Windows 7 prompts for Network Password when file sharing - please help

"Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> wrote in message
news:ij1o8s$mgb$...
>
> The drive is shared and has "Access Type" set to "Full" so
> no password is required to access the shared drive/files.

That doesn't mean what you think it means. AccessType=Full is not the same
as no password required. It just means those that do gain access have full
control (as opposed to read-only for example).

"Seth" <> wrote in message
news:ij29lu$mvm$...
> "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> wrote in message
> news:ij1o8s$mgb$...
> >
> > The drive is shared and has "Access Type" set to "Full" so
> > no password is required to access the shared drive/files.
>
> That doesn't mean what you think it means. AccessType=Full is not the same
> as no password required. It just means those that do gain access have full
> control (as opposed to read-only for example).
>


Bingo!! That did the trick. Thanks!

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:24:36 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
<not-> wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:32:23 -0800, Adam wrote:
>
>Mostly because you're not listening to Char Jackson.
>
>Also, if the Win 7 computer is set up as a HomeGroup, then the older
>systems won't work with it. Set up a regular home network on the Win 7
>computer.
>
>Then you can set up a matching account on the other computers as
>described by Char Jackson.

Thanks for the backup. ;-) I know I didn't cover everything but
hopefully we've collectively nudged him in the right direction.

--

Char Jackson

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:24:36 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
<not-> wrote:


> Also, if the Win 7 computer is set up as a HomeGroup, then the older
> systems won't work with it. Set up a regular home network on the Win 7
> computer.



A clarification: when you say "regular home network," I assume you
mean what's called a "workgroup."

In message <>
Ken Blake <> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:24:36 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
> <not-> wrote:


>> Also, if the Win 7 computer is set up as a HomeGroup, then the older
>> systems won't work with it. Set up a regular home network on the Win 7
>> computer.

> A clarification: when you say "regular home network," I assume you
> mean what's called a "workgroup."

I'd say it's a poor choice of words.

HomeGroup: Windows 7 only

Workgroup: Win 7 or XP

(I have no idea what advantages HomeGroup has, if any. Or what other
disadvantages it has other than not talking to XP)


--
Personal isn't the same as important. What sort of person could think
like that? And it dawned on him that while Ankh in the past had had its
share of evil rulers, and simply bad rulers, it had never yet come under
the heel of a good ruler. That might be the most terrifying prospect of
all. --Men at Arms

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:09:12 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<> wrote:

> In message <>
> Ken Blake <> wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:24:36 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
> > <not-> wrote:
>
>
> >> Also, if the Win 7 computer is set up as a HomeGroup, then the older
> >> systems won't work with it. Set up a regular home network on the Win 7
> >> computer.
>
> > A clarification: when you say "regular home network," I assume you
> > mean what's called a "workgroup."
>
> I'd say it's a poor choice of words.
>
> HomeGroup: Windows 7 only
>
> Workgroup: Win 7 or XP



Sorry, that's not correct. Workgroups can be used on Windows for
Workgroups and Windows NT as well as on Windows 95, 98, Me, 2000, XP,
Vista, and Windows 7. It had long been the standard for peer-to-peer
networking until Windows 7 came out, so calling it "regular" isn't at
all a poor choice of words.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:32:02 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:09:12 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
> <> wrote:
>
>> In message <>
>> Ken Blake <> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:24:36 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
>>> <not-> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Also, if the Win 7 computer is set up as a HomeGroup, then the older
>>>> systems won't work with it. Set up a regular home network on the Win 7
>>>> computer.
>>
>>> A clarification: when you say "regular home network," I assume you
>>> mean what's called a "workgroup."
>>
>> I'd say it's a poor choice of words.
>>
>> HomeGroup: Windows 7 only
>>
>> Workgroup: Win 7 or XP
>
>
>
> Sorry, that's not correct. Workgroups can be used on Windows for
> Workgroups and Windows NT as well as on Windows 95, 98, Me, 2000, XP,
> Vista, and Windows 7. It had long been the standard for peer-to-peer
> networking until Windows 7 came out, so calling it "regular" isn't at
> all a poor choice of words.

IIRC, Windows 3.1 was called "Windows for Workgroups". 'Nuff said?

And yes, going back a post or three, I did mean "Workgroup". Sorry - it
was a minor brainquake.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:39:08 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
<not-> wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:32:02 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:09:12 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
> > <> wrote:
> >
> >> In message <>
> >> Ken Blake <> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:24:36 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
> >>> <not-> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Also, if the Win 7 computer is set up as a HomeGroup, then the older
> >>>> systems won't work with it. Set up a regular home network on the Win 7
> >>>> computer.
> >>
> >>> A clarification: when you say "regular home network," I assume you
> >>> mean what's called a "workgroup."
> >>
> >> I'd say it's a poor choice of words.
> >>
> >> HomeGroup: Windows 7 only
> >>
> >> Workgroup: Win 7 or XP
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry, that's not correct. Workgroups can be used on Windows for
> > Workgroups and Windows NT as well as on Windows 95, 98, Me, 2000, XP,
> > Vista, and Windows 7. It had long been the standard for peer-to-peer
> > networking until Windows 7 came out, so calling it "regular" isn't at
> > all a poor choice of words.
>
> IIRC, Windows 3.1 was called "Windows for Workgroups". 'Nuff said?


No, you're thinking of Windows 3.11. But even that, despite the many
people who thought 3.11 meant WFWG, wasn't just WFWG. There was *both*
a regular Windows 3.11 and WFWG 3.11.



> And yes, going back a post or three, I did mean "Workgroup". Sorry - it
> was a minor brainquake.


Yes, I was sure you knew that.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:58:58 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

>> IIRC, Windows 3.1 was called "Windows for Workgroups". 'Nuff said?
>
>
> No, you're thinking of Windows 3.11. But even that, despite the many
> people who thought 3.11 meant WFWG, wasn't just WFWG. There was *both*
> a regular Windows 3.11 and WFWG 3.11.

Come on, it was only a 0.32% error!

Yes, you're right - I had WFWG 3.11, but I didn't remember the
distinction, so many years later...

But then there's the point I was trying to make: in Windows, "workgroup"
is a term that goes back well before the list in the post I replied to.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 12:34:23 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
<not-> wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:58:58 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
>
> >> IIRC, Windows 3.1 was called "Windows for Workgroups". 'Nuff said?
> >
> >
> > No, you're thinking of Windows 3.11. But even that, despite the many
> > people who thought 3.11 meant WFWG, wasn't just WFWG. There was *both*
> > a regular Windows 3.11 and WFWG 3.11.
>
> Come on, it was only a 0.32% error!
>
> Yes, you're right - I had WFWG 3.11, but I didn't remember the
> distinction, so many years later...


LOL. Many people didn't remember it even way back then.


> But then there's the point I was trying to make: in Windows, "workgroup"
> is a term that goes back well before the list in the post I replied to.


Yep, I'm with you completely on that.