1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sharing between XP & Win7: workgroups vs. homegroups?

Discussion in 'Windows 7' started by Yousuf Khan, Feb 20, 2010.

  1. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Flightless Bird

    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
     
  2. Zootal

    Zootal Flightless Bird

    Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in news:4b80766f$1@news.bnb-
    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/windows-7/features/homegroup.aspx
     
  3. Char Jackson

    Char Jackson Flightless Bird

    On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 22:48:20 -0600, Zootal
    <nospam@spam.zootal.nospam.com> 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.
     
  4. Roy Smith

    Roy Smith Flightless Bird

    On 2/21/2010 12:13 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
    > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 22:48:20 -0600, Zootal
    > <nospam@spam.zootal.nospam.com> 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
     
  5. glee

    glee Flightless Bird

    "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/windows7/products/features/homegroup

    http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/01/13/windows-7-homegroup-overview

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


    "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:4b80766f$1@news.bnb-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
     
  6. Ken Blake, MVP

    Ken Blake, MVP Flightless Bird

    On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:55:27 -0500, Yousuf Khan
    <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> 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
     
  7. Zootal

    Zootal Flightless Bird

    Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote in
    news:hlj1o59ug7ua8ap8atg6j6ejfnf7tgo2m7@4ax.com:

    > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 22:48:20 -0600, Zootal
    > <nospam@spam.zootal.nospam.com> 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.
     
  8. Mortimer

    Mortimer Flightless Bird

    "Zootal" <nospam@spam.zootal.nospam.com> 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.
     
  9. Zootal

    Zootal Flightless Bird


    > 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.
     
  10. Char Jackson

    Char Jackson Flightless Bird

    On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:41:05 -0600, Zootal
    <nospam@spam.zootal.nospam.com> 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.
     
  11. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Flightless Bird

    Roy Smith wrote:
    > 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.
    >


    So what part of the process does this tool simplify, exactly?

    Yousuf Khan
     
  12. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Flightless Bird

    Mortimer wrote:
    > 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.


    That's unusual, all Dlink routers that I've had before always had a
    mechanism for assigning static DHCP IP addresses to machines, based on
    their MAC addresses. Besides, dynamic DHCP addresses are absolutely
    necessary when you have mobile computers coming and going on your network.

    Yousuf Khan
     
  13. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Flightless Bird

    Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
    > On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:55:27 -0500, Yousuf Khan
    > <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> 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.


    Is the idea that they are going to stop using workgroups in favour of
    homegroups after this?

    What was the reason for bringing out homegroups, which wasn't available
    in workgroups?

    Yousuf Khan
     
  14. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Flightless Bird

    glee wrote:
    > "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.


    Okay, interesting, so what's the advantage over workgroups? Couldn't you
    do all of that with workgroups?

    Any idea why it takes so long for a Windows 7 computer to discover other
    computers on the network? It could be several minutes after startup
    before a Windows 7 machine lists other machines on the network. That's
    part of the reason why I'm asking about homegroups vs. workgroups, is
    there some interference between them?

    Yousuf Khan
     
  15. Gene E. Bloch

    Gene E. Bloch Flightless Bird

    On 2/21/10, Zootal posted:
    >> 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.


    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).

    --
    Gene Bloch 650.366.4267 lettersatblochg.com
     
  16. Char Jackson

    Char Jackson Flightless Bird

    On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:24:51 -0800, Gene E. Bloch
    <letters@someplace.invalid> wrote:

    >On 2/21/10, Zootal posted:
    >>> 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.

    >
    >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.
     
  17. Gene E. Bloch

    Gene E. Bloch Flightless Bird

    On 2/22/10, Char Jackson posted:
    > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:24:51 -0800, Gene E. Bloch
    > <letters@someplace.invalid> wrote:


    >> On 2/21/10, Zootal posted:
    >>>> 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.

    >>
    >> 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.

    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, 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.

    --
    Gene Bloch 650.366.4267 lettersatblochg.com
     
  18. Char Jackson

    Char Jackson Flightless Bird

    On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:41:59 -0800, Gene E. Bloch
    <letters@someplace.invalid> wrote:

    >On 2/22/10, Char Jackson posted:
    >> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:24:51 -0800, Gene E. Bloch
    >> <letters@someplace.invalid> 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.
     
  19. glee

    glee Flightless Bird

    "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:4b82c761$1@news.bnb-lp.com...
    > glee wrote:
    >> "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.

    >
    > Okay, interesting, so what's the advantage over workgroups? Couldn't
    > you do all of that with workgroups?
    >
    > Any idea why it takes so long for a Windows 7 computer to discover
    > other computers on the network? It could be several minutes after
    > startup before a Windows 7 machine lists other machines on the
    > network. That's part of the reason why I'm asking about homegroups vs.
    > workgroups, is there some interference between them?


    Well, between two or more Win 7 computers, Homegroup just makes sharing
    a little easier. It also allows media streaming and some other little
    features. If you don't have more than one Win 7 computer, it doesn't do
    anything for you.

    When I upgraded my Vista system to Win 7, it asked during the final
    configuration if I wanted to set up a Homegroup,. and I answered NO, so
    I don't have a Homegroup enabled, just a Workgroup.

    I don't see any delay with the computers discovering each other. I have
    one Seven laptop and one XP Home laptop (both wireless), and an XP Pro
    desktop (wired). You could try removing the Homegroup on Win 7, and see
    if it makes a difference. Control Panel> Homegroup, click Leave
    Homegroup> Leave Homegroup.

    Otherwise, there is some other issue on the network, but I don't think
    it is a general Win 7 issue.
    --
    Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
    A+
    http://dts-l.net/
     
  20. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Flightless Bird

    glee wrote:
    > Well, between two or more Win 7 computers, Homegroup just makes sharing
    > a little easier. It also allows media streaming and some other little
    > features. If you don't have more than one Win 7 computer, it doesn't do
    > anything for you.


    Well, I will have two Sevens eventually. Right now one (less important)
    machine is serving as a guinea pig for compatibility issues. Once I
    resolve most of its issues, then I'll get to the other machine.

    > When I upgraded my Vista system to Win 7, it asked during the final
    > configuration if I wanted to set up a Homegroup,. and I answered NO, so
    > I don't have a Homegroup enabled, just a Workgroup.
    >
    > I don't see any delay with the computers discovering each other. I have
    > one Seven laptop and one XP Home laptop (both wireless), and an XP Pro
    > desktop (wired). You could try removing the Homegroup on Win 7, and see
    > if it makes a difference. Control Panel> Homegroup, click Leave
    > Homegroup> Leave Homegroup.


    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.

    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.

    > Otherwise, there is some other issue on the network, but I don't think
    > it is a general Win 7 issue.


    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.

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

    Yousuf Khan
     

Share This Page