Win98 can't connect to Win2k PC

[gutted]

When I browse "My Network Places", I can see both mine and my girlfriends PC - same for my girlfriend when she browses "Network Neighbourhood".

The problem is that while I can connect to her PC, she can't connect to mine. When she tries, she gets a "Workgroup" messagebox which says "The network is busy". (?!)

2 pcs. Mine is running Win2ksp2, My girlfriends is running Win98se (I know, I know). We are sharing a cable broadband connection using a wired Belkin router, and our IP addresses are DHCP assigned (from the router). We both have valid IP addresses within the range specified in router control panel. We're using TCP/IP. The connection speed is reported as 100Mbps. Both network cards support this speed (mine is an old Intel card and I bought a new Linksys card for my girlfriend's PC earlier today). Duplex mode is set to auto-detect on both cards.

We are both members of the same workgroup (called "workgroup"). There is no network name as such - I initially set one up through the router, but have now turned it off to try and overcome this prob. The Win98 machine has got File and Print Sharing enabled, and primary logon is via "Client for MS Networks". My PC has the "File & Print Sharing" installed.

We originally both had firewall software, but this is now disabled - the router takes care of that. I recently re-started a few Win2k services, and now the PCs can actually see each other (they couldn't until quite recently). Which services need to be running for home networking?

Various ipconfig /renew and winipcfg /renew and various reboots haven't sorted it.

I'm stumped :-( Anyone got any ideas?

[gutted]

Ok - so it turns out that we *can* connect for network gaming. That's a plus, at least :D

The only thing that isn't possible yet (or so it seems) is for me to share files for my girlfriend to access.

How annoying.

[NooNoo]

does the 98 machine have a login and password on the 2k machine?

To be able to use the 2k machine, there must be a user account on the 2k machine to match the 98 machine.

[gutted]

Hi NooNoo - thanks for your reply.

I've just created a user account, plus granted access to the share in both "Security" and "Permissions". Also granted the user "Access this computer from the network". Still nothing as yet though...

Still getting this bizarre error - "The network is busy".

I don't think I need to reboot for that to become effective, but I'll give it a try anyway. Any other ideas?

Cheers,
Dan.

[NooNoo]

Do you have any other protocols installed? If so, remove them on both machines.

This is normally a collision error.... what router do you have?

[gutted]

Just checked - but no, we only have TCP/IP installed. On mine I have both "Client for MS network" and "MS File and Print sharing" and on Nadine's PC there's "Cleint for MS networks", "MS File and Print", "Windows Family logon" and then the NIC and associated TCP/IP protocol.

I was checking MS KB last night - it's not all that helpful It says the problm can be just about anything!

I set both NICs down to half duplex, but no improvement. I'll try going down to 10baseT to see if that helps.

We've got a Belkin router - "4-Port Cable/DSL Ethernet Router". It's pretty much the only one I could find in "PC World" - not very expensive...

[Matridom]

Make sure the primary logon on the 98 box is set to "Microsoft Networks logon" (or the equivilant, can't remember the exact name off hand)

When the system boots up after that change, you should get a user/pass screen. you MUST specify a username WITH a password, the password cannot be null. Once this is done, create a user account on the 2k box to match and you should be fine.

[gutted]

Thanks Matridom. I tried your suggestion of having a non-null password. No immediate effect... I also set the NIC properties to 10baseT (half duplex) on my girlfriend's PC. This made some sort of difference. Now I sometimes get a logon prompt asking for a password for the IPC$ share, while other times I get the "network is busy" error. I've just turned down my NIC to 10baseT (half duplex) and will try again.

Progress - of a sort...

If it turns out to be the NICs that can't handle 100baseT nor full duplex, I'll be most upset. Similarly if it turns out that the router isn't really 10/100 (with emphasis on the 100) I'll be a bit annoyed....

Anyway - still not there yet, but thanks for the suggestions so far...

[TripleRLtd]

This made some sort of difference. Now I sometimes get a logon prompt asking for a password for the IPC$ share, while other times I get the "network is busy" error. ...Ah, a clue!!!
Are you sure you gave the drive or folder and actual share name with permissions established?
On the 2k PC right click a drive in My Computer and choose sharing.
You will probably see "default share), which is IPC$Share.At the bottom of the window click on "New Share" and name it and establish permissions for the account you created.
http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[Matridom]

Ah, a clue!!!
Are you sure you gave the drive or folder and actual share name with permissions established?
On the 2k PC right click a drive in My Computer and choose sharing.
You will probably see "default share), which is IPC$Share.At the bottom of the window click on "New Share" and name it and establish permissions for the account you created.

IPC$ is not a default share, only a hiden share, should have no effect on the problem at hand tripler. When creating an account on the 2k system, the account is a "user" and will have access to all shares that have not had permissions changed. Besides, if this was the case, the error would be "Access denied"

Gutted, can your computers ping each other without difficulties?

Do any of the systems run a firewall on the computer itself? (not counting the router firewall)

[TripleRLtd]

IPC$ is not a default share, only a hiden share, should have no effect on the problem at hand tripler. When creating an account on the 2k system, the account is a "user" and will have access to all shares that have not had permissions changed. Besides, if this was the case, the error would be "Access denied"

Gutted, can your computers ping each other without difficulties?

Do any of the systems run a firewall on the computer itself? (not counting the router firewall)Exactly what I am thinking: a hidden share with no Permissions established!
When the share is a hidden share like that, one needs to create a New share with Valid permissons.
Permissions have not been changed, since they have yet to be established, right?
Why else would he finally get asked for a password to access a hidden/default share.
Yes, "Access Denied" would appear, if it didn't time out first.
So, we may be looking at multiple problems, but at least now we have more info and seem to be on the right track.http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
PS
If he can game and get online, I think he can ping.
This is a Win2k security issue: permissions and shares, don't you think?

[Matridom]

Exactly what I am thinking: a hidden share with no Permissions established!
When the share is a hidden share like that, one needs to create a New share with Valid permissons.
Permissions have not been changed, since they have yet to be established, right?
Why else would he finally get asked for a password to access a hidden/default share.
Yes, "Access Denied" would appear, if it didn't time out first.
So, we may be looking at multiple problems, but at least now we have more info and seem to be on the right track.http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
PS
If he can game and get online, I think he can ping.
This is a Win2k security issue: permissions and shares, don't you think?

I've re read this 5 times now and makes no sense

1.The fact that the share is hidden or not has NO difference on it's access permissions. None what so ever.. so i'm not sure what your driving at here. The ONLY thing that makes it hiding is the $ on the end, nothing else. That is NOT the issue in this case.

2. I clearly stated it's not a built in default share... Shares created, automaticly have the permissions set so that local users can gain access.. so yet again, i don't know what your driving at here.

Edit: you will also note that my questions to gutted reflect a possible problem with the connection and NOT a permissions issue.. Why are you arguing a point that does not seem relevant?

[TripleRLtd]

I've re read this 5 times now and makes no sense

1.The fact that the share is hidden or not has NO difference on it's access permissions. None what so ever.. so i'm not sure what your driving at here. The ONLY thing that makes it hiding is the $ on the end, nothing else. That is NOT the issue in this case.

2. I clearly stated it's not a built in default share... Shares created, automaticly have the permissions set so that local users can gain access.. so yet again, i don't know what your driving at here.

Edit: you will also note that my questions to gutted reflect a possible problem with the connection and NOT a permissions issue.. Why are you arguing a point that does not seem relevant?From: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;100517&Product=win2000

Windows NT maintains default administrative shares that cannot be removed permanently. These shares are created for the Windows NT root directory where the system files are kept and for the root of each hard drive partition.The shares have a dollar sign ($) suffix, are invisible to network browsing, and are only accessible to accounts with Administrator, Backup Operator, or Server Oerator privileges on the particular machine.

Does that not mean something?
Anything with a dollar sign was NOT created by the enduser!!!
Plus, I am not arguing, I am trying to help solve a problem for gutted.
We finally got something of a clue.
So lets go with it.
Until we here from him we don't know if this has anything to do with it, does it? So why argue amongst ourselves (except for pure pleasure, of course).
And, I thing there are other issues as well, like you state, with the connection.
Irrelevant?
Nothing in PC troubleshooting is irrelevant.
Especially when we can't be in front of the PC's ourselves.http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[Mayet]

Umm Triple....PC Troubleshooting is one thing.......Network troubleshooting is a completely different field......and you know...I think Matridom is well qualified for teh latter......as well as the former...


:thumbs:

[TripleRLtd]

Umm Triple....PC Troubleshooting is one thing.......Network troubleshooting is a completely different field......and you know...I think Matridom is well qualified for teh latter......as well as the former...


:thumbs:Um, did I say anything otherwise???http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Did you actually read what I posted???
Did anyone doubt anyone's expertise????http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[NooNoo]

Gutted, the issue at hand is definitely due to something "stopping" the network communicating. The network busy error is very common on older hubs where collision management was absent.


I hope you do not get confused with various techs debating your problem, we will get to the bottom of it.

The fact that you are getting through to the default hidden shares means that occasionally the collision or "blockage" is not happening - that is the good news!

So what we need to do is test the connectivity between the 2 machines and the router. Tools provided with windows such as "ping computer ip -t" (without the quotes will constantly ping the other machine, you can leave this going while you test things like the cable, by replacing it with a known good and/or check and change settings.

If you would be good enough to set up the 98 machine to ping the other and then do this first test of changing the network cable we can go from there.

[Matridom]

Does that not mean something?
Anything with a dollar sign was NOT created by the enduser!!!
Plus, I am not arguing, I am trying to help solve a problem for gutted.
We finally got something of a clue.
So lets go with it.
Until we here from him we don't know if this has anything to do with it, does it? So why argue amongst ourselves (except for pure pleasure, of course).
And, I thing there are other issues as well, like you state, with the connection.
Irrelevant?
Nothing in PC troubleshooting is irrelevant.
Especially when we can't be in front of the PC's ourselves.http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Ok, Anything with a $ sign is NOT created by the user?!? What about the 3 folders on my FTP site that I CREATED with the $ to hide it? What about the numerous folder shares on my internal network I created with a $?!? Those are all Pre-created?!? I think not.

Secondly, The error message does NOT indicate that it's a permissions issue (as i've stated many times before), but a connectivity issue. Browsing the network would hide the share, giving the error that there are no shares available, NOT a network busy error. Get your facts straight.

Thirdly, I stated in my posts that it might be a connectivity issue, you tossed that off as "If he can game and get online, I think he can ping." Speaking from experience, i know better. Ping uses ICMP packets for connectivity tests, gaming usualy uses UDP, seperate sections of the TCP/IP stack. Network shares use netbios over TCP/IP, yet another section. The ping is being done for 2 reasons. 1. to make sure another aspect of the stack is working correctly, investigating a possible bad stack. 2. Make sure there are no firewalls on EITHER system or any other software blocking the connection.

Wich brings me to another point. You, like many other people probably run a firewall, allowing for HTTP, FTP and other traffic to flow through it, yet blocking ICMP, hence that statement "If he can game and get online, I think he can ping." is in no way accurate to any degree.

[TripleRLtd]

Ok, Anything with a $ sign is NOT created by the user?!? The ping is being done for 2 reasons. 1. to make sure another aspect of the stack is working correctly, investigating a possible bad stack. 2. Make sure there are no firewalls on EITHER system or any other software blocking the connection.

Wich brings me to another point. You, like many other people probably run a firewall, allowing for HTTP, FTP and other traffic to flow through it, yet blocking ICMP, hence that statement "If he can game and get online, I think he can ping." is in no way accurate to any degree.Thanks for the lesson Mat.
Now back to my original responce:
Ah, a clue!!!
Are you sure you gave the drive or folder and actual share name with permissions established?
On the 2k PC right click a drive in My Computer and choose sharing.
You will probably see "default share), which is IPC$Share.At the bottom of the window click on "New Share" and name it and establish permissions for the account you created.
Of course you can create your own hidden shares.
That, as you say, is the purpose of the $.
Gutted's ability to finally see this default/hidden share named IPC$ (unless of course he himself named the share on the 2k machine this..yeah right), gave a real clue to the possible problem.
He has indicated that he already rebuilt the stack and disabled the firewall, and this is a fairly new Belkin router not an old hub.
So, make this real clue meaningless if you so choose.
It looks like the only thing he hasn't done is actually swap cables, as NooNoo suggests he try, swapping out the cards, which may or may not help.
Honest, he seems to be able to do everything which a working network should allow him to do: internet access and gaming, and probably pinging.
Everything, that is, except one 98 workgroup pc accessing files on the 2k machine.
So, let us wait until he gets back to us, huh?

[Matridom]

Thanks for the lesson Mat.
Now back to my original responce:
Of course you can create your own hidden shares.
That, as you say, is the purpose of the $.
Gutted's ability to finally see this default/hidden share named IPC$ (unless of course he himself named the share on the 2k machine this..yeah right), gave a real clue to the possible problem.
He has indicated that he already rebuilt the stack and disabled the firewall, and this is a fairly new Belkin router not an old hub.
So, make this real clue meaningless if you so choose.
It looks like the only thing he hasn't done is actually swap cables, as NooNoo suggests he try, swapping out the cards, which may or may not help.
Honest, he seems to be able to do everything which a working network should allow him to do: internet access and gaming, and probably pinging.
Everything, that is, except one 98 workgroup pc accessing files on the 2k machine.
So, let us wait until he gets back to us, huh?

(unless of course he himself named the share on the 2k machine this..yeah right)
What's with that? you assume much here. Seems to me like you don't believe this person is smart enough to do this?

[gutted]

To answer some questions -

(a) both machines can ping each other, on IP and also on machine name. Response comes back immediately (no detectable lag).

(b) no firewall software on the PCs anymore.

(c) As for the IPC$ share, my personal understanding (take it orleave it) is that it is a default Win2k share but is not really a "share" as such. By default there IS a share on each hard-drive (MS call it an "Admin share"). There is a reg hack to disable the default Admin Share - i disabled it soon after I installed Win2k. (I've previously been networked at my old house like this - all Win2k machines - no problems).

I've no idea what the IPC$ share is for, but if my understanding is correct then there is no actual password as such - it shouldn't actually be accessible by users. Maybe am wrong though. I think it's a step forward though, since at least it means that Win98 can see my PC... Got to be a bonus...

So then. Ping works fine on machine name and IP. Gaming works fine. I can do the ping thing if you like, NooNoo? Given this info, do you think it will help? Your call...

For the record I've now set both NICs to be 10baseT and half duplex. There is some more progress, and also a step back. Firstly, I cannot see the "gutted" from my girlfriend's PC anymore (grrrr) BUT!! If I go through Start>Run>"//gutted/shared" I now *SOMETIMES* get prompted for a password for the share. I get asked for a password for the actual share I created - which is great. There is no actuall password on the share, which is not so greate - and my girlfriend's password doesn't let me in. First time I got "password incorrect" second time I got "An extended error has occured". Few a few moments after that, I get error "The network name cannot be found". Then I try again and get a password prompt.

I tried my Administrator password, but it still says "Incorrect password". Not sure which other passwords to try, or even if the problem really *is* related to passwords.

Looks like this is something to do with the NICs or router not being able to handle full duplex at 100baseT.

Summary:

both NICs at 10baseT
Now I occasionally get a password prompt (although it doesn't accept good passwords), "network name cannot be found" or "extended error has occured" - I've not seen "network is busy" since changing NIC settings.

The joys of networking :D

Thanks again, though, for all the help so far. Very mcuh appreciated!

Dan.

[gutted]

Ok. More info.

After a few minutes, now I can see my machine in "Network Neighbourhood" from Win98. If I double-click, I get asked for the IPC$ share password again. If I keep trying, I am now seeing the "network is busy" error again. AND YET from Win98-DOS (Start>Run>//gutted/shared), I still get prompted for password for the share I created.

WTF?!

Ok. Time to create a new share. I have a theory. The share is called "shared" although the actual folder is called "My Shared Folder". I'll try creating a new folder (with no spaces and less than 8 chars) and then sharing that to see if I fare any better....

Maybe I should just use a cross-over cable :D Come to think of it - I actually have a cross-over cable. That would be a good way to remove the router from the equation.... Hmmmm.... I'll report back...

[Matridom]

Ok. More info.

After a few minutes, now I can see my machine in "Network Neighbourhood" from Win98. If I double-click, I get asked for the IPC$ share password again. If I keep trying, I am now seeing the "network is busy" error again. AND YET from Win98-DOS (Start>Run>//gutted/shared), I still get prompted for password for the share I created.

WTF?!

Ok. Time to create a new share. I have a theory. The share is called "shared" although the actual folder is called "My Shared Folder". I'll try creating a new folder (with no spaces and less than 8 chars) and then sharing that to see if I fare any better....

Maybe I should just use a cross-over cable :D Come to think of it - I actually have a cross-over cable. That would be a good way to remove the router from the equation.... Hmmmm.... I'll report back...

If it's prompting you for the user/pass it means that the user account you created is not setup correctly, but it's progress of sorts. Re Follow my instructions on how to create the user accounts, make sure case matches. I've never liked pre created shares, i had thought that you made this share your self.

[gutted]

I created a new folder and called it "My Shared Folder". I'm a bit sad when it comes to conventions. I've got loads of folders in "My Documents" called "My Music", "My Resources", "My Downloads" etc etc.

But regards username, I've specified username as "<first name> <last name>" with a space in the middle. I'll try just "<first name>" with no spaces. I'll also try creating a new folder called simply "share" or something - no spaces.

Definitely getting close though. I can almost taste it :D

(Just got back from collecting my girlfriend from work - will try cross-over cable in a bit, too).

[gutted]

Ok. So I can't get it working with a cross-over cable either, after shifting PCs around and setting both IP to fixed. It's a pain in the ar$e that you need to reboot Win98 every time you make even the smallest network config change!! I'm getting angry with it now - tempted to just give up!!

With cross-over cable, I get exactly the same symptoms. Either "network is busy", a password request for IPC$ share, a password prompt for the correct share (which does not accept any password, including Admin), or "An extended error has occured.

While using cross-over, I created a new folder called "shared", then shared it and gave everyone full control in botn permissions and security tabs. I also changed the user name from "<first name> <last name>" to just "<first name>" (no spaces). I reset password to verify that it was same as the Win98 logon, and the logged on to Win98 with that account.

I'm mightily annoyed! I've set everything back to default settings on both cards again (100baseT, full duplex).

I'm failry sure the router *isn't* the problem anymore. That leaves either my NIC, my girlfriend's NIC, or a Win98 config prob, or a Win2k config prob.

Win2k can still connect fine to Win98 - it's just the other way round that doesn't work.

Ping is still great both on IP and machine name from both PCs.

Any ideas left to try...?

[Matridom]

Ok. So I can't get it working with a cross-over cable either, after shifting PCs around and setting both IP to fixed. It's a pain in the ar$e that you need to reboot Win98 every time you make even the smallest network config change!! I'm getting angry with it now - tempted to just give up!!

With cross-over cable, I get exactly the same symptoms. Either "network is busy", a password request for IPC$ share, a password prompt for the correct share (which does not accept any password, including Admin), or "An extended error has occured.

While using cross-over, I created a new folder called "shared", then shared it and gave everyone full control in botn permissions and security tabs. I also changed the user name from "<first name> <last name>" to just "<first name>" (no spaces). I reset password to verify that it was same as the Win98 logon, and the logged on to Win98 with that account.

I'm mightily annoyed! I've set everything back to default settings on both cards again (100baseT, full duplex).

I'm failry sure the router *isn't* the problem anymore. That leaves either my NIC, my girlfriend's NIC, or a Win98 config prob, or a Win2k config prob.

Win2k can still connect fine to Win98 - it's just the other way round that doesn't work.

Ping is still great both on IP and machine name from both PCs.

Any ideas left to try...?

It's a lot of work to do fully, but you can redo your TCP/IP stack. STart with removing tcp/ip, reboot, install tcp/ip, reboot again. that may resolve the issue, If not, I have the link at home for a full netwroking reload for 98 i can link to later

[NooNoo]

I smell corrupt profile....

Have you ever had linux on either machine?

[NooNoo]

omg check the time on both machines and the dates (http://www.jsiinc.com/SUBM/tip6300/rh6382.htm) Make sure the bios agrees.

[gutted]

...but no resolution. Omn my PC, I can set the time to a remote server on the 'net somewhere. (I didn't know that - that is quality :D). So I set mine up, but Win98 won't let me do the same - you can only set the time with a server on the same workgroup - I tried setting to IP of a remote server, but it couldn't connect (even though ping was fine). I tried setting Win98 to use my PC as the time server, but it couldn't connect to my PC :angry: Similar error message - "Error 54 - the network resource is busy, try again later" (or something like that).

The times were out by a few minutes, so I set them as close as possible. The BIOS are now under a second apart, same as the Windows clock.

I never knew about SNTP before though - cheers for that :D

[gutted]

Matridom - next on the list is to uninstall/reinstall the TCP/IP stack. Shouldn't take all that long - I will have to contend with about a hundred Win98 reboots, but that is par for the course (until I can upgrade girlfriend to Win2k or XP...)

But in the meantime, I'd be interested in any info on a Win98 networking reinstall... If you can find the info, send me a link if poss. Or PM me for me email addy?

Thanks for all suggestsion so far. Even though it's truning into a pain in the ar$e, it's good to know that there are people around to help out ;)

[Matridom]

Matridom - next on the list is to uninstall/reinstall the TCP/IP stack. Shouldn't take all that long - I will have to contend with about a hundred Win98 reboots, but that is par for the course (until I can upgrade girlfriend to Win2k or XP...)

But in the meantime, I'd be interested in any info on a Win98 networking reinstall... If you can find the info, send me a link if poss. Or PM me for me email addy?

Thanks for all suggestsion so far. Even though it's truning into a pain in the ar$e, it's good to know that there are people around to help out ;)

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=http://support.microsoft.com:80/support/kb/articles/q181/5/99.asp&NoWebContent=1

[dddwarp]

How are connecting to the share? Are connecting through network neighborhood or through mapping a drive. I think we need to determine if it is a network or system issue. The best way I like to troubleshoot that is to map a network drive using just the IP and not the system's name. Use \\ip address\share name. If it connects directly, then it is a problem with how the network resources are being broadcasted or with a system (I do not think it is with system if you can ping it). After connected, transfer a large file. If it takes to much time (remember, you should be 100mb trasnfer rate), then it could be a problem with the duplex or speed. Remember, Win2k uses TCP/IP and not NetBioous. :p Have Fun!

[gutted]

Happy Christmas everyone!

Quick update on the networking thing. The quick version: still nothing :( The extended version:

(a) tried a complete uninstall/reinstall of the Win98 networking components (thanks for the tip, Matridom - very useful link!) unfortunately there was no change.
(b) tried mapping a network drive via IP address, but get same problem as before ("network is busy" message)

Thought I had a breakthrough at one point - since I installed the NIC, the PC has been playing up quite badly - it's been amazingly slow, plus has locked up a couple of times. Turns out that the NIC was trying to share an IRQ with the PS/2 mouse!! I thought resolving this would *surely* solve the "network is busy". But no. After removing a PCI modem and disabling a COM port to free up a couple of IRQs, I've now got the mouse working properly again and PC no longer acts strangely.....

But still no network connection to my Win2k pc.

I think maybe there is some sort of über-security on my Win2k machine. I can sometimes get a bit paranoid about spyware and securty and stuff. I'm sure I've set extra encryption on LM passwords or something - I'll try and work out what I did and undo it.

Anyway. Back to the festivities! Happy Christmas all!!

[NooNoo]

Change the nic on the win98 machine.

[3D Prophet III]

This is peer to peer networking no? which I think still requires the NetBEUI protocol. I know it's not routable but if the 2 machines are on the same subnet the router is just being used for NAT. If the first 3 octets of the IP addresses are the same on both machines, try installing NetBEUI.

[NooNoo]

Peer to peer works just as well under tcp. Netbeui may work, you will have to find it on the xp cd and install it. It is not offered as part of the standard networking under XP, however it is on 98. Netbeui is not routable.

[gutted]

Changing the NIC sounds like it might be a good way forward. I still have a few days off before I gotta go back to work, so I'll look into getting either a new NIC for Win2k (to match the one in Win98) or try and find a better quality NIC to put into the Win98 pc.

I'll give NetBUEI a try I guess. Technically speaking, for such a small network (e.g. 2 pcs) I guess NetBEUI is actually better than TCP/IP....

But it will wait till I get back from the in-laws...

Cheers again everyone. Happy New Year!!

Dan.

[gutted]

Just found some very cool stuff. Others may find it interesting, too:

http://snakefoot.fateback.com/tweak/win9x/network.html