipation? or prescience> :-\ufffd
Post #217,603 by static 8/4/05 11:48:47 PM Reply	Meh. I was lazy. :-) Save Fintlewoodlewix
Post #217,371 by pwhysall 8/4/05 1:35:48 AM Reply	Dodgy WINS? Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #217,375 by Andrew Grygus 8/4/05 1:42:43 AM Reply	No WINS All one simple workgroup. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #217,396 by boxley 8/4/05 7:48:40 AM Reply	rip out everything but tcpip? Just call me Mr. Lynch \\ Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #217,402 by pwhysall 8/4/05 8:07:40 AM Reply	Windows networking will stop if he does that Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #217,405 by boxley 8/4/05 8:22:45 AM Reply	exactly Just call me Mr. Lynch \\ Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #217,461 by pwhysall 8/4/05 12:40:43 PM Reply	point. Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #217,409 by Silverlock 8/4/05 9:19:28 AM Reply	Verify no duplicate machine names. No macs on the network perhaps with a name already in use? ----------------------------------------- George W. Bush and his PNAC handlers sent the US into Iraq with lies. I find myself rethinking my opposition to the death penalty. --Donald Dean Richards Jr.
Post #217,453 by Andrew Grygus 8/4/05 12:03:19 PM Reply	Nope, I know every machine (all 8 of them) . . . . and a duplicate name would prevent seeing the Win98 boxes too. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #217,455 by folkert 8/4/05 12:05:16 PM Reply	First off... Is there any browser wars going on? Did someone turn off LM_Annouce on the W2K machine in question? Did someone enable and then disable ADS? Any kind of "local" firewall product? Blocking port 445? (this would be the first line to check :) That is all I can come up with. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* [image\|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg\|\|\|\|]
Post #217,468 by Andrew Grygus 8/4/05 12:57:30 PM Reply	Re: First off... Well, for browser wars we turned all computers off and brought them up one at a time testing. No difference at any point. Well, "Enable LM Lookups" was checked. Is there some other place for Announce? No ADS anywhere and no boxes with Server edition OS. Told her to try with the personal firewall turned off, but that has not bee reconfiged since everything worked. Don't know if she's done that yet but I don't have great hopes. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #217,485 by folkert 8/4/05 2:00:07 PM Reply	It really sounds like a failing service or something. But, W2K/XP choose to communicate with each other on port 445, no matter if it is open or not. Once the discover each other is an "NT derivative" This leads me to believe it has to do with Port 445 being locked/blocked bound by something else. Ports 138/139 are for W9X. hmmm, wonder if something got shoe-horned in to port 445 as a wrapper or something. Trying to listen or something, for passwords and stuff. Also just a hunch, but if the TCP/IP NetBIOS Helper Service is not running (properly) on the computer, you'll see some of the same types of things. Make sure it is running, Microsoft Management Console->Services->TCP/IP NetBIOS Helper Service, enable it. Oh, you'll need enabled NetBIOS over TCP/IP, since this is a mixed "OS" network. (just for posterities sake if you've already done this. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* [image\|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg\|\|\|\|]
Post #217,491 by Andrew Grygus 8/4/05 2:21:54 PM Reply	Yea, I kinda think this may be another case . . . . . of my most profitable software category - scumware. Being a firm believer in Norton she says she's clean, but I bet not. Unfortunately she's been doing urgent accounting functions all the time I've been there so I haven't had a chance to apply my special tools to check it out. NetBIOS over TCP/IP has, of course been turned on or she wouldn't see the Win98 boxes and vice versa. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #217,528 by folkert 8/4/05 3:46:45 PM Reply	Then please keep us (at least me) updated on prognosis! -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* [image\|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg\|\|\|\|]
Post #217,542 by Andrew Grygus 8/4/05 4:51:07 PM Reply	That may not be possible. She called in this morning for guidance doing a repair install of Windows 2000. The install bombed at one point but she hasn't called back so I guess it went through on the restart. We'll see if the problem's gone or if it's gone now and pops up again. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #217,594 by folkert 8/4/05 10:19:53 PM Reply	Shucks. I just wish people understood what they are trying to do when they go through the motions. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* [image\|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg\|\|\|\|]
Post #217,608 by Andrew Grygus 8/5/05 12:10:46 AM Reply	Well, her reinstall didn't work. Not only didn't it fix her problem, she no longer had internet access and other things were screwed. I've never before seen a Windows 2000 repair cycle turn out so badly. I tried to uninstall Norton Internet Security but it insisted on Internet Explorer 5.5 or greater and her install was 5.0. Installed 5.5 from the Norton CD and Internet access worked again, the rest didn't. Tried again to uninstall Norton (all Norton software is written by the Devil himself I'm quite certain) and it claimed Windows Installer wasn't installed, offered to install it and errored out. The Windows Installer was already installed, by the way. Anyway, I cleaned up a few more things, found one common browser hijacking adware program and destructed it. It never caused network problems on other computers so I doubt it was the cause here. Then I deinstalled both NetBEUI and TCP/IP (I hadn't uninstall TCP/IP yesterday because it was the one thing that was working). Rebooted and reinstalled both protocols and the network worked fine. HP printer drivers were still mashed but otherwise it seemed to work. When I left it was downloading security patch 37 of 52 from Microsoft Update. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]

Welcome to IWETHEY!