I have installed Windows Me and Internet Connection Sharing on two networked machines. Although the host machine (the one with the modem) connects automatically when accessing the Internet from the remote machine, I cannot find a way of disconnecting from the remote machine -I have to go to the host and disconnect from there. Also there is nothing on the remote machine to indicate that it is connected. Any ideas?
Although we covered this subject before, we've had a lot of mail about it, so it's worth reiterating. According to an article on the Microsoft Support Knowledgebase, this behaviour is 'by design', and there is nothing you can do about it. Microsoft assumes that those of us who use 'Home Networking' all have unlimited or free Internet access. However, another article seems to suggest that the host machine will disconnect automatically five minutes after Internet Explorer has been closed on the remote PC. As far as we can see you have to either wait for the general timeout, or disconnect manually.
After invoking the Microsoft Family Logon in Win 98, can it be revoked?
Yes it can. First go to Control Panel, Passwords, User Profiles and make sure all users use the same profile. Then go to Control Panel, Networks, and change the entry in Primary Network Logon.
I have got our youngster a PC, and she would like to challenge me to a few death matches. Is there a simple way of connecting the two computers so that this is possible? I remember reading about a 'null' modem cable that might do the trick.
In the old days of Doom, you could use null modem cables to network two PCs together for a little head-to-head gaming. Sadly today's sophisticated games like Quake III and Unreal Tournament are only happiest communicating with the TCP/IP protocol - which means either both of you dialing into a gaming server, or more sensibly, directly connecting to each other using a pair of Ethernet cards and a special crossover Ethernet cable. (Required when connecting two PCs to each other without an Ethernet hub). Basic PCI Ethernet cards typically cost less than £30 each, although if you don't want to open your PC, you can buy USB to Ethernet adaptors for a little more. Consider complete home networking kits too.
I am interested in trying Internet Connection Sharing (ICS) In Windows 98 SE, before rushing out to buy a router. Please could you advise me on a couple of points. I have just had BT's Home Highway installed and I'm trying to decide the best way forward with two networked PCs (at the moment one is Win 98 SE and the other is Win 95). I was going to buy a Netgear router (RT328) and then, searching for wise words I re-read your article!
I. What is the security situation when you are sharing an Internet connection using Windows 98 SE?
2. What are the advantages of using an ISDN router instead?
There are no real differences in security between a standalone PC and network when it comes to connecting to the Internet -they are both equally at risk. Both a router and ICS do introduce a modicum of security over and above an ordinary Dial-Up Networking connection in that they both employ Network Address Translation (NAT) and this masks your private network from the public Internet, offering a measure of protection. However, these days I would recommend that all users who regularly connect to the Internet should install firewall protection, such as the excellent ZoneAlarm from ZoneLabs
As to your second point, ICS is a basic but perfectly acceptable way to share a single Internet connection - it has a very attractive price tag and lets you use whatever comms hardware you've got, be it a modem or ISDN Terminal Adaptor (TA), or, dare I say it, maybe even an ADSL connection. As you've gone down the ISDN route you'd buy an ISDN TA which can be picked up for about £50, around about a fifth the price of an ISDN router, so here's another cost benefit. Having said that, you do get something extra for your money with a router. For a start, it connects to your ISP very quickly, taking a second or two. By contrast an ISDN TA using ICS will still use Dial-Up Networking to connect and this will still take 10-1 5 seconds to complete. Doesn't sound like a huge difference but trust me it makes connecting to the Internet a transparent affair -you just fire up Internet Explorer and in the time it takes to load you're connected.
Another niggle with ICS is that you can't drop the connection from the 'other PC' -a router can usually be finely tuned to drop the line after a period of inactivity and this helps prevent unpleasant phone bills. Finally, ICS is a 'lite' freebie and a router will have far more configuration, management and security features that you might find useful.
I'm a student in a shared house with four networked computers, but I've hit some problems since two Windows
98 computers were upgraded to Windows 2000 Pro. Now they can see each other but not the Windows 98 ones. Clicking on the other Windows 2000 computer in Network Places only produces a cryptic password request.There are two ways to solve the password problem. Enable the Guest Account on Windows 2000 or add Create User Accounts for the Win 98 users on the Win 2000 computers.
To enable the Guest Account, open Users-and-Groups in Control Panel, go to the Advanced tab and click on the Advanced button under Advanced User Management. This opens the Local Users and Groups console. Click on Users and right-click on the Guest Account (it will have a red cross) to open Guest Properties. Deselect the' Account is disabled' checkbox. Enabling Guest makes Win 2000 wide open like Win 98. If this is an issue, create user accounts for the Win 98 users on each Win 2000 Pro system. In the right-hand pane of Local Users and Groups/Users, right-click to create new user accounts for the people using Windows 98. Make the account name and password the same as those used to log in on the Win 98 systems.
NetBIOS is required for Win 98 and Win 2000 computers to browse together. On a small network such as this, NetBEUI will work fine but multiplayer games need IPX or TCP/IP. If either of these protocols is used instead of NetBEUI, enable NetBIOS from the respective protocol's advanced properties in Win 2000. All computers must run the Microsoft Client for Networking as well as File and Printer Sharing. On the Win 98 boxes, enable 'I want to share my files' (File and Printer Properties).
Earlier this year I networked two Windows 98 computers together for playing games between my flatmates, I am now looking to add a new computer to that network and have the following queries. First, can I use the existing Cat5 crossover cable that I used for the original networking? And second, is it possible to set up an email client so that, no matter who signs onto the Internet, all the emails can be downloaded and then distributed to the correct machines? We will be using Outlook 97,98 and 2000.
Sadly, the trick of using a Cat 5 crossover cable to link two computers can only be done to link two computers -with the cable plugged in to the single socket on each network interface card there's nowhere to plug in any more computers! Sorry old bean but you're going to have to invest in some longer (normal) Cat5 network cables and a cheapo hub -you can pick up an eight-port 10/1OOMbits/sec port for about £120 ex VAT. If you were looking to the future and the possibility of installing say Bt's Home Highway, then consider getting a hub with an ISDN router built in -these cost from about £250 ex VAT.
As to the second question, I don't know of any way of segregating incoming mail to different PCs. Sure, Outlook Express 5 has an Identities feature that allows several people using the same PC to read their own mail and nobody else's. But it won't distribute them to their respective PCs. This is more complicated than you might think -I assume that each user has a separate, unrelated email account, eg tom@freeserve.co.uk, dick@demon.net and harry@lineone.net. It would be administratively awkward
(and pointless) for a mail server to dial three ISPs, download the owners' email and deliver it all to their workstations. A better solution would be to open a series of related accounts, eg tom@friends.freeserve.co.uk, dick@friends.freeserve.co.uk etc. Then you could download them to a mail server and distribute them. Check out SLMail, a low-cost (£125) mail server for Win9x at www.seatlelab.com But this is overkill, I guess, for what you have in mind.
I am in search of a way of linking my Vaio notebook to my desktop computer for file transfers. I have investigated using networking, but the kit involved seems to be a bit expensive and setting it up looks complicated. I also though of using a direct connection between serial ports, but I decided the transfer rate would be a bit low.
I wondered if there are any cheaper solutions on the market that enable me to link the two computers using either the USB or IEEE 1394 Firewire ports to take advantage of the higher transfer rates?
You're right, there are cheaper solutions than networking. I wouldn't want to encourage you to think that they are complicated to set up, though -it's certainly a learning experience, but often one well worth the investment. Sadly I don't think we can point you towards a networking solution that makes use of the notebook's iLink port (IEEE 1394 is the generic name). There are plenty of schemes cooking in labs and committees, many aimed at providing home networking using cheap cable, but with data speeds greater than 400Mb/s. NEC has even announced a wireless version of IEEE 1394. But while technical progress is good, implementation is being slowed by worries over piracy if such digital power comes to the consumer marketplace and the copyright owners aren't guaranteed their protection.
But do you have the necessary connection on your desktop computer? Probably not, if you don't use a video camera. If you thought current network hardware was expensive, check out the prices for IEEE 1394 cards. Your best bet is to utilise the USB socket; chances are that your desktop computer also offers a USB socket - if not you can add a card internally for about £18. For around the same money you could also install a 10/100Mb/s network card, which affects the likelihood of your expanding the network beyond the two computers. If you are likely to build on it, then sticking with Ethernet is the clear route, and you can provide the connection to the notebook either with a PC card Ethernet adaptor or using Entrega's USB to Ethernet product, which connects you into an Ethernet network at 10Mb/s. This solution, or the PC card, will cost about £60 and is also the best option if you want to link the computers for multiplayer gaming.
You could also meet common Ethernet standards for gaming, but not as an expandable network, using Entrega's £60 USBnet. which can join two computers by the USB port. If you only want file transfer, a simpler and cheaper alternative is RediLink's USB link cable, which comes with easy-to-use file transfer software and operates at blistering speed. We regularly use all of these solutions, but at £24.99 RediLink offers by far the cheapest solution for file transfer between two USB ports. You should find the product widely available, but as a starting point their web address is www.ffront.com/redilink.htm or phone (01792) 543620.
I have a really small, stupid question that has been bothering me lately. If two computers that are switched on are physically linked to a network, but one does not lag on, is it still possible to view that computers resources?
Assuming the network is set up for file and printer sharing, yes. File sharing runs as a service before the logon prompt. The logon gives you access to other disk drives. Other users logged in to the network can see all shared drives, including yours, even if you haven't logged on.
In any case, if you are talking about Windows95/98/Me there is normally no user validation security. In Network Neighbourhood Properties, there is a tab for 'Access Control'; the default is share level access control where anyone can access your shared drives if they know the password. The only alternative Microsoft offers -user level access control -requires a security provider such as an NT Server domain controller to authenticate the user name and logon password.
You cannot use user level validation if you only have Windows 95/98/Me system on the network. To do it the Microsoft way you have to have at least NT Workstation.
In practice, you'd normally use an NT Server running as a 'Domain Controller'. Otherwise, users would have to log in on their local machine and then log in again on the NT system acting as security provider to access user-Level access controlled resources. This second logon is transparent if the user name and the password on the local system are the same as on the security provider. However, if a user changes his local password, Windows will silently try to log him in on the NT workstation using the new password. He will get a cryptic error message and will then be unable to access user-Level resources or log in to resources on an NT system until that system's administrator changes his password to match that of each NT system. If you don't have a domain controller that provides a centralised list of user names and passwords, this change has to be made separately on every NT -based system. In practice, user-Level security will need a computer on the network to act as a 'domain controller' providing centralised validation of user names. This only comes with the relatively expensive NT or Windows 2000 Server edition; you need the server licence, plus client access licences for each system that will access the server. In theory some other system could provide user authentication, but the only alternative I am aware of is that of Linux running the 'Samba' file-sharing system.
To test network security, just hit Esc when asked to Log on and see what difference it makes. You will find that all the user logon or network logon actually does is give access to password lists. It would be a good idea to set a password for shared network resources.
If a 16-bit application in Windows 2000 needs to access the Registry, it must be run as Administrator, I understand. Is there a way you can have someone logged on as user and, only when this particular application is run, run it using the Administrator account - as in RunAs, but automatically?
Indeed there is. For the benefit of those who don't know, the RunAs command lets someone run Control Panel items, programs and MMC consoles that they couldn't usually run, by granting them extra permissions. This is especially useful for Administrators who are logged on with a low-Ievel access account and can temporarily grant themselves the power to run applications that the account couldn't normally run. The RunAs command takes this format:
runas [/profile] [/env] [/netonly] /user:username program
Breaking that down, [/profile] refers to a user profile which or may not need to use; [/env] says that the local or network environment should be used as opposed to the environment of the user employing the RunAs command, and [/netonly] forces the command to be used somewhere other than the current system.
The format of the /user:username part depends on the preceding switches -if you're going remote, you'll need to include the domain name, something like /user:domain\ username. As you can see, there's no sign of a password, and that's because you'll be asked to provide your password at the time you execute the command line. This has to be like this for security reasons, but there's no reason to type the command line in every time the program is to be Run.
The answer is to create a shortcut that when invoked will run the program with those parameters. To do that, follow these steps:
Right-click on the Desktop, select New and then Shortcut from the pop-up menu.
In the 'Type the location of the item:' edit box, type your RunAs command line. So, if you wanted to run the Active Directory Domains and Trusts MMC console on a local system with administrative privileges, you'd type something like this:
runas /user:machine_name \administrator
"mmc.exe %windir%\system32\domain.msc"
You now have a reasonably automated system where you only have to click on an icon. The only non-automatic thing about it is that you'll be prompted for a password when you activate the shortcut (otherwise anyone could run the program).
I'm trying to connect a Windows 2000 workstation into an NT 4 network, but I keep getting this error message.
'Your computer couldn't be joined to the domain because the following error occurred: The security database on the server does not have a computer account for this workstation trust relationship.'There are a couple of things that can cause this. Either you don't have the necessary administrative permissions in the NT 4 domain or there's a space in your user name. If it's the latter, make a copy of your account and pick a user name that doesn't have a space in it. If it's the former, you need to do this action from an account with full administrative privileges.
I have two questions relating to Microsoft SQL Server. The first is a problem that occurs when I try and up size a database from Microsoft Access to SQL Server 2000. The Wizard starts up fine, but then crashes with the message 'Overflow'. If I click on OK, I go back to the Wizard. No other error messages appear, and the database is okay in Access.
My second question is, can I have more than one version of SQL Server running at the same time on the same machine? Currently, I have SQL Server 7 and 2000 on different machines, but I want to install a second copy of SQL Server 2000. Do I need a third machine, or can I install a copy on the machine with SQL Server 7 on it and have it run alongside?
To solve your first problem you'll need to upsize your Access data to SQL Server 7 format and only then make the conversion to SQL Server 2000
With regard to your second question -it is possible to run both SQL Server 2000 and 7 (and, indeed 6.5) at the same time on the same system, but you have to be careful how they're set up. The key is to install SQL Server 2000 as a named instance, when it will happily run at the same time as your previously installed SQL Server 7. If it's not installed as a named instance, but as the default instance, you'll only have the option to switch between the two versions. Bear in mind that if you do install both versions on the same system, they will, of course, not be using the same system and user database, each instance using its own.
I'm looking for a way to connect two PCs in different countries, so that either speech or written communication can be undertaken privately without resorting to chat channels. What's the easiest or best way of attaining this?
The easiest way to do this is to use Microsoft NetMeeting, which will allow you to connect the two machines directly via the Internet - all you'll need to create such a connection is the IP address of the machine to which you're trying to connect. Among other things, NetMeeting provides you with a white board, voice and video contact too.
NetMeeting should have been installed by default with Windows, and if it has, you'll find it by clicking for your Start button, selecting the Programs menu item, then the Accessories menu item and finally the Internet Tools menu item: you should see NetMeeting as a menu entry there. Click on it and follow the Wizard that will appear as it guides you through the process of setting it up.
I wanna buy a new network card and I dunno what I should buy. I need BNC and UTP but I want speed. Would buying a no-name thing work just as good as anything else?
BNC is a connector type and UTP is a cable type so you have to say either "I need both BNC and RJ45" or "I need both co-ax and UTP." Nearly all networks cards available now support
100Mbit/s transfer and whether they support both connector standards, or only one has no bearing on this. I have installed a good few network cards in my time and nearly all the features that distinguish them are things that only appeal to network technicians, so you may as well just buy on price.
In your solution ('Big Brother', Helpfile, Shopper 154) you stated: "It has been reported that RPCSS can be responsible for a computer attempting to dial the Internet for no apparent reason." This is me! My two sons and I have a PC with a Netgear FA310TX Fast Ethernet PCI Adaptor network card connected to a Netgear hub. My PC runs Windows Me and Internet Connection Sharing, one son runs WinSE and one Win98. The network has been running well for nearly a year with only one problem -it dials the Internet for no apparent reason. Even hitting CtrI-Alt-Del doesn't stop it. Luckily it is an external modem and I just reach out and switch it off -very hi-tech! However, if, as you suggest, I try running Start Menu, Run and So on, I get: "Before you can use DCom, your system needs to be configured for 'User Level' security. Use the 'Network' icon in the control panel to configure your system for 'User Level' security before running the DCom configuration utility," Now I can't configure it for user level security as I am not running a server...
Sounds to me as if your problem is ICS, not RPCSS.I found that ICS often dialled the Internet when no-one was using the computer. The problems ceased as soon as I switched to WinProxy. I haven't tried the new improved ICS that comes with Windows Me. Of course there are also lots of internet enabled programs, such as software updaters, that are badly designed and try and connect every time they load.
I have a peer-to-peer network of five machines (PentiumIII/650's) each running Win98SE. Is there anyway to synchronise the system clocks, so that on boot-up they set themselves to the same time as a specified master?
Make a text file in Notepad containing this line - Net time \\server name /set /yes
Change 'server_name' to the network name of the time keeper, for example \\Biggles. Save this file as "Synctime.bat" (use double quotes in the dialog box to prevent Notepad appending '.txt'). Copy it to all the client machines. Access each copy's properties and tick 'Close on exit' on the Program tab. A PIF (program information file) shortcut will be created to store the setting. Put a copy of it in the StartUp folder. Make sure the time keeper PC is running before the others. Alternatively, you could set the batch file to run once per day or week as a scheduled task