Sharing between XP & Win7: workgroups vs. homegroups?

Okay basic question here, are what were known as "workgroups" in XP and
earlier, now known as "homegroups" in Vista and later?

Why do you need to set passwords when creating a homegroup, when there
was none needed with workgroups? If you want to connect to an XP machine
with workgroups, do you need to disable or enable homegroups? Will a
password-enabled homegroup work with a non-passworded workgroup?

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan <> wrote in news:4b80766f$-
lp.com:

> Okay basic question here, are what were known as "workgroups" in XP and
> earlier, now known as "homegroups" in Vista and later?
>
> Why do you need to set passwords when creating a homegroup, when there
> was none needed with workgroups? If you want to connect to an XP machine
> with workgroups, do you need to disable or enable homegroups? Will a
> password-enabled homegroup work with a non-passworded workgroup?
>
> Yousuf Khan
>

Connecting to an XP machine with Win7 is the same as always. And sharing
files on a Win7 machine is the same as always. I don't even know what a
"homegroup" is, and didn't need to know to share files between Win7 and XP.
For that matter, I ignored the Microsoft definition of "workgroups" as
well. If I want to connect to a machine, I always do it via its ip address,
and could not care less what "workgroup" or "homegroup" it is a member of.

YMMV - doing it this way may not be desirable for you.

Edit: OK, so I looked up the definition of "homegroup". And my reaction was
yippee freakin' doo....it does not change how I do things.

Look here:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...homegroup.aspx

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 22:48:20 -0600, Zootal
<> wrote:

>Connecting to an XP machine with Win7 is the same as always. And sharing
>files on a Win7 machine is the same as always. I don't even know what a
>"homegroup" is, and didn't need to know to share files between Win7 and XP.
>For that matter, I ignored the Microsoft definition of "workgroups" as
>well. If I want to connect to a machine, I always do it via its ip address,
>and could not care less what "workgroup" or "homegroup" it is a member of.
>
>YMMV - doing it this way may not be desirable for you.

Same here, I use IP's and ignore workgroup names, but that works for
me because all of the IP's on my network are statically assigned.
People who use DHCP might have some issues with your and my approach.

On 2/21/2010 12:13 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 22:48:20 -0600, Zootal
> <> wrote:
>
>> Connecting to an XP machine with Win7 is the same as always. And sharing
>> files on a Win7 machine is the same as always. I don't even know what a
>> "homegroup" is, and didn't need to know to share files between Win7 and XP.
>> For that matter, I ignored the Microsoft definition of "workgroups" as
>> well. If I want to connect to a machine, I always do it via its ip address,
>> and could not care less what "workgroup" or "homegroup" it is a member of.
>>
>> YMMV - doing it this way may not be desirable for you.
>
> Same here, I use IP's and ignore workgroup names, but that works for
> me because all of the IP's on my network are statically assigned.
> People who use DHCP might have some issues with your and my approach.

I use a program called Network Magic from Cisco
(http://www.purenetworks.com/). It makes setting up a home network
super easy for those who are technically challenged.

--

Roy Smith
Windows 7 Home Premium

Timestamp: Sunday, February 21, 2010 5:31:18 AM

"HomeGroup" is only for Windows 7 computers (it doesn't exist on Vista
or earlier systems). It is used to connect Windows 7 computers to each
other to share document and media libraries.

It has no relevance to your networking of Windows 7 with Vista or XP.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/w...ures/homegroup

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/0...group-overview

--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
A+
http://dts-l.net/


"Yousuf Khan" <> wrote in message
news:4b80766f$...
> Okay basic question here, are what were known as "workgroups" in XP
> and earlier, now known as "homegroups" in Vista and later?
>
> Why do you need to set passwords when creating a homegroup, when there
> was none needed with workgroups? If you want to connect to an XP
> machine with workgroups, do you need to disable or enable homegroups?
> Will a password-enabled homegroup work with a non-passworded
> workgroup?
>
> Yousuf Khan

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:55:27 -0500, Yousuf Khan
<> wrote:

> Okay basic question here, are what were known as "workgroups" in XP and
> earlier, now known as "homegroups" in Vista and later?


No.

First of all, homegroups are in Windows 7, not in Vista.

Second, homegroups and workgroups are somewhat different, and in
Windows 7, you can use either.



> Why do you need to set passwords when creating a homegroup, when there
> was none needed with workgroups? If you want to connect to an XP machine
> with workgroups, do you need to disable or enable homegroups? Will a
> password-enabled homegroup work with a non-passworded workgroup?
>
> Yousuf Khan

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Char Jackson <> wrote in
news::

> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 22:48:20 -0600, Zootal
> <> wrote:
>
>>Connecting to an XP machine with Win7 is the same as always. And
>>sharing files on a Win7 machine is the same as always. I don't even
>>know what a "homegroup" is, and didn't need to know to share files
>>between Win7 and XP. For that matter, I ignored the Microsoft
>>definition of "workgroups" as well. If I want to connect to a machine,
>>I always do it via its ip address, and could not care less what
>>"workgroup" or "homegroup" it is a member of.
>>
>>YMMV - doing it this way may not be desirable for you.
>
> Same here, I use IP's and ignore workgroup names, but that works for
> me because all of the IP's on my network are statically assigned.
> People who use DHCP might have some issues with your and my approach.
>

Yah, good point - I assign specific IP address to all of my machines, and
know what they are. Not all routers let you do this, and not everyone out
there knows how to find the ip address for any specific machine. In a case
like that, a workgroup and machine name can be real handy.

I'm back and forth between Linux and Windows so much that I don't bother
relying on what Windows thinks any individual box is called.

"Zootal" <> wrote in message
news:Xns9D269BDDEDB5nospamspamzootalnosp@216.196.97.131...
>> Same here, I use IP's and ignore workgroup names, but that works for
>> me because all of the IP's on my network are statically assigned.
>> People who use DHCP might have some issues with your and my approach.
>>
>
> Yah, good point - I assign specific IP address to all of my machines, and
> know what they are. Not all routers let you do this, and not everyone out
> there knows how to find the ip address for any specific machine. In a case
> like that, a workgroup and machine name can be real handy.
>
> I'm back and forth between Linux and Windows so much that I don't bother
> relying on what Windows thinks any individual box is called.

I've never bothered with workgroups and the Network Neighbo(u)rhood / My
Network to locate other PCs on the network. I simply refer to resources by
entering the UNC name of the form \\server\share\folder\file wherever it's
needed - when doing a net use (or the Explorer "Map Drive") equivalent, when
setting up a connection to a shared printer or when setting up a SyncToy
folder pair.

I tend not to bother with IP addresses, partly because it's easier to
remember a PC name than its IP address and partly because my present Dlink
router doesn't seem to have a way of getting its DHCP to permanently
allocate the same address to a given PC, unlike the (now brain-dead) Netgear
router that it replaces. I suppose I oughtn't to be a cheapskate and
actually buy another Netgear instead of using the Dlink which I happened to
have spare.

The only time I use IP addresses is if the router/PC stops resolving
hostname to IP and I need to access something quickly and can't be arsed to
reboot the PC(s) and/or router.

> I've never bothered with workgroups and the Network Neighbo(u)rhood /
> My Network to locate other PCs on the network. I simply refer to
> resources by entering the UNC name of the form
> \\server\share\folder\file wherever it's needed - when doing a net use
> (or the Explorer "Map Drive") equivalent, when setting up a connection
> to a shared printer or when setting up a SyncToy folder pair.
>
> I tend not to bother with IP addresses, partly because it's easier to
> remember a PC name than its IP address and partly because my present
> Dlink router doesn't seem to have a way of getting its DHCP to
> permanently allocate the same address to a given PC, unlike the (now
> brain-dead) Netgear router that it replaces. I suppose I oughtn't to
> be a cheapskate and actually buy another Netgear instead of using the
> Dlink which I happened to have spare.
>
> The only time I use IP addresses is if the router/PC stops resolving
> hostname to IP and I need to access something quickly and can't be
> arsed to reboot the PC(s) and/or router.
>
>

I'm a bit of a control freak . Plus I need static IP addresses for my
web, ftp, and half-life servers.

Linksys routers are pretty good, the older WRT54G models (up to V3 or so,
before Linksys emasculated the hardware to keep us from messing with the
firmware), but you have to use alternative firmwares because for some
reason only known to Linksys, they refuse to put static ip ability into
their firmware. I use a couple WRT54Gs, V2 and V3 with tomato firmware.
They are rock solid. Avoid alchemy or talisman - despite the years of work
put into them, they are still flaky.

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:41:05 -0600, Zootal
<> wrote:

>Linksys routers are pretty good, the older WRT54G models (up to V3 or so,
>before Linksys emasculated the hardware to keep us from messing with the
>firmware), but you have to use alternative firmwares because for some
>reason only known to Linksys, they refuse to put static ip ability into
>their firmware. I use a couple WRT54Gs, V2 and V3 with tomato firmware.
>They are rock solid. Avoid alchemy or talisman - despite the years of work
>put into them, they are still flaky.

I'm running 6 Linksys WRT54GL's here, all with dd-wrt firmware. The
GL's are basically the old WRT54G v4 model, the last good model in
that line.