Can't establish a network.

Windows XP >> Can't establish a network. Right clicking a folder on my system and selecting "Sharing and Security"
from the displayed menu yields a dialog box that has no "Share this folder
on the network" checkbox available. Is this OK?

On the same display is the statement "As a security measure, Windows has
disabled remote access to this computer. However, you can enable remote
access and safely share files by running the 'Network Setup Wizard'". I've
run the 'Network Setup Wizard', and it fails to establish a network, as
evidenced by the fact that again selecting "Sharing and Security" yields the
same screen as described above, with no changes.

I'm running Win'XP Home on two machines. I have firewalls disabled on both
machines.

I'm successfully pinging each PC one from the other.

What do I do? How do I create a network? I am trying to set it up so that
I can share folders on one machine with another.

Don J

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Windows XP1207

Windows XP >> Can't establish a network. In the registry got to:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\LSA
Value: RestrictAnonymous
Value Type: REG_DWORD

Set the value to 0

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/246261/

John

PS. Your multi-posting to all kinds of different groups and your
constant start of new threads is not helping in your search for an
answer nor is it helping the troubleshooting efforts by the would be
helpers in this matter! The way you have sought help with this problem
is a classic example on how *not* to ask for help on the newsgroups!
You would be way better served by cross-posting this to a few relevant
news groups and by *STICKING* to the thread and answering the questions
asked by the helpers!

As it is now there is no single concerted effort to resolve the issues
you have simply because no one knows what has or hasn't been tried to
resolve the problem, and what has worked or not worked in the effort. I
am sure that some of the networking experts are seeing your posts all
over the place but due to the scattered approach that you have used to
seek help many are probably ignoring your posts!

There is no magic solution to the kind of problem that you are having.
Troubleshooting network problems can sometimes be complex and with all
but the simplest network problems you usually have to follow a series of
steps or troubleshooting measures to arrive to a successful resolution
to the problem. By keeping your request for help under one thread a
reader may spot a tiny but vital step that has been missed by another
poster and add a contribution to the discussion, quite often a final
successful resolution is obtained by a sort collaborative effort by many
contributors. When the thread gets longer and when the troubleshooting
gets more and more difficult is often the time when some of the experts
come in to the rescue or when one of the helpers rereads the thread and
spots a crucial step that is missing or gets the stroke of genius that
solves the problem.

I am not saying this to be critical, I am only trying to help. Your
posts are concise and you explain the problems in a clear manner but
because of the scattered postings and lack of focus from all readers you
are sabotaging the help effort. If my answer does not solve the problem
try one last time by cross-posting to a few select groups. Give all the
pertinent information about the problem and then stick to the thread!

John

Don J wrote:

> Right clicking a folder on my system and selecting "Sharing and Security"
> from the displayed menu yields a dialog box that has no "Share this folder
> on the network" checkbox available. Is this OK?
>
> On the same display is the statement "As a security measure, Windows has
> disabled remote access to this computer. However, you can enable remote
> access and safely share files by running the 'Network Setup Wizard'". I've
> run the 'Network Setup Wizard', and it fails to establish a network, as
> evidenced by the fact that again selecting "Sharing and Security" yields the
> same screen as described above, with no changes.
>
> I'm running Win'XP Home on two machines. I have firewalls disabled on both
> machines.
>
> I'm successfully pinging each PC one from the other.
>
> What do I do? How do I create a network? I am trying to set it up so that
> I can share folders on one machine with another.
>
> Don J
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

Windows XP >> Can't establish a network. This is a classic example of my having started a new thread. My original
posting for this thread was basically one I used to start a previous thread.
The thread wasn't going anywhere. In fact the very first response ignored
many of the questions I had posed, and shifted the discussion. I failed to
catch it at the time and the thread took a very different direction. So I
decided to start a new thread and keep it in the relevant direction.

The subjects covered by threads seems to evolve over time. This is very
confusing and, I believe, counter productive. Is'nt it better to keep a
single thread on a sigle topic? And to start a new thread for a new topic.
My thinking is that each thread should be defined by the original question,
and that when a new issue is raised it is good for a new thread.
I think that starting a new thread for each new question will help rather
than impede

Don J

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:%23$EMail@HideDomain.com...
> In the registry got to:
>
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\LSA
> Value: RestrictAnonymous
> Value Type: REG_DWORD
>
> Set the value to 0
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/246261/
>
> John
>
> PS. Your multi-posting to all kinds of different groups and your constant
> start of new threads is not helping in your search for an answer nor is it
> helping the troubleshooting efforts by the would be helpers in this
> matter! The way you have sought help with this problem is a classic
> example on how *not* to ask for help on the newsgroups! You would be way
> better served by cross-posting this to a few relevant news groups and by
> *STICKING* to the thread and answering the questions asked by the helpers!
>
> As it is now there is no single concerted effort to resolve the issues you
> have simply because no one knows what has or hasn't been tried to resolve
> the problem, and what has worked or not worked in the effort. I am sure
> that some of the networking experts are seeing your posts all over the
> place but due to the scattered approach that you have used to seek help
> many are probably ignoring your posts!
>
> There is no magic solution to the kind of problem that you are having.
> Troubleshooting network problems can sometimes be complex and with all but
> the simplest network problems you usually have to follow a series of steps
> or troubleshooting measures to arrive to a successful resolution to the
> problem. By keeping your request for help under one thread a reader may
> spot a tiny but vital step that has been missed by another poster and add
> a contribution to the discussion, quite often a final successful
> resolution is obtained by a sort collaborative effort by many
> contributors. When the thread gets longer and when the troubleshooting
> gets more and more difficult is often the time when some of the experts
> come in to the rescue or when one of the helpers rereads the thread and
> spots a crucial step that is missing or gets the stroke of genius that
> solves the problem.
>
> I am not saying this to be critical, I am only trying to help. Your posts
> are concise and you explain the problems in a clear manner but because of
> the scattered postings and lack of focus from all readers you are
> sabotaging the help effort. If my answer does not solve the problem try
> one last time by cross-posting to a few select groups. Give all the
> pertinent information about the problem and then stick to the thread!
>
> John
>
> Don J wrote:
>
>> Right clicking a folder on my system and selecting "Sharing and Security"
>> from the displayed menu yields a dialog box that has no "Share this
>> folder on the network" checkbox available. Is this OK?
>>
>> On the same display is the statement "As a security measure, Windows has
>> disabled remote access to this computer. However, you can enable remote
>> access and safely share files by running the 'Network Setup Wizard'".
>> I've
>> run the 'Network Setup Wizard', and it fails to establish a network, as
>> evidenced by the fact that again selecting "Sharing and Security" yields
>> the same screen as described above, with no changes.
>>
>> I'm running Win'XP Home on two machines. I have firewalls disabled on
>> both machines.
>>
>> I'm successfully pinging each PC one from the other.
>>
>> What do I do? How do I create a network? I am trying to set it up so
>> that I can share folders on one machine with another.
>>
>> Don J
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>

Windows XP >> Can't establish a network. See added comments at bottom:

This is a classic example of my having started a new thread. My original
posting for this thread was basically one I used to start a previous thread.
The thread wasn't going anywhere. In fact the very first response ignored
many of the questions I had posed, and shifted the discussion. I failed to
catch it at the time and the thread took a very different direction. So I
decided to start a new thread and keep it in the relevant direction.

The subjects covered by threads seems to evolve over time. This is very
confusing and, I believe, counter productive. Is'nt it better to keep a
single thread on a sigle topic? And to start a new thread for a new topic.
My thinking is that each thread should be defined by the original question,
and that when a new issue is raised it is good for a new thread. I think
that starting a new thread for each new question will help rather than
impede

Added Comments:

I note that this paticular newsgroup is very short: My original Post
of the thread is time stamped today at 10:33AM. It is now 9:00PM. The
thread containing the previous post has aleady been terminated.

With such a short lifespan for threads it seems to me that frequent
definning of new threads has got to be more the rule than the exception. In
fact I fail to see how the continuity of discussions can be maintained
without defining each new thread somewhat before the previous thread is
terminated. So if you look at the dates and times, my defining a new thread
was a simple continuation of the old thread.

Don J

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don J" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> This is a classic example of my having started a new thread. My original
> posting for this thread was basically one I used to start a previous
> thread. The thread wasn't going anywhere. In fact the very first response
> ignored many of the questions I had posed, and shifted the discussion. I
> failed to catch it at the time and the thread took a very different
> direction. So I decided to start a new thread and keep it in the relevant
> direction.
>
> The subjects covered by threads seems to evolve over time. This is very
> confusing and, I believe, counter productive. Is'nt it better to keep a
> single thread on a sigle topic? And to start a new thread for a new
> topic. My thinking is that each thread should be defined by the original
> question, and that when a new issue is raised it is good for a new thread.
> I think that starting a new thread for each new question will help rather
> than impede
>
> Don J
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
> news:%23$EMail@HideDomain.com...
>> In the registry got to:
>>
>> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\LSA
>> Value: RestrictAnonymous
>> Value Type: REG_DWORD
>>
>> Set the value to 0
>>
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/246261/
>>
>> John
>>
>> PS. Your multi-posting to all kinds of different groups and your
>> constant start of new threads is not helping in your search for an answer
>> nor is it helping the troubleshooting efforts by the would be helpers in
>> this matter! The way you have sought help with this problem is a classic
>> example on how *not* to ask for help on the newsgroups! You would be way
>> better served by cross-posting this to a few relevant news groups and by
>> *STICKING* to the thread and answering the questions asked by the
>> helpers!
>>
>> As it is now there is no single concerted effort to resolve the issues
>> you have simply because no one knows what has or hasn't been tried to
>> resolve the problem, and what has worked or not worked in the effort. I
>> am sure that some of the networking experts are seeing your posts all
>> over the place but due to the scattered approach that you have used to
>> seek help many are probably ignoring your posts!
>>
>> There is no magic solution to the kind of problem that you are having.
>> Troubleshooting network problems can sometimes be complex and with all
>> but the simplest network problems you usually have to follow a series of
>> steps or troubleshooting measures to arrive to a successful resolution to
>> the problem. By keeping your request for help under one thread a reader
>> may spot a tiny but vital step that has been missed by another poster and
>> add a contribution to the discussion, quite often a final successful
>> resolution is obtained by a sort collaborative effort by many
>> contributors. When the thread gets longer and when the troubleshooting
>> gets more and more difficult is often the time when some of the experts
>> come in to the rescue or when one of the helpers rereads the thread and
>> spots a crucial step that is missing or gets the stroke of genius that
>> solves the problem.
>>
>> I am not saying this to be critical, I am only trying to help. Your
>> posts are concise and you explain the problems in a clear manner but
>> because of the scattered postings and lack of focus from all readers you
>> are sabotaging the help effort. If my answer does not solve the problem
>> try one last time by cross-posting to a few select groups. Give all the
>> pertinent information about the problem and then stick to the thread!
>>
>> John
>>
>> Don J wrote:
>>
>>> Right clicking a folder on my system and selecting "Sharing and
>>> Security" from the displayed menu yields a dialog box that has no "Share
>>> this folder on the network" checkbox available. Is this OK?
>>>
>>> On the same display is the statement "As a security measure, Windows has
>>> disabled remote access to this computer. However, you can enable remote
>>> access and safely share files by running the 'Network Setup Wizard'".
>>> I've
>>> run the 'Network Setup Wizard', and it fails to establish a network, as
>>> evidenced by the fact that again selecting "Sharing and Security" yields
>>> the same screen as described above, with no changes.
>>>
>>> I'm running Win'XP Home on two machines. I have firewalls disabled on
>>> both machines.
>>>
>>> I'm successfully pinging each PC one from the other.
>>>
>>> What do I do? How do I create a network? I am trying to set it up so
>>> that I can share folders on one machine with another.
>>>
>>> Don J
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Windows XP >> Can't establish a network. I'm not sure what you mean by the thread being "terminated". Terminated
by whom? Threads are never really terminated, they are just abandoned
but can be revived by anyone at any given time, so to speak. They are
terminated in the sense that when the issue is resolved or when no
amount of trying fixes the problem the posters acknowledge that the
issue is fixed or that the problem cannot be resolved and they move on,
the thread just becomes inactive.

If you feel that you are getting further ahead in your troubleshooting
efforts and that you prefer to start new threads with new topics to
resolve the problem then you should do as you see fit. It is not for me
to tell anyone how to post, I only suggested that it was difficult to
follow your efforts and the suggestions made by the poster to help you
resolve the errors and come to a successful conclusion with the network
problem.

As for the network problem, are you making any progress? Did you verify
the registry setting to see if it is causing the problem?

John

Don J wrote:

> See added comments at bottom:
>
> This is a classic example of my having started a new thread. My original
> posting for this thread was basically one I used to start a previous thread.
> The thread wasn't going anywhere. In fact the very first response ignored
> many of the questions I had posed, and shifted the discussion. I failed to
> catch it at the time and the thread took a very different direction. So I
> decided to start a new thread and keep it in the relevant direction.
>
> The subjects covered by threads seems to evolve over time. This is very
> confusing and, I believe, counter productive. Is'nt it better to keep a
> single thread on a sigle topic? And to start a new thread for a new topic.
> My thinking is that each thread should be defined by the original question,
> and that when a new issue is raised it is good for a new thread. I think
> that starting a new thread for each new question will help rather than
> impede
>
> Added Comments:
>
> I note that this paticular newsgroup is very short: My original Post
> of the thread is time stamped today at 10:33AM. It is now 9:00PM. The
> thread containing the previous post has aleady been terminated.
>
> With such a short lifespan for threads it seems to me that frequent
> definning of new threads has got to be more the rule than the exception. In
> fact I fail to see how the continuity of discussions can be maintained
> without defining each new thread somewhat before the previous thread is
> terminated. So if you look at the dates and times, my defining a new thread
> was a simple continuation of the old thread.
>
> Don J
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Don J" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>
>>This is a classic example of my having started a new thread. My original
>>posting for this thread was basically one I used to start a previous
>>thread. The thread wasn't going anywhere. In fact the very first response
>>ignored many of the questions I had posed, and shifted the discussion. I
>>failed to catch it at the time and the thread took a very different
>>direction. So I decided to start a new thread and keep it in the relevant
>>direction.
>>
>>The subjects covered by threads seems to evolve over time. This is very
>>confusing and, I believe, counter productive. Is'nt it better to keep a
>>single thread on a sigle topic? And to start a new thread for a new
>>topic. My thinking is that each thread should be defined by the original
>>question, and that when a new issue is raised it is good for a new thread.
>>I think that starting a new thread for each new question will help rather
>>than impede
>>
>> Don J
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>"John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>news:%23$EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>
>>>In the registry got to:
>>>
>>>HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\LSA
>>>Value: RestrictAnonymous
>>>Value Type: REG_DWORD
>>>
>>>Set the value to 0
>>>
>>>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/246261/
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>>PS. Your multi-posting to all kinds of different groups and your
>>>constant start of new threads is not helping in your search for an answer
>>>nor is it helping the troubleshooting efforts by the would be helpers in
>>>this matter! The way you have sought help with this problem is a classic
>>>example on how *not* to ask for help on the newsgroups! You would be way
>>>better served by cross-posting this to a few relevant news groups and by
>>>*STICKING* to the thread and answering the questions asked by the
>>>helpers!
>>>
>>>As it is now there is no single concerted effort to resolve the issues
>>>you have simply because no one knows what has or hasn't been tried to
>>>resolve the problem, and what has worked or not worked in the effort. I
>>>am sure that some of the networking experts are seeing your posts all
>>>over the place but due to the scattered approach that you have used to
>>>seek help many are probably ignoring your posts!
>>>
>>>There is no magic solution to the kind of problem that you are having.
>>>Troubleshooting network problems can sometimes be complex and with all
>>>but the simplest network problems you usually have to follow a series of
>>>steps or troubleshooting measures to arrive to a successful resolution to
>>>the problem. By keeping your request for help under one thread a reader
>>>may spot a tiny but vital step that has been missed by another poster and
>>>add a contribution to the discussion, quite often a final successful
>>>resolution is obtained by a sort collaborative effort by many
>>>contributors. When the thread gets longer and when the troubleshooting
>>>gets more and more difficult is often the time when some of the experts
>>>come in to the rescue or when one of the helpers rereads the thread and
>>>spots a crucial step that is missing or gets the stroke of genius that
>>>solves the problem.
>>>
>>>I am not saying this to be critical, I am only trying to help. Your
>>>posts are concise and you explain the problems in a clear manner but
>>>because of the scattered postings and lack of focus from all readers you
>>>are sabotaging the help effort. If my answer does not solve the problem
>>>try one last time by cross-posting to a few select groups. Give all the
>>>pertinent information about the problem and then stick to the thread!
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>>Don J wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Right clicking a folder on my system and selecting "Sharing and
>>>>Security" from the displayed menu yields a dialog box that has no "Share
>>>>this folder on the network" checkbox available. Is this OK?
>>>>
>>>>On the same display is the statement "As a security measure, Windows has
>>>>disabled remote access to this computer. However, you can enable remote
>>>>access and safely share files by running the 'Network Setup Wizard'".
>>>>I've
>>>>run the 'Network Setup Wizard', and it fails to establish a network, as
>>>>evidenced by the fact that again selecting "Sharing and Security" yields
>>>>the same screen as described above, with no changes.
>>>>
>>>>I'm running Win'XP Home on two machines. I have firewalls disabled on
>>>>both machines.
>>>>
>>>>I'm successfully pinging each PC one from the other.
>>>>
>>>>What do I do? How do I create a network? I am trying to set it up so
>>>>that I can share folders on one machine with another.
>>>>
>>>> Don J
>>>>
>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Windows XP >> Can't establish a network. On Wed, 23 May 2007 20:44:23 -0400, "Don J" <EMail@HideDomain.com>
wrote:

>The subjects covered by threads seems to evolve over time. This is very
>confusing and, I believe, counter productive. Is'nt it better to keep a
>single thread on a sigle topic? And to start a new thread for a new topic.

Like it or not, it's a fact of life in *all* newsgroups. I've never
seen anybody's attempt to change it lead anywhere productive. My
advice is to simply recognize that it happens, and learn to live with
it.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Windows XP >> Can't establish a network. You have ignored my new point made under "Added Comment". It seems to me
that by contributing to this newsgroup we are taking part in a group where
every thread is routinely abandoned as it is, once a day, deleted by the
system to automatically make way for new threads. Maybe I'm dense but isn't
this a system of daily forced abandonment? What is the recommended way of
continuing a thread when this happens?

Don J

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> I'm not sure what you mean by the thread being "terminated". Terminated
> by whom? Threads are never really terminated, they are just abandoned but
> can be revived by anyone at any given time, so to speak. They are
> terminated in the sense that when the issue is resolved or when no amount
> of trying fixes the problem the posters acknowledge that the issue is
> fixed or that the problem cannot be resolved and they move on, the thread
> just becomes inactive.
>
> If you feel that you are getting further ahead in your troubleshooting
> efforts and that you prefer to start new threads with new topics to
> resolve the problem then you should do as you see fit. It is not for me
> to tell anyone how to post, I only suggested that it was difficult to
> follow your efforts and the suggestions made by the poster to help you
> resolve the errors and come to a successful conclusion with the network
> problem.
>
> As for the network problem, are you making any progress? Did you verify
> the registry setting to see if it is causing the problem?
>
> John
>
> Don J wrote:
>
>> See added comments at bottom:
>>
>> This is a classic example of my having started a new thread. My original
>> posting for this thread was basically one I used to start a previous
>> thread. The thread wasn't going anywhere. In fact the very first
>> response ignored many of the questions I had posed, and shifted the
>> discussion. I failed to catch it at the time and the thread took a very
>> different direction. So I decided to start a new thread and keep it in
>> the relevant direction.
>>
>> The subjects covered by threads seems to evolve over time. This is very
>> confusing and, I believe, counter productive. Is'nt it better to keep a
>> single thread on a sigle topic? And to start a new thread for a new
>> topic. My thinking is that each thread should be defined by the original
>> question, and that when a new issue is raised it is good for a new
>> thread. I think that starting a new thread for each new question will
>> help rather than impede
>>
>> Added Comments:
>>
>> I note that this paticular newsgroup is very short: My original
>> Post of the thread is time stamped today at 10:33AM. It is now 9:00PM.
>> The thread containing the previous post has aleady been terminated.
>>
>> With such a short lifespan for threads it seems to me that frequent
>> definning of new threads has got to be more the rule than the exception.
>> In fact I fail to see how the continuity of discussions can be maintained
>> without defining each new thread somewhat before the previous thread is
>> terminated. So if you look at the dates and times, my defining a new
>> thread was a simple continuation of the old thread.
>>
>> Don J
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> "Don J" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>
>>>This is a classic example of my having started a new thread. My original
>>>posting for this thread was basically one I used to start a previous
>>>thread. The thread wasn't going anywhere. In fact the very first
>>>response ignored many of the questions I had posed, and shifted the
>>>discussion. I failed to catch it at the time and the thread took a very
>>>different direction. So I decided to start a new thread and keep it in
>>>the relevant direction.
>>>
>>>The subjects covered by threads seems to evolve over time. This is very
>>>confusing and, I believe, counter productive. Is'nt it better to keep a
>>>single thread on a sigle topic? And to start a new thread for a new
>>>topic. My thinking is that each thread should be defined by the original
>>>question, and that when a new issue is raised it is good for a new
>>>thread.
>>>I think that starting a new thread for each new question will help rather
>>>than impede
>>>
>>> Don J
>>>
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>"John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>>news:%23$EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>
>>>>In the registry got to:
>>>>
>>>>HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\LSA
>>>>Value: RestrictAnonymous
>>>>Value Type: REG_DWORD
>>>>
>>>>Set the value to 0
>>>>
>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/246261/
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>>
>>>>PS. Your multi-posting to all kinds of different groups and your
>>>>constant start of new threads is not helping in your search for an
>>>>answer nor is it helping the troubleshooting efforts by the would be
>>>>helpers in this matter! The way you have sought help with this problem
>>>>is a classic example on how *not* to ask for help on the newsgroups! You
>>>>would be way better served by cross-posting this to a few relevant news
>>>>groups and by *STICKING* to the thread and answering the questions asked
>>>>by the helpers!
>>>>
>>>>As it is now there is no single concerted effort to resolve the issues
>>>>you have simply because no one knows what has or hasn't been tried to
>>>>resolve the problem, and what has worked or not worked in the effort. I
>>>>am sure that some of the networking experts are seeing your posts all
>>>>over the place but due to the scattered approach that you have used to
>>>>seek help many are probably ignoring your posts!
>>>>
>>>>There is no magic solution to the kind of problem that you are having.
>>>>Troubleshooting network problems can sometimes be complex and with all
>>>>but the simplest network problems you usually have to follow a series of
>>>>steps or troubleshooting measures to arrive to a successful resolution
>>>>to the problem. By keeping your request for help under one thread a
>>>>reader may spot a tiny but vital step that has been missed by another
>>>>poster and add a contribution to the discussion, quite often a final
>>>>successful resolution is obtained by a sort collaborative effort by many
>>>>contributors. When the thread gets longer and when the troubleshooting
>>>>gets more and more difficult is often the time when some of the experts
>>>>come in to the rescue or when one of the helpers rereads the thread and
>>>>spots a crucial step that is missing or gets the stroke of genius that
>>>>solves the problem.
>>>>
>>>>I am not saying this to be critical, I am only trying to help. Your
>>>>posts are concise and you explain the problems in a clear manner but
>>>>because of the scattered postings and lack of focus from all readers you
>>>>are sabotaging the help effort. If my answer does not solve the problem
>>>>try one last time by cross-posting to a few select groups. Give all the
>>>>pertinent information about the problem and then stick to the thread!
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>>
>>>>Don J wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Right clicking a folder on my system and selecting "Sharing and
>>>>>Security" from the displayed menu yields a dialog box that has no
>>>>>"Share this folder on the network" checkbox available. Is this OK?
>>>>>
>>>>>On the same display is the statement "As a security measure, Windows
>>>>>has disabled remote access to this computer. However, you can enable
>>>>>remote access and safely share files by running the 'Network Setup
>>>>>Wizard'". I've
>>>>>run the 'Network Setup Wizard', and it fails to establish a network, as
>>>>>evidenced by the fact that again selecting "Sharing and Security"
>>>>>yields the same screen as described above, with no changes.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm running Win'XP Home on two machines. I have firewalls disabled on
>>>>>both machines.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm successfully pinging each PC one from the other.
>>>>>
>>>>>What do I do? How do I create a network? I am trying to set it up so
>>>>>that I can share folders on one machine with another.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don J
>>>>>
>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>

Windows XP >> Can't establish a network. No Don, the threads are not abandoned once a day. They do eventually
expire, when they do if you click on the thread you will get a message
telling you that the the message is "Expired". I don't know exactly how
long the Microsoft servers keep the posts before they expire but it is
several months. That is not to say that you should keep on beating a
dead horse, if the thread is going nowhere or if it has been hijacked by
posters who have nothing of value to add to the problem at hand then you
definitely should start a new thread.

As a example, after I post this I will reply to one of your old threads
in this group, lets say this one that you started on May 14th:

Error Message when I click "Mshome".

You will see that my post will appear as an answer to a post that you
made almost two weeks ago, the threads are not deleted on a daily basis,
Microsoft keeps them for many months and you can keep on using the same
thread to follow up on the discussion. I see that you are using Outlook
Express for your newsreader so you should be able to easily follow the
discussion.

As for the issue of cross-posting vs. multi posting see here:

http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting

By cross posting to a few relevant groups (instead of multi-posting) the
answers given by any poster in any of the cross posted groups will
automatically appear in all the other groups when replies are made to
any single post. People who subscribe to one group but not another one
will still see the replies coming from other posters in other groups.

For example I see that you started yet another post in a different group
and that no one has yet answered. I will go there and post (what I
think) is a relevant reply to the question but I will try to cross post
it so you will see how it works. I hope the cross post works, I don't
do it often so I may screw it up ;-)

John

Don J wrote:

> You have ignored my new point made under "Added Comment". It seems to me
> that by contributing to this newsgroup we are taking part in a group where
> every thread is routinely abandoned as it is, once a day, deleted by the
> system to automatically make way for new threads. Maybe I'm dense but isn't
> this a system of daily forced abandonment? What is the recommended way of
> continuing a thread when this happens?
>
> Don J
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>
>>I'm not sure what you mean by the thread being "terminated". Terminated
>>by whom? Threads are never really terminated, they are just abandoned but
>>can be revived by anyone at any given time, so to speak. They are
>>terminated in the sense that when the issue is resolved or when no amount
>>of trying fixes the problem the posters acknowledge that the issue is
>>fixed or that the problem cannot be resolved and they move on, the thread
>>just becomes inactive.
>>
>>If you feel that you are getting further ahead in your troubleshooting
>>efforts and that you prefer to start new threads with new topics to
>>resolve the problem then you should do as you see fit. It is not for me
>>to tell anyone how to post, I only suggested that it was difficult to
>>follow your efforts and the suggestions made by the poster to help you
>>resolve the errors and come to a successful conclusion with the network
>>problem.
>>
>>As for the network problem, are you making any progress? Did you verify
>>the registry setting to see if it is causing the problem?
>>
>>John
>>
>>Don J wrote:
>>
>>
>>>See added comments at bottom:
>>>
>>>This is a classic example of my having started a new thread. My original
>>>posting for this thread was basically one I used to start a previous
>>>thread. The thread wasn't going anywhere. In fact the very first
>>>response ignored many of the questions I had posed, and shifted the
>>>discussion. I failed to catch it at the time and the thread took a very
>>>different direction. So I decided to start a new thread and keep it in
>>>the relevant direction.
>>>
>>>The subjects covered by threads seems to evolve over time. This is very
>>>confusing and, I believe, counter productive. Is'nt it better to keep a
>>>single thread on a sigle topic? And to start a new thread for a new
>>>topic. My thinking is that each thread should be defined by the original
>>>question, and that when a new issue is raised it is good for a new
>>>thread. I think that starting a new thread for each new question will
>>>help rather than impede
>>>
>>>Added Comments:
>>>
>>> I note that this paticular newsgroup is very short: My original
>>>Post of the thread is time stamped today at 10:33AM. It is now 9:00PM.
>>>The thread containing the previous post has aleady been terminated.
>>>
>>> With such a short lifespan for threads it seems to me that frequent
>>>definning of new threads has got to be more the rule than the exception.
>>>In fact I fail to see how the continuity of discussions can be maintained
>>>without defining each new thread somewhat before the previous thread is
>>>terminated. So if you look at the dates and times, my defining a new
>>>thread was a simple continuation of the old thread.
>>>
>>> Don J
>>>
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>"Don J" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>>news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>This is a classic example of my having started a new thread. My original
>>>>posting for this thread was basically one I used to start a previous
>>>>thread. The thread wasn't going anywhere. In fact the very first
>>>>response ignored many of the questions I had posed, and shifted the
>>>>discussion. I failed to catch it at the time and the thread took a very
>>>>different direction. So I decided to start a new thread and keep it in
>>>>the relevant direction.
>>>>
>>>>The subjects covered by threads seems to evolve over time. This is very
>>>>confusing and, I believe, counter productive. Is'nt it better to keep a
>>>>single thread on a sigle topic? And to start a new thread for a new
>>>>topic. My thinking is that each thread should be defined by the original
>>>>question, and that when a new issue is raised it is good for a new
>>>>thread.
>>>>I think that starting a new thread for each new question will help rather
>>>>than impede
>>>>
>>>> Don J
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>"John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:%23$EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In the registry got to:
>>>>>
>>>>>HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\LSA
>>>>>Value: RestrictAnonymous
>>>>>Value Type: REG_DWORD
>>>>>
>>>>>Set the value to 0
>>>>>
>>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/246261/
>>>>>
>>>>>John
>>>>>
>>>>>PS. Your multi-posting to all kinds of different groups and your
>>>>>constant start of new threads is not helping in your search for an
>>>>>answer nor is it helping the troubleshooting efforts by the would be
>>>>>helpers in this matter! The way you have sought help with this problem
>>>>>is a classic example on how *not* to ask for help on the newsgroups! You
>>>>>would be way better served by cross-posting this to a few relevant news
>>>>>groups and by *STICKING* to the thread and answering the questions asked
>>>>>by the helpers!
>>>>>
>>>>>As it is now there is no single concerted effort to resolve the issues
>>>>>you have simply because no one knows what has or hasn't been tried to
>>>>>resolve the problem, and what has worked or not worked in the effort. I
>>>>>am sure that some of the networking experts are seeing your posts all
>>>>>over the place but due to the scattered approach that you have used to
>>>>>seek help many are probably ignoring your posts!
>>>>>
>>>>>There is no magic solution to the kind of problem that you are having.
>>>>>Troubleshooting network problems can sometimes be complex and with all
>>>>>but the simplest network problems you usually have to follow a series of
>>>>>steps or troubleshooting measures to arrive to a successful resolution
>>>>>to the problem. By keeping your request for help under one thread a
>>>>>reader may spot a tiny but vital step that has been missed by another
>>>>>poster and add a contribution to the discussion, quite often a final
>>>>>successful resolution is obtained by a sort collaborative effort by many
>>>>>contributors. When the thread gets longer and when the troubleshooting
>>>>>gets more and more difficult is often the time when some of the experts
>>>>>come in to the rescue or when one of the helpers rereads the thread and
>>>>>spots a crucial step that is missing or gets the stroke of genius that
>>>>>solves the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am not saying this to be critical, I am only trying to help. Your
>>>>>posts are concise and you explain the problems in a clear manner but
>>>>>because of the scattered postings and lack of focus from all readers you
>>>>>are sabotaging the help effort. If my answer does not solve the problem
>>>>>try one last time by cross-posting to a few select groups. Give all the
>>>>>pertinent information about the problem and then stick to the thread!
>>>>>
>>>>>John
>>>>>
>>>>>Don J wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Right clicking a folder on my system and selecting "Sharing and
>>>>>>Security" from the displayed menu yields a dialog box that has no
>>>>>>"Share this folder on the network" checkbox available. Is this OK?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On the same display is the statement "As a security measure, Windows
>>>>>>has disabled remote access to this computer. However, you can enable
>>>>>>remote access and safely share files by running the 'Network Setup
>>>>>>Wizard'". I've
>>>>>>run the 'Network Setup Wizard', and it fails to establish a network, as
>>>>>>evidenced by the fact that again selecting "Sharing and Security"
>>>>>>yields the same screen as described above, with no changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm running Win'XP Home on two machines. I have firewalls disabled on
>>>>>>both machines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm successfully pinging each PC one from the other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What do I do? How do I create a network? I am trying to set it up so
>>>>>>that I can share folders on one machine with another.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don J
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>

Windows XP >> Can't establish a network. I don't think we understand each other.

What do you do call it, when the thread just 'Disappears' from the
newsgroup. The current newsgroup seems to do it about a day after each
thread starts. This is the way they make room for new threads.

It is also a time when it is necessary to start a new thread.

Don J

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> No Don, the threads are not abandoned once a day. They do eventually
> expire, when they do if you click on the thread you will get a message
> telling you that the the message is "Expired". I don't know exactly how
> long the Microsoft servers keep the posts before they expire but it is
> several months. That is not to say that you should keep on beating a dead
> horse, if the thread is going nowhere or if it has been hijacked by
> posters who have nothing of value to add to the problem at hand then you
> definitely should start a new thread.
>
> As a example, after I post this I will reply to one of your old threads in
> this group, lets say this one that you started on May 14th:
>
> Error Message when I click "Mshome".
>
> You will see that my post will appear as an answer to a post that you made
> almost two weeks ago, the threads are not deleted on a daily basis,
> Microsoft keeps them for many months and you can keep on using the same
> thread to follow up on the discussion. I see that you are using Outlook
> Express for your newsreader so you should be able to easily follow the
> discussion.
>
> As for the issue of cross-posting vs. multi posting see here:
>
> http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting
>
> By cross posting to a few relevant groups (instead of multi-posting) the
> answers given by any poster in any of the cross posted groups will
> automatically appear in all the other groups when replies are made to any
> single post. People who subscribe to one group but not another one will
> still see the replies coming from other posters in other groups.
>
> For example I see that you started yet another post in a different group
> and that no one has yet answered. I will go there and post (what I think)
> is a relevant reply to the question but I will try to cross post it so you
> will see how it works. I hope the cross post works, I don't do it often
> so I may screw it up ;-)
>
> John
>
> Don J wrote:
>
>> You have ignored my new point made under "Added Comment". It seems to me
>> that by contributing to this newsgroup we are taking part in a group
>> where every thread is routinely abandoned as it is, once a day, deleted
>> by the system to automatically make way for new threads. Maybe I'm dense
>> but isn't this a system of daily forced abandonment? What is the
>> recommended way of continuing a thread when this happens?
>>
>> Don J
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> "John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>
>>>I'm not sure what you mean by the thread being "terminated". Terminated
>>>by whom? Threads are never really terminated, they are just abandoned
>>>but can be revived by anyone at any given time, so to speak. They are
>>>terminated in the sense that when the issue is resolved or when no amount
>>>of trying fixes the problem the posters acknowledge that the issue is
>>>fixed or that the problem cannot be resolved and they move on, the thread
>>>just becomes inactive.
>>>
>>>If you feel that you are getting further ahead in your troubleshooting
>>>efforts and that you prefer to start new threads with new topics to
>>>resolve the problem then you should do as you see fit. It is not for me
>>>to tell anyone how to post, I only suggested that it was difficult to
>>>follow your efforts and the suggestions made by the poster to help you
>>>resolve the errors and come to a successful conclusion with the network
>>>problem.
>>>
>>>As for the network problem, are you making any progress? Did you verify
>>>the registry setting to see if it is causing the problem?
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>>Don J wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>See added comments at bottom:
>>>>
>>>>This is a classic example of my having started a new thread. My
>>>>original posting for this thread was basically one I used to start a
>>>>previous thread. The thread wasn't going anywhere. In fact the very
>>>>first response ignored many of the questions I had posed, and shifted
>>>>the discussion. I failed to catch it at the time and the thread took a
>>>>very different direction. So I decided to start a new thread and keep
>>>>it in the relevant direction.
>>>>
>>>>The subjects covered by threads seems to evolve over time. This is very
>>>>confusing and, I believe, counter productive. Is'nt it better to keep a
>>>>single thread on a sigle topic? And to start a new thread for a new
>>>>topic. My thinking is that each thread should be defined by the original
>>>>question, and that when a new issue is raised it is good for a new
>>>>thread. I think that starting a new thread for each new question will
>>>>help rather than impede
>>>>
>>>>Added Comments:
>>>>
>>>> I note that this paticular newsgroup is very short: My original
>>>> Post of the thread is time stamped today at 10:33AM. It is now 9:00PM.
>>>> The thread containing the previous post has aleady been terminated.
>>>>
>>>> With such a short lifespan for threads it seems to me that frequent
>>>> definning of new threads has got to be more the rule than the
>>>> exception. In fact I fail to see how the continuity of discussions can
>>>> be maintained without defining each new thread somewhat before the
>>>> previous thread is terminated. So if you look at the dates and times,
>>>> my defining a new thread was a simple continuation of the old thread.
>>>>
>>>> Don J
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>"Don J" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>This is a classic example of my having started a new thread. My
>>>>>original posting for this thread was basically one I used to start a
>>>>>previous thread. The thread wasn't going anywhere. In fact the very
>>>>>first response ignored many of the questions I had posed, and shifted
>>>>>the discussion. I failed to catch it at the time and the thread took a
>>>>>very different direction. So I decided to start a new thread and keep
>>>>>it in the relevant direction.
>>>>>
>>>>>The subjects covered by threads seems to evolve over time. This is
>>>>>very confusing and, I believe, counter productive. Is'nt it better to
>>>>>keep a single thread on a sigle topic? And to start a new thread for a
>>>>>new topic. My thinking is that each thread should be defined by the
>>>>>original question, and that when a new issue is raised it is good for a
>>>>>new thread.
>>>>>I think that starting a new thread for each new question will help
>>>>>rather than impede
>>>>>
>>>>> Don J
>>>>>
>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>"John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:%23$EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In the registry got to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\LSA
>>>>>>Value: RestrictAnonymous
>>>>>>Value Type: REG_DWORD
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Set the value to 0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/246261/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>PS. Your multi-posting to all kinds of different groups and your
>>>>>>constant start of new threads is not helping in your search for an
>>>>>>answer nor is it helping the troubleshooting efforts by the would be
>>>>>>helpers in this matter! The way you have sought help with this
>>>>>>problem is a classic example on how *not* to ask for help on the
>>>>>>newsgroups! You would be way better served by cross-posting this to a
>>>>>>few relevant news groups and by *STICKING* to the thread and answering
>>>>>>the questions asked by the helpers!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As it is now there is no single concerted effort to resolve the issues
>>>>>>you have simply because no one knows what has or hasn't been tried to
>>>>>>resolve the problem, and what has worked or not worked in the effort.
>>>>>>I am sure that some of the networking experts are seeing your posts
>>>>>>all over the place but due to the scattered approach that you have
>>>>>>used to seek help many are probably ignoring your posts!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is no magic solution to the kind of problem that you are having.
>>>>>>Troubleshooting network problems can sometimes be complex and with all
>>>>>>but the simplest network problems you usually have to follow a series
>>>>>>of steps or troubleshooting measures to arrive to a successful
>>>>>>resolution to the problem. By keeping your request for help under one
>>>>>>thread a reader may spot a tiny but vital step that has been missed by
>>>>>>another poster and add a contribution to the discussion, quite often a
>>>>>>final successful resolution is obtained by a sort collaborative effort
>>>>>>by many contributors. When the thread gets longer and when the
>>>>>>troubleshooting gets more and more difficult is often the time when
>>>>>>some of the experts come in to the rescue or when one of the helpers
>>>>>>rereads the thread and spots a crucial step that is missing or gets
>>>>>>the stroke of genius that solves the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am not saying this to be critical, I am only trying to help. Your
>>>>>>posts are concise and you explain the problems in a clear manner but
>>>>>>because of the scattered postings and lack of focus from all readers
>>>>>>you are sabotaging the help effort. If my answer does not solve the
>>>>>>problem try one last time by cross-posting to a few select groups.
>>>>>>Give all the pertinent information about the problem and then stick to
>>>>>>the thread!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Don J wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Right clicking a folder on my system and selecting "Sharing and
>>>>>>>Security" from the displayed menu yields a dialog box that has no
>>>>>>>"Share this folder on the network" checkbox available. Is this OK?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On the same display is the statement "As a security measure, Windows
>>>>>>>has disabled remote access to this computer. However, you can enable
>>>>>>>remote access and safely share files by running the 'Network Setup
>>>>>>>Wizard'". I've
>>>>>>>run the 'Network Setup Wizard', and it fails to establish a network,
>>>>>>>as evidenced by the fact that again selecting "Sharing and Security"
>>>>>>>yields the same screen as described above, with no changes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm running Win'XP Home on two machines. I have firewalls disabled
>>>>>>>on both machines.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm successfully pinging each PC one from the other.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What do I do? How do I create a network? I am trying to set it up
>>>>>>>so that I can share folders on one machine with another.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don J
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>

Windows XP >> Can't establish a network. Obviously there is a misunderstanding somewhere. Threads don't simply
vanish or disappear after only a day or two. Using my antiquated
Mozilla newsreader I see about 38,000 posts dating back to February
2007. The February posts are mostly all expired but posts dating to
early March are not yet expired and all are still showing at my end.

Which news server are you using? Set your news server to
msnews.microsoft.com If you are already using the Microsoft news
servers your Outlook Express newsreader is probably not properly
configured. I don't use or do anything with Outlook Express so someone
else familiar with it will have to answer and give you advice or
instructions on how to have it configured so that you may see all the
posts and threads on the news server.

John

Don J wrote:

> I don't think we understand each other.
>
> What do you do call it, when the thread just 'Disappears' from the
> newsgroup. The current newsgroup seems to do it about a day after each
> thread starts. This is the way they make room for new threads.
>
> It is also a time when it is necessary to start a new thread.
>
> Don J
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> "John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>
>>No Don, the threads are not abandoned once a day. They do eventually
>>expire, when they do if you click on the thread you will get a message
>>telling you that the the message is "Expired". I don't know exactly how
>>long the Microsoft servers keep the posts before they expire but it is
>>several months. That is not to say that you should keep on beating a dead
>>horse, if the thread is going nowhere or if it has been hijacked by
>>posters who have nothing of value to add to the problem at hand then you
>>definitely should start a new thread.
>>
>>As a example, after I post this I will reply to one of your old threads in
>>this group, lets say this one that you started on May 14th:
>>
>>Error Message when I click "Mshome".
>>
>>You will see that my post will appear as an answer to a post that you made
>>almost two weeks ago, the threads are not deleted on a daily basis,
>>Microsoft keeps them for many months and you can keep on using the same
>>thread to follow up on the discussion. I see that you are using Outlook
>>Express for your newsreader so you should be able to easily follow the
>>discussion.
>>
>>As for the issue of cross-posting vs. multi posting see here:
>>
>>http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting
>>
>>By cross posting to a few relevant groups (instead of multi-posting) the
>>answers given by any poster in any of the cross posted groups will
>>automatically appear in all the other groups when replies are made to any
>>single post. People who subscribe to one group but not another one will
>>still see the replies coming from other posters in other groups.
>>
>>For example I see that you started yet another post in a different group
>>and that no one has yet answered. I will go there and post (what I think)
>>is a relevant reply to the question but I will try to cross post it so you
>>will see how it works. I hope the cross post works, I don't do it often
>>so I may screw it up ;-)
>>
>>John
>>
>>Don J wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You have ignored my new point made under "Added Comment". It seems to me
>>>that by contributing to this newsgroup we are taking part in a group
>>>where every thread is routinely abandoned as it is, once a day, deleted
>>>by the system to automatically make way for new threads. Maybe I'm dense
>>>but isn't this a system of daily forced abandonment? What is the
>>>recommended way of continuing a thread when this happens?
>>>
>>> Don J
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>"John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>>news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm not sure what you mean by the thread being "terminated". Terminated
>>>>by whom? Threads are never really terminated, they are just abandoned
>>>>but can be revived by anyone at any given time, so to speak. They are
>>>>terminated in the sense that when the issue is resolved or when no amount
>>>>of trying fixes the problem the posters acknowledge that the issue is
>>>>fixed or that the problem cannot be resolved and they move on, the thread
>>>>just becomes inactive.
>>>>
>>>>If you feel that you are getting further ahead in your troubleshooting
>>>>efforts and that you prefer to start new threads with new topics to
>>>>resolve the problem then you should do as you see fit. It is not for me
>>>>to tell anyone how to post, I only suggested that it was difficult to
>>>>follow your efforts and the suggestions made by the poster to help you
>>>>resolve the errors and come to a successful conclusion with the network
>>>>problem.
>>>>
>>>>As for the network problem, are you making any progress? Did you verify
>>>>the registry setting to see if it is causing the problem?
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>>
>>>>Don J wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>See added comments at bottom:
>>>>>
>>>>>This is a classic example of my having started a new thread. My
>>>>>original posting for this thread was basically one I used to start a
>>>>>previous thread. The thread wasn't going anywhere. In fact the very
>>>>>first response ignored many of the questions I had posed, and shifted
>>>>>the discussion. I failed to catch it at the time and the thread took a
>>>>>very different direction. So I decided to start a new thread and keep
>>>>>it in the relevant direction.
>>>>>
>>>>>The subjects covered by threads seems to evolve over time. This is very
>>>>>confusing and, I believe, counter productive. Is'nt it better to keep a
>>>>>single thread on a sigle topic? And to start a new thread for a new
>>>>>topic. My thinking is that each thread should be defined by the original
>>>>>question, and that when a new issue is raised it is good for a new
>>>>>thread. I think that starting a new thread for each new question will
>>>>>help rather than impede
>>>>>
>>>>>Added Comments:
>>>>>
>>>>> I note that this paticular newsgroup is very short: My original
>>>>>Post of the thread is time stamped today at 10:33AM. It is now 9:00PM.
>>>>>The thread containing the previous post has aleady been terminated.
>>>>>
>>>>> With such a short lifespan for threads it seems to me that frequent
>>>>>definning of new threads has got to be more the rule than the
>>>>>exception. In fact I fail to see how the continuity of discussions can
>>>>>be maintained without defining each new thread somewhat before the
>>>>>previous thread is terminated. So if you look at the dates and times,
>>>>>my defining a new thread was a simple continuation of the old thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don J
>>>>>
>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>"Don J" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>This is a classic example of my having started a new thread. My
>>>>>>original posting for this thread was basically one I used to start a
>>>>>>previous thread. The thread wasn't going anywhere. In fact the very
>>>>>>first response ignored many of the questions I had posed, and shifted
>>>>>>the discussion. I failed to catch it at the time and the thread took a
>>>>>>very different direction. So I decided to start a new thread and keep
>>>>>>it in the relevant direction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The subjects covered by threads seems to evolve over time. This is
>>>>>>very confusing and, I believe, counter productive. Is'nt it better to
>>>>>>keep a single thread on a sigle topic? And to start a new thread for a
>>>>>>new topic. My thinking is that each thread should be defined by the
>>>>>>original question, and that when a new issue is raised it is good for a
>>>>>>new thread.
>>>>>>I think that starting a new thread for each new question will help
>>>>>>rather than impede
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don J
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>"John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:%23$EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In the registry got to:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\LSA
>>>>>>>Value: RestrictAnonymous
>>>>>>>Value Type: REG_DWORD
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Set the value to 0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/246261/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>PS. Your multi-posting to all kinds of different groups and your
>>>>>>>constant start of new threads is not helping in your search for an
>>>>>>>answer nor is it helping the troubleshooting efforts by the would be
>>>>>>>helpers in this matter! The way you have sought help with this
>>>>>>>problem is a classic example on how *not* to ask for help on the
>>>>>>>newsgroups! You would be way better served by cross-posting this to a
>>>>>>>few relevant news groups and by *STICKING* to the thread and answering
>>>>>>>the questions asked by the helpers!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As it is now there is no single concerted effort to resolve the issues
>>>>>>>you have simply because no one knows what has or hasn't been tried to
>>>>>>>resolve the problem, and what has worked or not worked in the effort.
>>>>>>>I am sure that some of the networking experts are seeing your posts
>>>>>>>all over the place but due to the scattered approach that you have
>>>>>>>used to seek help many are probably ignoring your posts!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There is no magic solution to the kind of problem that you are having.
>>>>>>>Troubleshooting network problems can sometimes be complex and with all
>>>>>>>but the simplest network problems you usually have to follow a series
>>>>>>>of steps or troubleshooting measures to arrive to a successful
>>>>>>>resolution to the problem. By keeping your request for help under one
>>>>>>>thread a reader may spot a tiny but vital step that has been missed by
>>>>>>>another poster and add a contribution to the discussion, quite often a
>>>>>>>final successful resolution is obtained by a sort collaborative effort
>>>>>>>by many contributors. When the thread gets longer and when the
>>>>>>>troubleshooting gets more and more difficult is often the time when
>>>>>>>some of the experts come in to the rescue or when one of the helpers
>>>>>>>rereads the thread and spots a crucial step that is missing or gets
>>>>>>>the stroke of genius that solves the problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I am not saying this to be critical, I am only trying to help. Your
>>>>>>>posts are concise and you explain the problems in a clear manner but
>>>>>>>because of the scattered postings and lack of focus from all readers
>>>>>>>you are sabotaging the help effort. If my answer does not solve the
>>>>>>>problem try one last time by cross-posting to a few select groups.
>>>>>>>Give all the pertinent information about the problem and then stick to
>>>>>>>the thread!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Don J wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Right clicking a folder on my system and selecting "Sharing and
>>>>>>>>Security" from the displayed menu yields a dialog box that has no
>>>>>>>>"Share this folder on the network" checkbox available. Is this OK?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On the same display is the statement "As a security measure, Windows
>>>>>>>>has disabled remote access to this computer. However, you can enable
>>>>>>>>remote access and safely share files by running the 'Network Setup
>>>>>>>>Wizard'". I've
>>>>>>>>run the 'Network Setup Wizard', and it fails to establish a network,
>>>>>>>>as evidenced by the fact that again selecting "Sharing and Security"
>>>>>>>>yields the same screen as described above, with no changes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm running Win'XP Home on two machines. I have firewalls disabled
>>>>>>>>on both machines.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm successfully pinging each PC one from the other.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What do I do? How do I create a network? I am trying to set it up
>>>>>>>>so that I can share folders on one machine with another.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don J
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>
>

Windows XP >> Can't establish a network.
"John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> Obviously there is a misunderstanding somewhere. Threads don't simply
> vanish or disappear after only a day or two. Using my antiquated Mozilla
> newsreader I see about 38,000 posts dating back to February 2007. The
> February posts are mostly all expired but posts dating to early March are
> not yet expired and all are still showing at my end.
>
> Which news server are you using? Set your news server to
> msnews.microsoft.com If you are already using the Microsoft news servers
> your Outlook Express newsreader is probably not properly configured. I
> don't use or do anything with Outlook Express so someone else familiar
> with it will have to answer ...

I do use OE, and I'm almost as baffled about threads "disappearing".
There is, under Options, a setting which I've never used which deletes
downloaded messages after a number of days (default 5, but somebody
could I suppose set it to 1).

Which ISP is John John using? What is their retention policy?
One day would seem ridiculous.

Windows XP >> Can't establish a network. Anthony Buckland wrote:

> "John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>
>>Obviously there is a misunderstanding somewhere. Threads don't simply
>>vanish or disappear after only a day or two. Using my antiquated Mozilla
>>newsreader I see about 38,000 posts dating back to February 2007. The
>>February posts are mostly all expired but posts dating to early March are
>>not yet expired and all are still showing at my end.
>>
>>Which news server are you using? Set your news server to
>>msnews.microsoft.com If you are already using the Microsoft news servers
>>your Outlook Express newsreader is probably not properly configured. I
>>don't use or do anything with Outlook Express so someone else familiar
>>with it will have to answer ...
>
>
> I do use OE, and I'm almost as baffled about threads "disappearing".
> There is, under Options, a setting which I've never used which deletes
> downloaded messages after a number of days (default 5, but somebody
> could I suppose set it to 1).
>
> Which ISP is John John using? What is their retention policy?
> One day would seem ridiculous.

You mean "Which ISP is Don J using?" I have no problems seeing all the
threads and posts in the newsgroup, Don is the one having problems.
Furthermore, If Don used the msnews.microsoft.com news server the ISP he
is using is irelevant, but if he uses a server provided by his ISP that
may be the problem. A retention period of one day would be ridiculous!

John

Windows XP >> Can't establish a network. Mine is set to 5 days also. I've subscribed to the current newsgroup
"microsoft.public. windowsxp.general" over "msnews.microsoft.com". It
doesn't help.

I've placed a Post on the "Microsoft.public.outlookexpress.general"
Newsgroup asking if there is any way of setting up Outlook Express to
acquire very old messages.

Don J

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Anthony Buckland" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>
> "John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>> Obviously there is a misunderstanding somewhere. Threads don't simply
>> vanish or disappear after only a day or two. Using my antiquated Mozilla
>> newsreader I see about 38,000 posts dating back to February 2007. The
>> February posts are mostly all expired but posts dating to early March are
>> not yet expired and all are still showing at my end.
>>
>> Which news server are you using? Set your news server to
>> msnews.microsoft.com If you are already using the Microsoft news servers
>> your Outlook Express newsreader is probably not properly configured. I
>> don't use or do anything with Outlook Express so someone else familiar
>> with it will have to answer ...
>
> I do use OE, and I'm almost as baffled about threads "disappearing".
> There is, under Options, a setting which I've never used which deletes
> downloaded messages after a number of days (default 5, but somebody
> could I suppose set it to 1).
>
> Which ISP is John John using? What is their retention policy?
> One day would seem ridiculous.
>

Windows XP >> Can't establish a network. I have placed a post on the "microsoft.public.outlookexpress.general"
newsgroup asking if there is any way of confiuring "Outlook Expreess" to
download older posts. Here is the reply I received:

"Unless you saved them to a local folder, when they are deleted from the
server, OE cannot see them any more.

You can use Google like this:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author%3Adej8801%40comcast.net&start=0&scoring=d&hl=en&lr=&safe=images&
-- "

But Google doesn't give complete threads. Only isolated postings. And
there is no way to place a reply. I'll need better instructions concerning
how to access old postings within a newsgroup.

FYI: I am subscribed to "msnews.microsoft.com".

Don J

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> Anthony Buckland wrote:
>
>> "John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>
>>>Obviously there is a misunderstanding somewhere. Threads don't simply
>>>vanish or disappear after only a day or two. Using my antiquated Mozilla
>>>newsreader I see about 38,000 posts dating back to February 2007. The
>>>February posts are mostly all expired but posts dating to early March are
>>>not yet expired and all are still showing at my end.
>>>
>>>Which news server are you using? Set your news server to
>>>msnews.microsoft.com If you are already using the Microsoft news servers
>>>your Outlook Express newsreader is probably not properly configured. I
>>>don't use or do anything with Outlook Express so someone else familiar
>>>with it will have to answer ...
>>
>>
>> I do use OE, and I'm almost as baffled about threads "disappearing".
>> There is, under Options, a setting which I've never used which deletes
>> downloaded messages after a number of days (default 5, but somebody
>> could I suppose set it to 1).
>>
>> Which ISP is John John using? What is their retention policy?
>> One day would seem ridiculous.
>
> You mean "Which ISP is Don J using?" I have no problems seeing all the
> threads and posts in the newsgroup, Don is the one having problems.
> Furthermore, If Don used the msnews.microsoft.com news server the ISP he
> is using is irelevant, but if he uses a server provided by his ISP that
> may be the problem. A retention period of one day would be ridiculous!
>
> John
>

Windows XP >> Can't establish a network. "Don J" wrote
>I don't think we understand each other.
>
> What do you do call it, when the thread just 'Disappears' from the
> newsgroup. The current newsgroup seems to do it about a day after each
> thread starts. This is the way they make room for new threads.
>
> It is also a time when it is necessary to start a new thread.

<snip>

Threads don't just disappear after a day. I believe the retention on the MS
server is at least three months. Google groups has them for years. Why
they are disappearing for you I don't know. I'm using Vista Mail now, but
when I used OE6 there was no issue with daily disappearance of threads.

--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]

Windows XP >> Can't establish a network. On Thu, 24 May 2007 11:58:39 -0300, John John <EMail@HideDomain.com>
wrote:

>No Don, the threads are not abandoned once a day. They do eventually
>expire, when they do if you click on the thread you will get a message
>telling you that the the message is "Expired". I don't know exactly how
>long the Microsoft servers keep the posts before they expire but it is
>several months.

Yes, but it should also be noted that the messages on the Microsoft
news server are propagated to many other news servers around the
world. How long a message lasts depend on the particular server, and
some may keep messages longer than Microsoft does.

And messages last forever on Googlegroups.

> That is not to say that you should keep on beating a
>dead horse, if the thread is going nowhere or if it has been hijacked by
>posters who have nothing of value to add to the problem at hand then you
>definitely should start a new thread.
>
>As a example, after I post this I will reply to one of your old threads
>in this group, lets say this one that you started on May 14th:
>
>Error Message when I click "Mshome".
>
>You will see that my post will appear as an answer to a post that you
>made almost two weeks ago, the threads are not deleted on a daily basis,
>Microsoft keeps them for many months and you can keep on using the same
>thread to follow up on the discussion. I see that you are using Outlook
>Express for your newsreader so you should be able to easily follow the
>discussion.
>
>As for the issue of cross-posting vs. multi posting see here:
>
>http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting
>
>By cross posting to a few relevant groups (instead of multi-posting) the
>answers given by any poster in any of the cross posted groups will
>automatically appear in all the other groups when replies are made to
>any single post. People who subscribe to one group but not another one
>will still see the replies coming from other posters in other groups.
>
>For example I see that you started yet another post in a different group
>and that no one has yet answered. I will go there and post (what I
>think) is a relevant reply to the question but I will try to cross post
>it so you will see how it works. I hope the cross post works, I don't
>do it often so I may screw it up ;-)
>
>John
>
>Don J wrote:
>
>> You have ignored my new point made under "Added Comment". It seems to me
>> that by contributing to this newsgroup we are taking part in a group where
>> every thread is routinely abandoned as it is, once a day, deleted by the
>> system to automatically make way for new threads. Maybe I'm dense but isn't
>> this a system of daily forced abandonment? What is the recommended way of
>> continuing a thread when this happens?
>>
>> Don J
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> "John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>
>>>I'm not sure what you mean by the thread being "terminated". Terminated
>>>by whom? Threads are never really terminated, they are just abandoned but
>>>can be revived by anyone at any given time, so to speak. They are
>>>terminated in the sense that when the issue is resolved or when no amount
>>>of trying fixes the problem the posters acknowledge that the issue is
>>>fixed or that the problem cannot be resolved and they move on, the thread
>>>just becomes inactive.
>>>
>>>If you feel that you are getting further ahead in your troubleshooting
>>>efforts and that you prefer to start new threads with new topics to
>>>resolve the problem then you should do as you see fit. It is not for me
>>>to tell anyone how to post, I only suggested that it was difficult to
>>>follow your efforts and the suggestions made by the poster to help you
>>>resolve the errors and come to a successful conclusion with the network
>>>problem.
>>>
>>>As for the network problem, are you making any progress? Did you verify
>>>the registry setting to see if it is causing the problem?
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>>Don J wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>See added comments at bottom:
>>>>
>>>>This is a classic example of my having started a new thread. My original
>>>>posting for this thread was basically one I used to start a previous
>>>>thread. The thread wasn't going anywhere. In fact the very first
>>>>response ignored many of the questions I had posed, and shifted the
>>>>discussion. I failed to catch it at the time and the thread took a very
>>>>different direction. So I decided to start a new thread and keep it in
>>>>the relevant direction.
>>>>
>>>>The subjects covered by threads seems to evolve over time. This is very
>>>>confusing and, I believe, counter productive. Is'nt it better to keep a
>>>>single thread on a sigle topic? And to start a new thread for a new
>>>>topic. My thinking is that each thread should be defined by the original
>>>>question, and that when a new issue is raised it is good for a new
>>>>thread. I think that starting a new thread for each new question will
>>>>help rather than impede
>>>>
>>>>Added Comments:
>>>>
>>>> I note that this paticular newsgroup is very short: My original
>>>>Post of the thread is time stamped today at 10:33AM. It is now 9:00PM.
>>>>The thread containing the previous post has aleady been terminated.
>>>>
>>>> With such a short lifespan for threads it seems to me that frequent
>>>>definning of new threads has got to be more the rule than the exception.
>>>>In fact I fail to see how the continuity of discussions can be maintained
>>>>without defining each new thread somewhat before the previous thread is
>>>>terminated. So if you look at the dates and times, my defining a new
>>>>thread was a simple continuation of the old thread.
>>>>
>>>> Don J
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>"Don J" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>This is a classic example of my having started a new thread. My original
>>>>>posting for this thread was basically one I used to start a previous
>>>>>thread. The thread wasn't going anywhere. In fact the very first
>>>>>response ignored many of the questions I had posed, and shifted the
>>>>>discussion. I failed to catch it at the time and the thread took a very
>>>>>different direction. So I decided to start a new thread and keep it in
>>>>>the relevant direction.
>>>>>
>>>>>The subjects covered by threads seems to evolve over time. This is very
>>>>>confusing and, I believe, counter productive. Is'nt it better to keep a
>>>>>single thread on a sigle topic? And to start a new thread for a new
>>>>>topic. My thinking is that each thread should be defined by the original
>>>>>question, and that when a new issue is raised it is good for a new
>>>>>thread.
>>>>>I think that starting a new thread for each new question will help rather
>>>>>than impede
>>>>>
>>>>> Don J
>>>>>
>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>"John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:%23$EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In the registry got to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\LSA
>>>>>>Value: RestrictAnonymous
>>>>>>Value Type: REG_DWORD
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Set the value to 0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/246261/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>PS. Your multi-posting to all kinds of different groups and your
>>>>>>constant start of new threads is not helping in your search for an
>>>>>>answer nor is it helping the troubleshooting efforts by the would be
>>>>>>helpers in this matter! The way you have sought help with this problem
>>>>>>is a classic example on how *not* to ask for help on the newsgroups! You
>>>>>>would be way better served by cross-posting this to a few relevant news
>>>>>>groups and by *STICKING* to the thread and answering the questions asked
>>>>>>by the helpers!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As it is now there is no single concerted effort to resolve the issues
>>>>>>you have simply because no one knows what has or hasn't been tried to
>>>>>>resolve the problem, and what has worked or not worked in the effort. I
>>>>>>am sure that some of the networking experts are seeing your posts all
>>>>>>over the place but due to the scattered approach that you have used to
>>>>>>seek help many are probably ignoring your posts!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is no magic solution to the kind of problem that you are having.
>>>>>>Troubleshooting network problems can sometimes be complex and with all
>>>>>>but the simplest network problems you usually have to follow a series of
>>>>>>steps or troubleshooting measures to arrive to a successful resolution
>>>>>>to the problem. By keeping your request for help under one thread a
>>>>>>reader may spot a tiny but vital step that has been missed by another
>>>>>>poster and add a contribution to the discussion, quite often a final
>>>>>>successful resolution is obtained by a sort collaborative effort by many
>>>>>>contributors. When the thread gets longer and when the troubleshooting
>>>>>>gets more and more difficult is often the time when some of the experts
>>>>>>come in to the rescue or when one of the helpers rereads the thread and
>>>>>>spots a crucial step that is missing or gets the stroke of genius that
>>>>>>solves the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am not saying this to be critical, I am only trying to help. Your
>>>>>>posts are concise and you explain the problems in a clear manner but
>>>>>>because of the scattered postings and lack of focus from all readers you
>>>>>>are sabotaging the help effort. If my answer does not solve the problem
>>>>>>try one last time by cross-posting to a few select groups. Give all the
>>>>>>pertinent information about the problem and then stick to the thread!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Don J wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Right clicking a folder on my system and selecting "Sharing and
>>>>>>>Security" from the displayed menu yields a dialog box that has no
>>>>>>>"Share this folder on the network" checkbox available. Is this OK?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On the same display is the statement "As a security measure, Windows
>>>>>>>has disabled remote access to this computer. However, you can enable
>>>>>>>remote access and safely share files by running the 'Network Setup
>>>>>>>Wizard'". I've
>>>>>>>run the 'Network Setup Wizard', and it fails to establish a network, as
>>>>>>>evidenced by the fact that again selecting "Sharing and Security"
>>>>>>>yields the same screen as described above, with no changes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm running Win'XP Home on two machines. I have firewalls disabled on
>>>>>>>both machines.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm successfully pinging each PC one from the other.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What do I do? How do I create a network? I am trying to set it up so
>>>>>>>that I can share folders on one machine with another.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don J
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Windows XP >> Can't establish a network. On Thu, 24 May 2007 11:23:19 -0400, "Don J" <EMail@HideDomain.com>
wrote:

>I don't think we understand each other.
>
>What do you do call it, when the thread just 'Disappears' from the
>newsgroup. The current newsgroup seems to do it about a day after each
>thread starts. This is the way they make room for new threads.

This is *not* correct. Threads do *not* disappear from the newsgroup
after a day, and there is no "making room for new threads."

Threads and the messages within them last for several months. If you
are seeing threads disappear, the reason is that that's way you have
your *newsreader* configured. You perhaps have it set to hide read
messages.

>It is also a time when it is necessary to start a new thread.
>
> Don J
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>"John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>> No Don, the threads are not abandoned once a day. They do eventually
>> expire, when they do if you click on the thread you will get a message
>> telling you that the the message is "Expired". I don't know exactly how
>> long the Microsoft servers keep the posts before they expire but it is
>> several months. That is not to say that you should keep on beating a dead
>> horse, if the thread is going nowhere or if it has been hijacked by
>> posters who have nothing of value to add to the problem at hand then you
>> definitely should start a new thread.
>>
>> As a example, after I post this I will reply to one of your old threads in
>> this group, lets say this one that you started on May 14th:
>>
>> Error Message when I click "Mshome".
>>
>> You will see that my post will appear as an answer to a post that you made
>> almost two weeks ago, the threads are not deleted on a daily basis,
>> Microsoft keeps them for many months and you can keep on using the same
>> thread to follow up on the discussion. I see that you are using Outlook
>> Express for your newsreader so you should be able to easily follow the
>> discussion.
>>
>> As for the issue of cross-posting vs. multi posting see here:
>>
>> http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting
>>
>> By cross posting to a few relevant groups (instead of multi-posting) the
>> answers given by any poster in any of the cross posted groups will
>> automatically appear in all the other groups when replies are made to any
>> single post. People who subscribe to one group but not another one will
>> still see the replies coming from other posters in other groups.
>>
>> For example I see that you started yet another post in a different group
>> and that no one has yet answered. I will go there and post (what I think)
>> is a relevant reply to the question but I will try to cross post it so you
>> will see how it works. I hope the cross post works, I don't do it often
>> so I may screw it up ;-)
>>
>> John
>>
>> Don J wrote:
>>
>>> You have ignored my new point made under "Added Comment". It seems to me
>>> that by contributing to this newsgroup we are taking part in a group
>>> where every thread is routinely abandoned as it is, once a day, deleted
>>> by the system to automatically make way for new threads. Maybe I'm dense
>>> but isn't this a system of daily forced abandonment? What is the
>>> recommended way of continuing a thread when this happens?
>>>
>>> Don J
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> "John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>
>>>>I'm not sure what you mean by the thread being "terminated". Terminated
>>>>by whom? Threads are never really terminated, they are just abandoned
>>>>but can be revived by anyone at any given time, so to speak. They are
>>>>terminated in the sense that when the issue is resolved or when no amount
>>>>of trying fixes the problem the posters acknowledge that the issue is
>>>>fixed or that the problem cannot be resolved and they move on, the thread
>>>>just becomes inactive.
>>>>
>>>>If you feel that you are getting further ahead in your troubleshooting
>>>>efforts and that you prefer to start new threads with new topics to
>>>>resolve the problem then you should do as you see fit. It is not for me
>>>>to tell anyone how to post, I only suggested that it was difficult to
>>>>follow your efforts and the suggestions made by the poster to help you
>>>>resolve the errors and come to a successful conclusion with the network
>>>>problem.
>>>>
>>>>As for the network problem, are you making any progress? Did you verify
>>>>the registry setting to see if it is causing the problem?
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>>
>>>>Don J wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>See added comments at bottom:
>>>>>
>>>>>This is a classic example of my having started a new thread. My
>>>>>original posting for this thread was basically one I used to start a
>>>>>previous thread. The thread wasn't going anywhere. In fact the very
>>>>>first response ignored many of the questions I had posed, and shifted
>>>>>the discussion. I failed to catch it at the time and the thread took a
>>>>>very different direction. So I decided to start a new thread and keep
>>>>>it in the relevant direction.
>>>>>
>>>>>The subjects covered by threads seems to evolve over time. This is very
>>>>>confusing and, I believe, counter productive. Is'nt it better to keep a
>>>>>single thread on a sigle topic? And to start a new thread for a new
>>>>>topic. My thinking is that each thread should be defined by the original
>>>>>question, and that when a new issue is raised it is good for a new
>>>>>thread. I think that starting a new thread for each new question will
>>>>>help rather than impede
>>>>>
>>>>>Added Comments:
>>>>>
>>>>> I note that this paticular newsgroup is very short: My original
>>>>> Post of the thread is time stamped today at 10:33AM. It is now 9:00PM.
>>>>> The thread containing the previous post has aleady been terminated.
>>>>>
>>>>> With such a short lifespan for threads it seems to me that frequent
>>>>> definning of new threads has got to be more the rule than the
>>>>> exception. In fact I fail to see how the continuity of discussions can
>>>>> be maintained without defining each new thread somewhat before the
>>>>> previous thread is terminated. So if you look at the dates and times,
>>>>> my defining a new thread was a simple continuation of the old thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don J
>>>>>
>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>"Don J" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>This is a classic example of my having started a new thread. My
>>>>>>original posting for this thread was basically one I used to start a
>>>>>>previous thread. The thread wasn't going anywhere. In fact the very
>>>>>>first response ignored many of the questions I had posed, and shifted
>>>>>>the discussion. I failed to catch it at the time and the thread took a
>>>>>>very different direction. So I decided to start a new thread and keep
>>>>>>it in the relevant direction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The subjects covered by threads seems to evolve over time. This is
>>>>>>very confusing and, I believe, counter productive. Is'nt it better to
>>>>>>keep a single thread on a sigle topic? And to start a new thread for a
>>>>>>new topic. My thinking is that each thread should be defined by the
>>>>>>original question, and that when a new issue is raised it is good for a
>>>>>>new thread.
>>>>>>I think that starting a new thread for each new question will help
>>>>>>rather than impede
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don J
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>"John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:%23$EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In the registry got to:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\LSA
>>>>>>>Value: RestrictAnonymous
>>>>>>>Value Type: REG_DWORD
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Set the value to 0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/246261/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>PS. Your multi-posting to all kinds of different groups and your
>>>>>>>constant start of new threads is not helping in your search for an
>>>>>>>answer nor is it helping the troubleshooting efforts by the would be
>>>>>>>helpers in this matter! The way you have sought help with this
>>>>>>>problem is a classic example on how *not* to ask for help on the
>>>>>>>newsgroups! You would be way better served by cross-posting this to a
>>>>>>>few relevant news groups and by *STICKING* to the thread and answering
>>>>>>>the questions asked by the helpers!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As it is now there is no single concerted effort to resolve the issues
>>>>>>>you have simply because no one knows what has or hasn't been tried to
>>>>>>>resolve the problem, and what has worked or not worked in the effort.
>>>>>>>I am sure that some of the networking experts are seeing your posts
>>>>>>>all over the place but due to the scattered approach that you have
>>>>>>>used to seek help many are probably ignoring your posts!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There is no magic solution to the kind of problem that you are having.
>>>>>>>Troubleshooting network problems can sometimes be complex and with all
>>>>>>>but the simplest network problems you usually have to follow a series
>>>>>>>of steps or troubleshooting measures to arrive to a successful
>>>>>>>resolution to the problem. By keeping your request for help under one
>>>>>>>thread a reader may spot a tiny but vital step that has been missed by
>>>>>>>another poster and add a contribution to the discussion, quite often a
>>>>>>>final successful resolution is obtained by a sort collaborative effort
>>>>>>>by many contributors. When the thread gets longer and when the
>>>>>>>troubleshooting gets more and more difficult is often the time when
>>>>>>>some of the experts come in to the rescue or when one of the helpers
>>>>>>>rereads the thread and spots a crucial step that is missing or gets
>>>>>>>the stroke of genius that solves the problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I am not saying this to be critical, I am only trying to help. Your
>>>>>>>posts are concise and you explain the problems in a clear manner but
>>>>>>>because of the scattered postings and lack of focus from all readers
>>>>>>>you are sabotaging the help effort. If my answer does not solve the
>>>>>>>problem try one last time by cross-posting to a few select groups.
>>>>>>>Give all the pertinent information about the problem and then stick to
>>>>>>>the thread!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Don J wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Right clicking a folder on my system and selecting "Sharing and
>>>>>>>>Security" from the displayed menu yields a dialog box that has no
>>>>>>>>"Share this folder on the network" checkbox available. Is this OK?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On the same display is the statement "As a security measure, Windows
>>>>>>>>has disabled remote access to this computer. However, you can enable
>>>>>>>>remote access and safely share files by running the 'Network Setup
>>>>>>>>Wizard'". I've
>>>>>>>>run the 'Network Setup Wizard', and it fails to establish a network,
>>>>>>>>as evidenced by the fact that again selecting "Sharing and Security"
>>>>>>>>yields the same screen as described above, with no changes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm running Win'XP Home on two machines. I have firewalls disabled
>>>>>>>>on both machines.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm successfully pinging each PC one from the other.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What do I do? How do I create a network? I am trying to set it up
>>>>>>>>so that I can share folders on one machine with another.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don J
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Windows XP >> Can't establish a network. I am using Outlook Express. How do I configure it not to hide messages that
have been read?

Don J

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ken Blake, MVP" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 11:23:19 -0400, "Don J" <EMail@HideDomain.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I don't think we understand each other.
>>
>>What do you do call it, when the thread just 'Disappears' from the
>>newsgroup. The current newsgroup seems to do it about a day after each
>>thread starts. This is the way they make room for new threads.
>
>
>
> This is *not* correct. Threads do *not* disappear from the newsgroup
> after a day, and there is no "making room for new threads."
>
> Threads and the messages within them last for several months. If you
> are seeing threads disappear, the reason is that that's way you have
> your *newsreader* configured. You perhaps have it set to hide read
> messages.
>
>
>
>>It is also a time when it is necessary to start a new thread.
>>
>> Don J
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>"John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>> No Don, the threads are not abandoned once a day. They do eventually
>>> expire, when they do if you click on the thread you will get a message
>>> telling you that the the message is "Expired". I don't know exactly how
>>> long the Microsoft servers keep the posts before they expire but it is
>>> several months. That is not to say that you should keep on beating a
>>> dead
>>> horse, if the thread is going nowhere or if it has been hijacked by
>>> posters who have nothing of value to add to the problem at hand then you
>>> definitely should start a new thread.
>>>
>>> As a example, after I post this I will reply to one of your old threads
>>> in
>>> this group, lets say this one that you started on May 14th:
>>>
>>> Error Message when I click "Mshome".
>>>
>>> You will see that my post will appear as an answer to a post that you
>>> made
>>> almost two weeks ago, the threads are not deleted on a daily basis,
>>> Microsoft keeps them for many months and you can keep on using the same
>>> thread to follow up on the discussion. I see that you are using Outlook
>>> Express for your newsreader so you should be able to easily follow the
>>> discussion.
>>>
>>> As for the issue of cross-posting vs. multi posting see here:
>>>
>>> http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting
>>>
>>> By cross posting to a few relevant groups (instead of multi-posting) the
>>> answers given by any poster in any of the cross posted groups will
>>> automatically appear in all the other groups when replies are made to
>>> any
>>> single post. People who subscribe to one group but not another one will
>>> still see the replies coming from other posters in other groups.
>>>
>>> For example I see that you started yet another post in a different group
>>> and that no one has yet answered. I will go there and post (what I
>>> think)
>>> is a relevant reply to the question but I will try to cross post it so
>>> you
>>> will see how it works. I hope the cross post works, I don't do it often
>>> so I may screw it up ;-)
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> Don J wrote:
>>>
>>>> You have ignored my new point made under "Added Comment". It seems to
>>>> me
>>>> that by contributing to this newsgroup we are taking part in a group
>>>> where every thread is routinely abandoned as it is, once a day, deleted
>>>> by the system to automatically make way for new threads. Maybe I'm
>>>> dense
>>>> but isn't this a system of daily forced abandonment? What is the
>>>> recommended way of continuing a thread when this happens?
>>>>
>>>> Don J
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> "John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>>
>>>>>I'm not sure what you mean by the thread being "terminated".
>>>>>Terminated
>>>>>by whom? Threads are never really terminated, they are just abandoned
>>>>>but can be revived by anyone at any given time, so to speak. They are
>>>>>terminated in the sense that when the issue is resolved or when no
>>>>>amount
>>>>>of trying fixes the problem the posters acknowledge that the issue is
>>>>>fixed or that the problem cannot be resolved and they move on, the
>>>>>thread
>>>>>just becomes inactive.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you feel that you are getting further ahead in your troubleshooting
>>>>>efforts and that you prefer to start new threads with new topics to
>>>>>resolve the problem then you should do as you see fit. It is not for
>>>>>me
>>>>>to tell anyone how to post, I only suggested that it was difficult to
>>>>>follow your efforts and the suggestions made by the poster to help you
>>>>>resolve the errors and come to a successful conclusion with the network
>>>>>problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>As for the network problem, are you making any progress? Did you
>>>>>verify
>>>>>the registry setting to see if it is causing the problem?
>>>>>
>>>>>John
>>>>>
>>>>>Don J wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>See added comments at bottom:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is a classic example of my having started a new thread. My
>>>>>>original posting for this thread was basically one I used to start a
>>>>>>previous thread. The thread wasn't going anywhere. In fact the very
>>>>>>first response ignored many of the questions I had posed, and shifted
>>>>>>the discussion. I failed to catch it at the time and the thread took
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>very different direction. So I decided to start a new thread and keep
>>>>>>it in the relevant direction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The subjects covered by threads seems to evolve over time. This is
>>>>>>very
>>>>>>confusing and, I believe, counter productive. Is'nt it better to keep
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>single thread on a sigle topic? And to start a new thread for a new
>>>>>>topic. My thinking is that each thread should be defined by the
>>>>>>original
>>>>>>question, and that when a new issue is raised it is good for a new
>>>>>>thread. I think that starting a new thread for each new question will
>>>>>>help rather than impede
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Added Comments:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I note that this paticular newsgroup is very short: My original
>>>>>> Post of the thread is time stamped today at 10:33AM. It is now
>>>>>> 9:00PM.
>>>>>> The thread containing the previous post has aleady been terminated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With such a short lifespan for threads it seems to me that
>>>>>> frequent
>>>>>> definning of new threads has got to be more the rule than the
>>>>>> exception. In fact I fail to see how the continuity of discussions
>>>>>> can
>>>>>> be maintained without defining each new thread somewhat before the
>>>>>> previous thread is terminated. So if you look at the dates and
>>>>>> times,
>>>>>> my defining a new thread was a simple continuation of the old thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don J
>>>>>>
>>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>"Don J" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is a classic example of my having started a new thread. My
>>>>>>>original posting for this thread was basically one I used to start a
>>>>>>>previous thread. The thread wasn't going anywhere. In fact the very
>>>>>>>first response ignored many of the questions I had posed, and shifted
>>>>>>>the discussion. I failed to catch it at the time and the thread took
>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>very different direction. So I decided to start a new thread and
>>>>>>>keep
>>>>>>>it in the relevant direction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The subjects covered by threads seems to evolve over time. This is
>>>>>>>very confusing and, I believe, counter productive. Is'nt it better
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>keep a single thread on a sigle topic? And to start a new thread for
>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>new topic. My thinking is that each thread should be defined by the
>>>>>>>original question, and that when a new issue is raised it is good for
>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>new thread.
>>>>>>>I think that starting a new thread for each new question will help
>>>>>>>rather than impede
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don J
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>"John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:%23$EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In the registry got to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\LSA
>>>>>>>>Value: RestrictAnonymous
>>>>>>>>Value Type: REG_DWORD
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Set the value to 0
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/246261/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>PS. Your multi-posting to all kinds of different groups and your
>>>>>>>>constant start of new threads is not helping in your search for an
>>>>>>>>answer nor is it helping the troubleshooting efforts by the would be
>>>>>>>>helpers in this matter! The way you have sought help with this
>>>>>>>>problem is a classic example on how *not* to ask for help on the
>>>>>>>>newsgroups! You would be way better served by cross-posting this to
>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>few relevant news groups and by *STICKING* to the thread and
>>>>>>>>answering
>>>>>>>>the questions asked by the helpers!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As it is now there is no single concerted effort to resolve the
>>>>>>>>issues
>>>>>>>>you have simply because no one knows what has or hasn't been tried
>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>resolve the problem, and what has worked or not worked in the
>>>>>>>>effort.
>>>>>>>>I am sure that some of the networking experts are seeing your posts
>>>>>>>>all over the place but due to the scattered approach that you have
>>>>>>>>used to seek help many are probably ignoring your posts!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There is no magic solution to the kind of problem that you are
>>>>>>>>having.
>>>>>>>>Troubleshooting network problems can sometimes be complex and with
>>>>>>>>all
>>>>>>>>but the simplest network problems you usually have to follow a
>>>>>>>>series
>>>>>>>>of steps or troubleshooting measures to arrive to a successful
>>>>>>>>resolution to the problem. By keeping your request for help under
>>>>>>>>one
>>>>>>>>thread a reader may spot a tiny but vital step that has been missed
>>>>>>>>by
>>>>>>>>another poster and add a contribution to the discussion, quite often
>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>final successful resolution is obtained by a sort collaborative
>>>>>>>>effort
>>>>>>>>by many contributors. When the thread gets longer and when the
>>>>>>>>troubleshooting gets more and more difficult is often the time when
>>>>>>>>some of the experts come in to the rescue or when one of the helpers
>>>>>>>>rereads the thread and spots a crucial step that is missing or gets
>>>>>>>>the stroke of genius that solves the problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I am not saying this to be critical, I am only trying to help. Your
>>>>>>>>posts are concise and you explain the problems in a clear manner but
>>>>>>>>because of the scattered postings and lack of focus from all readers
>>>>>>>>you are sabotaging the help effort. If my answer does not solve the
>>>>>>>>problem try one last time by cross-posting to a few select groups.
>>>>>>>>Give all the pertinent information about the problem and then stick
>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>the thread!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Don J wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Right clicking a folder on my system and selecting "Sharing and
>>>>>>>>>Security" from the displayed menu yields a dialog box that has no
>>>>>>>>>"Share this folder on the network" checkbox available. Is this OK?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On the same display is the statement "As a security measure,
>>>>>>>>>Windows
>>>>>>>>>has disabled remote access to this computer. However, you can
>>>>>>>>>enable
>>>>>>>>>remote access and safely share files by running the 'Network Setup
>>>>>>>>>Wizard'". I've
>>>>>>>>>run the 'Network Setup Wizard', and it fails to establish a
>>>>>>>>>network,
>>>>>>>>>as evidenced by the fact that again selecting "Sharing and
>>>>>>>>>Security"
>>>>>>>>>yields the same screen as described above, with no changes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I'm running Win'XP Home on two machines. I have firewalls disabled
>>>>>>>>>on both machines.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I'm successfully pinging each PC one from the other.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What do I do? How do I create a network? I am trying to set it up
>>>>>>>>>so that I can share folders on one machine with another.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don J
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Windows XP >> Can't establish a network. View menu > Current View > Show all messages.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"Don J" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>I am using Outlook Express. How do I configure it not to hide messages
>that have been read?
>
> Don J
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 11:23:19 -0400, "Don J" <EMail@HideDomain.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't think we understand each other.
>>>
>>>What do you do call it, when the thread just 'Disappears' from the
>>>newsgroup. The current newsgroup seems to do it about a day after each
>>>thread starts. This is the way they make room for new threads.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is *not* correct. Threads do *not* disappear from the newsgroup
>> after a day, and there is no "making room for new threads."
>>
>> Threads and the messages within them last for several months. If you
>> are seeing threads disappear, the reason is that that's way you have
>> your *newsreader* configured. You perhaps have it set to hide read
>> messages.
>>
>>
>>
>>>It is also a time when it is necessary to start a new thread.
>>>
>>> Don J
>>>
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>"John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>>news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>> No Don, the threads are not abandoned once a day. They do eventually
>>>> expire, when they do if you click on the thread you will get a message
>>>> telling you that the the message is "Expired". I don't know exactly
>>>> how
>>>> long the Microsoft servers keep the posts before they expire but it is
>>>> several months. That is not to say that you should keep on beating a
>>>> dead
>>>> horse, if the thread is going nowhere or if it has been hijacked by
>>>> posters who have nothing of value to add to the problem at hand then
>>>> you
>>>> definitely should start a new thread.
>>>>
>>>> As a example, after I post this I will reply to one of your old threads
>>>> in
>>>> this group, lets say this one that you started on May 14th:
>>>>
>>>> Error Message when I click "Mshome".
>>>>
>>>> You will see that my post will appear as an answer to a post that you
>>>> made
>>>> almost two weeks ago, the threads are not deleted on a daily basis,
>>>> Microsoft keeps them for many months and you can keep on using the same
>>>> thread to follow up on the discussion. I see that you are using
>>>> Outlook
>>>> Express for your newsreader so you should be able to easily follow the
>>>> discussion.
>>>>
>>>> As for the issue of cross-posting vs. multi posting see here:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting
>>>>
>>>> By cross posting to a few relevant groups (instead of multi-posting)
>>>> the
>>>> answers given by any poster in any of the cross posted groups will
>>>> automatically appear in all the other groups when replies are made to
>>>> any
>>>> single post. People who subscribe to one group but not another one
>>>> will
>>>> still see the replies coming from other posters in other groups.
>>>>
>>>> For example I see that you started yet another post in a different
>>>> group
>>>> and that no one has yet answered. I will go there and post (what I
>>>> think)
>>>> is a relevant reply to the question but I will try to cross post it so
>>>> you
>>>> will see how it works. I hope the cross post works, I don't do it
>>>> often
>>>> so I may screw it up ;-)
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> Don J wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You have ignored my new point made under "Added Comment". It seems to
>>>>> me
>>>>> that by contributing to this newsgroup we are taking part in a group
>>>>> where every thread is routinely abandoned as it is, once a day,
>>>>> deleted
>>>>> by the system to automatically make way for new threads. Maybe I'm
>>>>> dense
>>>>> but isn't this a system of daily forced abandonment? What is the
>>>>> recommended way of continuing a thread when this happens?
>>>>>
>>>>> Don J
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> "John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm not sure what you mean by the thread being "terminated".
>>>>>>Terminated
>>>>>>by whom? Threads are never really terminated, they are just abandoned
>>>>>>but can be revived by anyone at any given time, so to speak. They are
>>>>>>terminated in the sense that when the issue is resolved or when no
>>>>>>amount
>>>>>>of trying fixes the problem the posters acknowledge that the issue is
>>>>>>fixed or that the problem cannot be resolved and they move on, the
>>>>>>thread
>>>>>>just becomes inactive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you feel that you are getting further ahead in your troubleshooting
>>>>>>efforts and that you prefer to start new threads with new topics to
>>>>>>resolve the problem then you should do as you see fit. It is not for
>>>>>>me
>>>>>>to tell anyone how to post, I only suggested that it was difficult to
>>>>>>follow your efforts and the suggestions made by the poster to help you
>>>>>>resolve the errors and come to a successful conclusion with the
>>>>>>network
>>>>>>problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As for the network problem, are you making any progress? Did you
>>>>>>verify
>>>>>>the registry setting to see if it is causing the problem?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Don J wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>See added comments at bottom:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is a classic example of my having started a new thread. My
>>>>>>>original posting for this thread was basically one I used to start a
>>>>>>>previous thread. The thread wasn't going anywhere. In fact the very
>>>>>>>first response ignored many of the questions I had posed, and shifted
>>>>>>>the discussion. I failed to catch it at the time and the thread took
>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>very different direction. So I decided to start a new thread and
>>>>>>>keep
>>>>>>>it in the relevant direction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The subjects covered by threads seems to evolve over time. This is
>>>>>>>very
>>>>>>>confusing and, I believe, counter productive. Is'nt it better to
>>>>>>>keep a
>>>>>>>single thread on a sigle topic? And to start a new thread for a new
>>>>>>>topic. My thinking is that each thread should be defined by the
>>>>>>>original
>>>>>>>question, and that when a new issue is raised it is good for a new
>>>>>>>thread. I think that starting a new thread for each new question
>>>>>>>will
>>>>>>>help rather than impede
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Added Comments:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I note that this paticular newsgroup is very short: My original
>>>>>>> Post of the thread is time stamped today at 10:33AM. It is now
>>>>>>> 9:00PM.
>>>>>>> The thread containing the previous post has aleady been terminated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With such a short lifespan for threads it seems to me that
>>>>>>> frequent
>>>>>>> definning of new threads has got to be more the rule than the
>>>>>>> exception. In fact I fail to see how the continuity of discussions
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> be maintained without defining each new thread somewhat before the
>>>>>>> previous thread is terminated. So if you look at the dates and
>>>>>>> times,
>>>>>>> my defining a new thread was a simple continuation of the old
>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don J
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>"Don J" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This is a classic example of my having started a new thread. My
>>>>>>>>original posting for this thread was basically one I used to start a
>>>>>>>>previous thread. The thread wasn't going anywhere. In fact the very
>>>>>>>>first response ignored many of the questions I had posed, and
>>>>>>>>shifted
>>>>>>>>the discussion. I failed to catch it at the time and the thread
>>>>>>>>took a
>>>>>>>>very different direction. So I decided to start a new thread and
>>>>>>>>keep
>>>>>>>>it in the relevant direction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The subjects covered by threads seems to evolve over time. This is
>>>>>>>>very confusing and, I believe, counter productive. Is'nt it better
>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>keep a single thread on a sigle topic? And to start a new thread
>>>>>>>>for a
>>>>>>>>new topic. My thinking is that each thread should be defined by the
>>>>>>>>original question, and that when a new issue is raised it is good
>>>>>>>>for a
>>>>>>>>new thread.
>>>>>>>>I think that starting a new thread for each new question will help
>>>>>>>>rather than impede
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don J
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>"John John" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:%23$EMail@HideDomain.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In the registry got to:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\LSA
>>>>>>>>>Value: RestrictAnonymous
>>>>>>>>>Value Type: REG_DWORD
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Set the value to 0
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/246261/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>John
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>PS. Your multi-posting to all kinds of different groups and your
>>>>>>>>>constant start of new threads is not helping in your search for an
>>>>>>>>>answer nor is it helping the troubleshooting efforts by the would
>>>>>>>>>be
>>>>>>>>>helpers in this matter! The way you have sought help with this
>>>>>>>>>problem is a classic example on how *not* to ask for help on the
>>>>>>>>>newsgroups! You would be way better served by cross-posting this to
>>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>>few relevant news groups and by *STICKING* to the thread and
>>>>>>>>>answering
>>>>>>>>>the questions asked by the helpers!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>As it is now there is no single concerted effort to resolve the
>>>>>>>>>issues
>>>>>>>>>you have simply because no one knows what has or hasn't been tried
>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>resolve the problem, and what has worked or not worked in the
>>>>>>>>>effort.
>>>>>>>>>I am sure that some of the networking experts are seeing your posts
>>>>>>>>>all over the place but due to the scattered approach that you have
>>>>>>>>>used to seek help many are probably ignoring your posts!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>There is no magic solution to the kind of problem that you are
>>>>>>>>>having.
>>>>>>>>>Troubleshooting network problems can sometimes be complex and with
>>>>>>>>>all
>>>>>>>>>but the simplest network problems you usually have to follow a
>>>>>>>>>series
>>>>>>>>>of steps or troubleshooting measures to arrive to a successful
>>>>>>>>>resolution to the problem. By keeping your request for help under
>>>>>>>>>one
>>>>>>>>>thread a reader may spot a tiny but vital step that has been missed
>>>>>>>>>by
>>>>>>>>>another poster and add a contribution to the discussion, quite
>>>>>>>>>often a
>>>>>>>>>final successful resolution is obtained by a sort collaborative
>>>>>>>>>effort
>>>>>>>>>by many contributors. When the thread gets longer and when the
>>>>>>>>>troubleshooting gets more and more difficult is often the time when
>>>>>>>>>some of the experts come in to the rescue or when one of the
>>>>>>>>>helpers
>>>>>>>>>rereads the thread and spots a crucial step that is missing or gets
>>>>>>>>>the stroke of genius that solves the problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I am not saying this to be critical, I am only trying to help.
>>>>>>>>>Your
>>>>>>>>>posts are concise and you explain the problems in a clear manner
>>>>>>>>>but
>>>>>>>>>because of the scattered postings and lack of focus from all
>>>>>>>>>readers
>>>>>>>>>you are sabotaging the help effort. If my answer does not solve
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>problem try one last time by cross-posting to a few select groups.
>>>>>>>>>Give all the pertinent information about the problem and then stick
>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>the thread!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>John
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Don J wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Right clicking a folder on my system and selecting "Sharing and
>>>>>>>>>>Security" from the displayed menu yields a dialog box that has no
>>>>>>>>>>"Share this folder on the network" checkbox available. Is this
>>>>>>>>>>OK?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On the same display is the statement "As a security measure,
>>>>>>>>>>Windows
>>>>>>>>>>has disabled remote access to this computer. However, you can
>>>>>>>>>>enable
>>>>>>>>>>remote access and safely share files by running the 'Network Setup
>>>>>>>>>>Wizard'". I've
>>>>>>>>>>run the 'Network Setup Wizard', and it fails to establish a
>>>>>>>>>>network,
>>>>>>>>>>as evidenced by the fact that again selecting "Sharing and
>>>>>>>>>>Security"
>>>>>>>>>>yields the same screen as described above, with no changes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I'm running Win'XP Home on two machines. I have firewalls
>>>>>>>>>>disabled
>>>>>>>>>>on both machines.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I'm successfully pinging each PC one from the other.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What do I do? How do I create a network? I am trying to set it
>>>>>>>>>>up
>>>>>>>>>>so that I can share folders on one machine with another.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Don J
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
>> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>
>

Windows XP >> Can't establish a network. "Don J" <EMail@HideDomain.com> wrote in message
news:EMail@HideDomain.com
> I am using Outlook Express. How do I configure it not to hide
> messages that have been read?

View
Current View
Show All Messages

--
Bill