Win98 can't connect to Win2k PC

**gutted** · December 20th, 2003, 03:13 PM

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** · December 20th, 2003, 04:42 PM

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

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** · December 20th, 2003, 06:51 PM

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** · December 20th, 2003, 09:05 PM

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** · December 21st, 2003, 05:05 AM

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** · December 21st, 2003, 09:20 AM

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** · December 21st, 2003, 09:37 AM

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** · December 21st, 2003, 04:49 PM

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** · December 21st, 2003, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by gutted

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.

**Matridom** · December 21st, 2003, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by TripleRLtd

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** · December 21st, 2003, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by Matridom

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.

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** · December 21st, 2003, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by TripleRLtd

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.

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** · December 21st, 2003, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by Matridom

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...roduct=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.

**Mayet** · December 21st, 2003, 10:25 PM

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...

**TripleRLtd** · December 21st, 2003, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by 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...

Um, did I say anything otherwise???

Did you actually read what I posted???
Did anyone doubt anyone's expertise????