Sharing between XP & Win7: workgroups vs. homegroups?

"Yousuf Khan" <> wrote in message
news:4b837b41$...
> snip
> Actually, I already did try to disable the Homegroups. I'd see a
> computer on the Workgroup after several minutes, even though the
> computers are pingable to each other, and I can directly access the
> machines by using their absolute network names, such as
> "\\machine1\folder1", or "\\machine2\printer1", even before they were
> visible to the Seven machine's network neighbourhood.

Oh...Network Neighborhood, or actually, My Network Places, or just
Network in Win 7. I often just open Windows Explorer, click the + sign
next to it to expand, click the + next to Entire Network, then the +
next to Microsoft Windows Network, and it shows the Workgroups and
computers. However, if I do just click My Network Places (or Network in
Win 7), the shared folders are all there.

>
> So I thought that maybe disabling Homegroups would aid in discovering
> Workgroups sooner. After I disabled the Homegroups, I couldn't see the
> other machines at all, and even the local machine own name wouldn't
> show up in the list. So I re-enabled the Homegroups, and all of a
> sudden the machines in the Workgroup all showed up at once! It's
> confusingly weird, not sure what's going on here.

That's odd. As I said, I don't have a Homegroup set up at all, and my
Workgroups appear just as in other Windows versions.

>
> Prior to this Seven install, I used to notice from the event logs that
> my XP workgroup machines used to force a lot of master browser
> elections between each other (i.e. source MRxSmb, event id 8003)
> constantly. On some days there would be one such event every couple of
> hours or less. Other times, it wouldn't have an issue for several days
> in a row.

If you google: event id 8003 mrxsmb you will find a lot of opinions on
the issue. I'd ask in a networking forum.

>
> Do Homegroups work in this same way? That is do they elect each other
> to be masters and servants?

I really don't know, as I do not use it and have no plans to use it.
Perhaps someone in the Win 7 forums has more info:
http://www.sevenforums.com/

On 2/22/10, Char Jackson posted:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:41:59 -0800, Gene E. Bloch
> <> wrote:

>> On 2/22/10, Char Jackson posted:
>>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:24:51 -0800, Gene E. Bloch
>>> <> wrote:
>>
>>>> The statement "they refuse to put static ip ability into their
>>>> firmware" surprised me.
>>>>
>>>> I have a WRT54GS, originally V2.1, currently running Linksys firmware
>>>> V4.7. It has always let me use static IP addresses in my network.
>>>>
>>>> On the setup page under DHCP, there are two entries for this. First is
>>>> "Starting IP Address", where I can change only the last octet - I guess
>>>> because my subnet mask is 255.255.255.0. The next field is the maximum
>>>> number of DHCP users.
>>>>
>>>> I can - and do - manually assign any unused IP address which is less
>>>> than the starting address and more than the sum of the two values (up
>>>> to 255, of course).
>>
>>> You're describing standard DHCP functionality, and yes of course
>>> Linksys includes that in every firmware release. I believe Zootal was
>>> talking about 'static' DHCP (sometimes called 'reserved' DHCP), which
>>> is where you configure the router to assign a specific IP address to a
>>> given MAC address every time. Stock Linksys firmware doesn't provide
>>> that functionality, AFAIK, but 3rd party firmware does.
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> I manually assigned the static IP addresses in the setup of each device
>> or computer as I installed it. That seemed good enough for me, since it
>> remains permanent - except for a Replay TV, which even when it had an
>> assigned IP address would occasionally get a new one from the router.
>> That was a bug, and since the company went out of business, it's not
>> going to be fixed. It's moot anyway - I have retired the box.

> That's also how my network is set up. All IP's are manually configured
> and static.

>> Anyway, I'm not too sure of the advantage of having the router assign
>> it, since you still have to tell the device not to use DHCP. Might as
>> well enter an IP at the same time.

> No, the device is configured to use DHCP, as you described below. It's
> only the router that gets configured.

>> No, I see one advantage. Keep DHCP on in the device, and it will get
>> the same address each time - in a given network. Carry it to a new
>> network and that DHCP will give it an IP address, but if the capability
>> exists there too, it will always be the same on that network, though
>> not necessarily equal to the value given by the first router.

> Exactly.

So do I get extra credit?

After all, I did have to think beyond my own needs in order to see the
above :-)

--
Gene Bloch 650.366.4267 lettersatblochg.com

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:01:08 -0800, Gene E. Bloch
<> wrote:

>On 2/22/10, Char Jackson posted:
>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:41:59 -0800, Gene E. Bloch
>> <> wrote:
>
>>> No, I see one advantage. Keep DHCP on in the device, and it will get
>>> the same address each time - in a given network. Carry it to a new
>>> network and that DHCP will give it an IP address, but if the capability
>>> exists there too, it will always be the same on that network, though
>>> not necessarily equal to the value given by the first router.
>
>> Exactly.
>
>So do I get extra credit?
>
>After all, I did have to think beyond my own needs in order to see the
>above :-)

As far as I'm concerned, yes. A+