Achilles heel of ALL WINDOWS (inc W7)

[jimbo45]

Hi all
Whilst I find W7 the best Microsoft desktop OS so far (although W2K3 server and Windows 2000 both were pretty good) the whole issue of Networking still seems to be highly hit and miss.

I've been using a Linux server way back for "Donkeys years" and have NEVER had any major problem to get networking and file shares to work FIRST TIME, EVERY TIME.

You just define the shares in SAMBA, password protect them if you want and it's up and running.

Trying to get a Network with W7 and XP machines just seems to be a nightmare -- sometimes the machines see each other, sometimes they don't and it's totally random. Password protecting shares also seems to be a very "hit and miss" affair and often whilst you get unable to access \\xpmachine\sharedirectory messages you can still connect directly via "Connect network drive" if you know the share name (which you don't always in a large network and the Browse facility doesn't work either.)

The idea now in W7 of "Homegroups" just makes a bad idea even worse -- as for starters you can only have W7 machines in the mix.

PLEASE MICROSOFT RE-WRITE the whole networking cludge -- I've been using computers for a LONG time and still have problems from time to time getting everything to share correctly.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Captain Zero]

Agreed. Would love to see the core re-written, but I don't imagine the NT4 kernal would be much fun to code.

Although the new 'homegroup' over IPV6 was dreadfully easy to set up, once you're in, you're in. Right-click a file and add it to the library and it's there. Much the same way SAMBA works, really.

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there
Homegroup is no good for XP computers (or even VISTA) ones on the network. W7 only.

Perhaps someone should write "SAMBA FOR WINDOWS"

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Jacee]

Supposedly it works the same as Vista with XP (sharing on a network)
File and Printer Sharing in Windows Vista

 

[torrentg]

My luck has been the opposite. I haven't run into any problems in all the builds serving and browsing from and to all OS in my sig. When I want to share a folder or drive, I allow permission to everyone. Also, I name the share with a $ at the end so it is hidden on the network. And I use static ips, no dhcp. I also disable the DNS Client and IP Helper services along with IPv6. I do not use simple file sharing.

Then I go to map a network drive by \\ip address\sharename$. It asks for the user/pass. I supply it for the remote machine, check the box to remember it and never have to think about it again.

I use NetBeui instead of default Netbios for better efficiency and speed (I get close to 11 MB/s between machines on 100 Mbps router) but that shouldn't affect anything.

 

[Digger]

My luck has been the opposite. I haven't run into any problems in all the builds serving and browsing from and to all OS in my sig. When I want to share a folder or drive, I allow permission to everyone. Also, I name the share with a $ at the end so it is hidden on the network. And I use static ips, no dhcp. I also disable the DNS Client and IP Helper services along with IPv6. I do not use simple file sharing.

Then I go to map a network drive by \\ip address\sharename$. It asks for the user/pass. I supply it for the remote machine, check the box to remember it and never have to think about it again.

I use NetBeui instead of default Netbios for better efficiency and speed (I get close to 11 MB/s between machines on 100 Mbps router) but that shouldn't affect anything.

I havent ran into "sharing problems" as far as getting things shared and "seen" over the "hybrid" network. What my complaint is the lack of administration over files/folders on homegroup, else i still see this feature as a failure, and its just the same ole way of sharing if you want more control over the shared folders specific content. I cant restrict a folder from a HG user while allowing access to others on same HG. Just because they are trusted, doesnt mean i want them to have axx to everything. If thats the perception, why not share the whole C: or "my computer" with the HG if everyone is "trusted on the network". Why, because it would be ignorant. just the same as to share the "Users" folder, instead of the desired shared specific HG library of that Username.

Your way works, of course, torrentG... but, that isnt the "MS user friendly way" that they are trying to shoot for... and have failed in this dealing with security permissions allowing "Everyone" to see Everything if/when shared with HG. If you do a true clean install (no transfer wiz) and never join a HG, that "Users" folder doesnt get shared of course. Why on earth do i need to have my "AppData" folder shared with the network??

lastly, for your speed with netbeui... I see the same speed using netbios. Its been ages since i have relied on the netbeui or IPX protocols to handle things. Not since win98 and early early XP days. I also hear that ppl see faster transfers over the network, while using the MC or extender, when UPnP is enabled. I fail to see this either. I know you didnt state that, just wanted to throw that out as well for others that may read.

I actually see constant speed of 22-24, sometimes short steady peaks around 30, with a usual average of say 18-22 there or abouts on heavy loads / big files. This was/is either from pc to pc wired, pc to network storage, pc to extender, pc to laptop.

But i think you mean Mb instead of MB... 11MB = 88mbps .... if I'm wrong here.. i'd sure like to know more about your setup, you must have some rocket wiring around that place. Highest i've seen, or atleast remember (take with grain of salt, lol) was around the mid 40's mbps. And that was back with a good XP network setup. If you get 80+% utilization of that 100mbps router, please let me know your secret

 

[copernicus]

11 megs a second is more than doable on a regular 100 network.

Just did it the other day, coulda gone faster but my nic card hates it's gigabit mode. =(

 

[torrentg]

Ya. The 11 MB/s is meant as megabytes. This is between two normal wired 100 Mbps connections to a DI-624 router. I don't do anything special other than what I've already said.

My router = [ame="http://www.amazon.com/D-Link-DI-624-Wireless-802-11g-108Mbps/dp/B00007LTBA"]Amazon.com: D-Link DI-624 Wireless Cable/DSL Router, 4-Port Switch, 802.11g, 108Mbps: Electronics[/ame]

Then that router is connected to my dsl router by 10 Mbps connection. I have like an internal network separate and secure, apart from my provider and "outside" network. This is THE way to run. For more info, here is a basic read filled with some good information : http://www.grc.com/nat/nat.htm

I hear ya about the homegroups and the permissions stuff. I understand how M$ is trying to make it simpler for everyone, but the users like us that have tried and true methods really do not need to rely on it.

When I am transferring between computers, I fire up the task manager and it shows 95 to 100 percent network utilization...which is basically the full 100 Mbps which transfers to around 11 MB/sec or so real usage shown in transfer box, when all is said and done.

lol I even have the cheapest CAT 5 wiring I could find at the time.

 

[Digger]

well i understand if gigabit router/adapter....

but now i'm P.O'd... granted currently i only have the wireless lap and wired extender to test this currently... i still ... hmmm...

Maybe i'll put the DI on the Headend... even tho i consider it inferior to the broadcom/firmware... only because of limited firmware admin capabilities/options.... this which i have considered once i finish the new addition to the network here.

If i got 11MB, i would actually use my network storage a heck of a lot more than i have been lately. I would, from memory again some 4 mos ago, i was peaking in the 4MB range. Ii only get 11MB or so while on usb 2.0 transfers locally from sata II drive. Now ya gonna make me fire up netbeui and see for myself. I may find out that i have more issues here than just a protocol.

Could be that i'm just confusing myself with the back and forth XP-win7 Mb-MB calculations in my head.

But from the wireless lap i see max peak of 23mbps... which to me is has been quite normal if not sufficient for wirless lan transfer. I could theorectically still stream a BD from it to here... with maybe a hiccup or two, fixed with a nice buffer. Definitely aim to investigate.

 

[copernicus]

My gigabit setup gets me 20-30 MB/sec(average) off my ReadyNAS. =P

 

[Digger]

My gigabit setup gets me 20-30 MB/sec(average) off my ReadyNAS. =P

shouldnt you get more than that?!? :shock:

on gigabit? I would expect more... depending on the drive specs of course

 

[Digger]

I think i know my problem of course, and thats the drivers... if i do not run this controller under auto-nego, i have had all kinds of connection problems in the past when fussing with different drivers. I may dig back into this area again, i just have to make sure enough aspirin is in the cabinet

 

[torrentg]

Here is a .zip with the Netbeui files for anyone interested. All you need to do is place the .inf in Windows\inf and the .sys in Windows\system32\drivers.

http://rapidshare.com/files/240435336/Netbeui_Files.zip.html

Then disable Netbios in the ip settings screen for the adapter and then add the protocol as per screenshot. Do this for each machine on the network. A plus is that it is also more secure.

 

[copernicus]

shouldnt you get more than that?!? :shock:

on gigabit? I would expect more... depending on the drive specs of course

I did too at first, there's some technical reason for it. I know if I move over to jumbro frames I can get closer to 30-40.