ampage Tube Amps / Music Electronics	For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum.

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

Windows XP Pro File Sharing SNAFU. Help!

3/3/2004 9:31 PM
bob p	Windows XP Pro File Sharing SNAFU. Help! After biting the bullet and taking the plunge to upgrade from Windows 98 to Win 2k Pro, I’ve decided to follow a few people’s recommendations and try upgrading to XP Pro. Wow, this upgrade has been fraught with compatibility problems. I’m hoping someone can help. My first problem is related to sharing files on the same PC. Being a bit familiar with file sharing rules and the perils of performing day to day tasks on a PC while logged on as an administrator, I’ve configured XP with two user accounts: an Administrator account and a limited user account known as “Bob.” I use the Admin account for installing software, but use the Bob account for all other user-based activity. Of course, every time that I want to install an application that will be used by the “Bob” account, I have to either log on as the Admin, or when logged on as Bob I have to supply an administrator’s password to perform the installation. (This is pretty similar to the limited user and the root/superuser situation in Linux.) So far so good… The problem that I’m running into is that by default, Windows XP is protecting my data files from use by anybody. The data files are always being marked as read-only (whether they should be or not), and the programs that would normally modify the data files are being prevented access because the files are marked as read-only by the file system. When I attempt to change the file attributes by right clicking, the read-only attribute appears as a grey check mark (not a black check mark). Even though I’m allowed to change the status of the read-only attribute to a de-selected state, XP immediately and transparently reverts the status of the R-O attribute to checked with a gray check mark, as if it is being passed the attribute as a child from a parent. In short, Windows XP is denying both users and Administrators the right to change the file status flags. This happens without regard to whether I try to perform the change as Bob or as an Administrator. As a result, the programs that are supposed to be using the files can’t access them to append data to them. Instead of appending data to the files, the programs are being forced to create new data files. FWIW, all of the permissions in XP are configured to allow both the administrator and limited users full read-write privileges on all of the files. Still, XP won’t allow the programs to modify their own data files. Aargh. FWIW, I’m using the NTFS disk format, if that makes a difference. Second, when browsing files on another PC’s shared folder, XP reports all of the files in that folder as having the read-only attribute set, regardless of the fact that the files on that PC do not have a R-O flag set. XP is reporting all shared files as RO, regardless of the actual status of the RO flag and regardless of what permissions are set on the other PC. (In my case, everyone has full file modifying privileges). Both of these problems are occurring regardless of whether I’m using XP installed directly from the CD, with or without SP1 installed, and with or without and all of the hotfixes installed. As you can imagine, this is becoming a real PITA. All that I need to do is migrate the data and programs from a Windows 2000 Pro installation on one PC to an XP Pro installation on another PC. I’ve tried doing this using the XP File and Transfer Settings Wizard. Even though everything runs fine on Win 2K, XP just won’t allow programs to run properly. As the limited user Bob, if I try to run a program that was installed by the Admin, the Win 95-compliant program just won’t run, even if I have Win 95 compliance specified in the program’s properties dialog. So when I execute the program, I’m forced to deal with a window that pops up and I’m required to run the program as if I am an administrator. So I supply the administrator account name and password, and the program executes. Unfortunately, it still can’t access its data files, because they’re mistakenly marked as read-only. Aargh. I’m confident that I have the file sharing permissions properly set (everyone has full access to all shared files), but XP just doesn’t seem to like sharing files with legacy programs. Can anybody suggest a way to approach this problem? In the big scheme of things, Win 2k does most of what I need to do, but I would like to utilize XP because of its user-friendliness in handling digital photos, slideshows, etc. I’ve exhausted all of the relevant information in the MS Knowledge Base. The most information that I can find there is that there is some sort of file sharing anomaly regarding read-only status of shared files under XP on NTFS volumes. Unfortunately, there is no hot fix, and the only solution to this problem is available by paying for personalized tech support. XP is beginning to make Linux look easy. Aargh. If Linux only had all of the features that I need... Any help would be greatly appreciated. Bob

3/3/2004 9:31 PM

bob p

Windows XP Pro File Sharing SNAFU. Help!

After biting the bullet and taking the plunge to upgrade from Windows 98 to Win 2k Pro, I’ve decided to follow a few people’s recommendations and try upgrading to XP Pro. Wow, this upgrade has been fraught with compatibility problems. I’m hoping someone can help.

My first problem is related to sharing files on the same PC. Being a bit familiar with file sharing rules and the perils of performing day to day tasks on a PC while logged on as an administrator, I’ve configured XP with two user accounts: an Administrator account and a limited user account known as “Bob.” I use the Admin account for installing software, but use the Bob account for all other user-based activity.

Of course, every time that I want to install an application that will be used by the “Bob” account, I have to either log on as the Admin, or when logged on as Bob I have to supply an administrator’s password to perform the installation. (This is pretty similar to the limited user and the root/superuser situation in Linux.) So far so good…

The problem that I’m running into is that by default, Windows XP is protecting my data files from use by anybody. The data files are always being marked as read-only (whether they should be or not), and the programs that would normally modify the data files are being prevented access because the files are marked as read-only by the file system. When I attempt to change the file attributes by right clicking, the read-only attribute appears as a grey check mark (not a black check mark). Even though I’m allowed to change the status of the read-only attribute to a de-selected state, XP immediately and transparently reverts the status of the R-O attribute to checked with a gray check mark, as if it is being passed the attribute as a child from a parent. In short, Windows XP is denying both users and Administrators the right to change the file status flags.

This happens without regard to whether I try to perform the change as Bob or as an Administrator. As a result, the programs that are supposed to be using the files can’t access them to append data to them. Instead of appending data to the files, the programs are being forced to create new data files. FWIW, all of the permissions in XP are configured to allow both the administrator and limited users full read-write privileges on all of the files. Still, XP won’t allow the programs to modify their own data files. Aargh. FWIW, I’m using the NTFS disk format, if that makes a difference.

Second, when browsing files on another PC’s shared folder, XP reports all of the files in that folder as having the read-only attribute set, regardless of the fact that the files on that PC do not have a R-O flag set. XP is reporting all shared files as RO, regardless of the actual status of the RO flag and regardless of what permissions are set on the other PC. (In my case, everyone has full file modifying privileges).

Both of these problems are occurring regardless of whether I’m using XP installed directly from the CD, with or without SP1 installed, and with or without and all of the hotfixes installed.

As you can imagine, this is becoming a real PITA. All that I need to do is migrate the data and programs from a Windows 2000 Pro installation on one PC to an XP Pro installation on another PC. I’ve tried doing this using the XP File and Transfer Settings Wizard. Even though everything runs fine on Win 2K, XP just won’t allow programs to run properly.

As the limited user Bob, if I try to run a program that was installed by the Admin, the Win 95-compliant program just won’t run, even if I have Win 95 compliance specified in the program’s properties dialog. So when I execute the program, I’m forced to deal with a window that pops up and I’m required to run the program as if I am an administrator. So I supply the administrator account name and password, and the program executes. Unfortunately, it still can’t access its data files, because they’re mistakenly marked as read-only. Aargh.

I’m confident that I have the file sharing permissions properly set (everyone has full access to all shared files), but XP just doesn’t seem to like sharing files with legacy programs. Can anybody suggest a way to approach this problem? In the big scheme of things, Win 2k does most of what I need to do, but I would like to utilize XP because of its user-friendliness in handling digital photos, slideshows, etc.

I’ve exhausted all of the relevant information in the MS Knowledge Base. The most information that I can find there is that there is some sort of file sharing anomaly regarding read-only status of shared files under XP on NTFS volumes. Unfortunately, there is no hot fix, and the only solution to this problem is available by paying for personalized tech support.

XP is beginning to make Linux look easy. Aargh. If Linux only had all of the features that I need...

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Bob

3/4/2004 12:55 AM
Steve A.	Bob (or should I call you Administrator?): Funny that you should mention this because my home network has 4 computers, one of which (this one!) is running WinXP. Since running the SP1 patch (and other patches as well) I haven't been able to view my XP-machine files on my other computers- no big problem because I usually work at my XP computer and have access to the rest of the files on my network. AFAIK the WinXPSP1 default is for files to NOT be shared. Go to My Computer and bring up the properties of your hard drives, one at a time. When you first look at the Sharing tab there is a message which has to be clicked to allow you to share the files on that drive. Once the full dialog box is displayed check the share name assigned for the drive- I believe that if it begins with a dollar sign the drive will be hidden from other computers on your network. I'm not sure if this helps with your problem or not... Steve Ahola

3/4/2004 12:55 AM

Steve A.

Bob (or should I call you Administrator?):

    Funny that you should mention this because my home network has 4 computers, one of which (this one!) is running WinXP. Since running the SP1 patch (and other patches as well) I haven't been able to view my XP-machine files on my other computers- no big problem because I usually work at my XP computer and have access to the rest of the files on my network.

    AFAIK the WinXPSP1 default is for files to NOT be shared. Go to My Computer and bring up the properties of your hard drives, one at a time. When you first look at the Sharing tab there is a message which has to be clicked to allow you to share the files on that drive. Once the full dialog box is displayed check the share name assigned for the drive- I believe that if it begins with a dollar sign the drive will be hidden from other computers on your network.

    I'm not sure if this helps with your problem or not...

Steve Ahola

3/4/2004 7:19 PM
Earl	Not only share the folder but be sure to update the security (permissions). It is a separate tab.

3/6/2004 8:23 PM
bob p	How Do You Change Read-Only File Attributes in XP? [QUOTE]When you first look at the Sharing tab there is a message which has to be clicked to allow you to share the files on that drive. Once the full dialog box is displayed check the share name assigned for the drive- I believe that if it begins with a dollar sign the drive will be hidden from other computers on your network. I'm not sure if this helps with your problem or not...[/QUOTE] Steve, the behavior of XP is really pretty unpredictable; at least how it works is sufficiently obfuscated that somebody like me (with 20+ years of computing & programming experience) can approach the problem from an analytical perspective and be left scratching his head in a state of bewilderment... in my previous XP installation, i tried everything - i even went to the extreme of changing permissions for admins and users so that EVERYONE had the same priviledges. it was only AFTER i had authorized sharing of the system root drive that the administrator was even allowed to change file atrributes. how strange. needless to say, i didn't like that setup. i've just reinstalled XP as a single user (administrator only) system. i hate going this route for the reasons that Speedy has discussed, but after reading Mike's thoughts on a simpler approach, I thought that it may be worth looking into. when i first tried setting up XP a month or so ago, i had less problems, so i thought i'd try reverting to the "old" setup. so now i have a one-user installation, and as the full-privileges administrator, XP won't let me change a file/directory's Read-Only attribute. when i open the properties dialog and change the file attributes, XP acts as if i've been allowed to de-select the R-O attribute, and feigns compliance my request to change the flag: it clears the checkbox and accepts my request to change the attribute. unfortunately, when i re-open the properties dialog to verify that the change really took place, the R-O flag remains set, just like it was before. its as if I'd never even tried to change it. naturally, i've looked at parent folders to see if there's been inheritance of a parent folder's R-O attribute. i've gone all of the way back up to the root directory, clearing all of the R-O flags. in response, XP accepts the change and advises me that its resetting the R-O attribute for all of the effected child folders and files that are effected by inheritance. XP even pops up a little dialog box to show the progress as these changes are allegedly taking place... whenever i attempt to change the flag to a cleared status, XP just laughs at me, feigns compliance by popping up a dialog box, and then reverts the status to Read-Only! i've even tried the extreme measure of making the root of the drive shared on the network and i've given the network users the ability to modify the files. regardless, XP won't honor a request by the admin to clear the R-O flag. is there any way around this problem? i'm getting really tired of it, as some of my applications cannot access their data files.

3/6/2004 8:23 PM

bob p

How Do You Change Read-Only File Attributes in XP?

[QUOTE]When you first look at the Sharing tab there is a message which has to be clicked to allow you to share the files on that drive. Once the full dialog box is displayed check the share name assigned for the drive- I believe that if it begins with a dollar sign the drive will be hidden from other computers on your network.

I'm not sure if this helps with your problem or not...[/QUOTE]
Steve,

the behavior of XP is really pretty unpredictable; at least how it works is sufficiently obfuscated that somebody like me (with 20+ years of computing & programming experience) can approach the problem from an analytical perspective and be left scratching his head in a state of bewilderment...

in my previous XP installation, i tried everything - i even went to the extreme of changing permissions for admins and users so that EVERYONE had the same priviledges. it was only AFTER i had authorized sharing of the system root drive that the administrator was even allowed to change file atrributes. how strange. needless to say, i didn't like that setup.

i've just reinstalled XP as a single user (administrator only) system. i hate going this route for the reasons that Speedy has discussed, but after reading Mike's thoughts on a simpler approach, I thought that it may be worth looking into. when i first tried setting up XP a month or so ago, i had less problems, so i thought i'd try reverting to the "old" setup.

so now i have a one-user installation, and as the full-privileges administrator, XP won't let me change a file/directory's Read-Only attribute. when i open the properties dialog and change the file attributes, XP acts as if i've been allowed to de-select the R-O attribute, and feigns compliance my request to change the flag: it clears the checkbox and accepts my request to change the attribute. unfortunately, when i re-open the properties dialog to verify that the change really took place, the R-O flag remains set, just like it was before. its as if I'd never even tried to change it.

naturally, i've looked at parent folders to see if there's been inheritance of a parent folder's R-O attribute. i've gone all of the way back up to the root directory, clearing all of the R-O flags. in response, XP accepts the change and advises me that its resetting the R-O attribute for all of the effected child folders and files that are effected by inheritance. XP even pops up a little dialog box to show the progress as these changes are allegedly taking place...

whenever i attempt to change the flag to a cleared status, XP just laughs at me, feigns compliance by popping up a dialog box, and then reverts the status to Read-Only! i've even tried the extreme measure of making the root of the drive shared on the network and i've given the network users the ability to modify the files. regardless, XP won't honor a request by the admin to clear the R-O flag.

is there any way around this problem? i'm getting really tired of it, as some of my applications cannot access their data files.

3/4/2004 11:34 PM
bob p	Re: Windows XP Pro File Sharing SNAFU. Help! well, after beating my head against the wall, i've come to a few conclusions -- most importantly, this is an idiosyncracy in NTFS. in WinXP Pro and Win 2k Pro, the ability of legacy programs to be "compliant" with the OS is somewhat limited. another way to look at this is that the OS itself is somewhat limited in its ability to behave appropriately with legacy programs, even if the program's compatability check box properties for earlier versions of windows is used. when running these OS on NTFS volumes, i've encountered an interesting anomaly that doesn't occur on FAT32 volumes. on an NTFS volume, it appears that some legacy programs (ie: those not "designed" for XP) have trouble accessing files for write privileges if the archive bit is set -- regardless of the user privileges that are set on the system. if the archive bit is set, the OS acts as if the read-only bit is set. wierd.

3/4/2004 11:34 PM

bob p

Re: Windows XP Pro File Sharing SNAFU. Help!

well, after beating my head against the wall, i've come to a few conclusions -- most importantly, this is an idiosyncracy in NTFS.

in WinXP Pro and Win 2k Pro, the ability of legacy programs to be "compliant" with the OS is somewhat limited. another way to look at this is that the OS itself is somewhat limited in its ability to behave appropriately with legacy programs, even if the program's compatability check box properties for earlier versions of windows is used.

when running these OS on NTFS volumes, i've encountered an interesting anomaly that doesn't occur on FAT32 volumes. on an NTFS volume, it appears that some legacy programs (ie: those not "designed" for XP) have trouble accessing files for write privileges if the archive bit is set -- regardless of the user privileges that are set on the system. if the archive bit is set, the OS acts as if the read-only bit is set. wierd.

3/5/2004 8:06 AM
MBSetzer	Hopefully you got Xp less than 30 days ago, MSFT does have limited free installation support as well as free longer-term support for security issues. And to me this is a file security issue, but MSFT might just be referring to software patches. Well if file security was not an issue they would not have multiple accounts with different permissions, and you wouldn't have a problem, correct? Plus NTFS is supposed to be all about file security. Even though some of us suspect its main purpose is to render useless all the legacy DOS utilities and applications, as well as previous MSFT OS versions. If you paid for the OS you already paid for the support to overcome this snafu. regardless I get much more familiar and predictable performance from XP when I take all measures to limit the PC to a single user. I think I'm up to about mike.8 by now When you first install XP you need to just enter one user only and it should automatically have all administartor priveliges, plus reduce the number of confusing choices and popups when you need to do something which would otherwise be expected to behave just like a more personally productive earlier version of Windows. If yours is an upgrade rather than a clean install, hopefully it is not as unpredictable as earlier version upgrades or you may be SOL. I imagine this could happen if you went from a FAT32 W98 system and tried to upgrade by having WXP & NTFS take over from there. NTFS allows more file security but from what I understand this is done using attributes stored with the file, some of which no corresponding attribute exits under FAT32. Maybe the wizard takes your input then sets these items accordingly, perhaps he lost his mojo and the spell didn't take Who knows, maybe you just need to make sure you are using the same (case sensitive?) user name you were using before the upgrade, or in case you weren't naming yourself at the time you might need to duplicate that too. What I do know is that when I had an administrator plus a separate Mike, the operation was often compromised in ways that were not available with regular single-user PC's under W95 or W98. I didn't become a better operator overnight but when I reinstalled as a single user I was sure able to operate more effectively overnight. Since I never have used Unix or any effective purpose-engineered multi-user business OS so far, the way that XP is now simply reminds me of the way AOL has handled their multiple users for quite some time. I guess its for locations where families or small communities do not have more than one computer or make more than one connection to the web at a time. Anyway that's why the XP multi-user arrangement seems to be copied from AOL, this is not comforting. What I do find effective is the networking for interfacing between the different Windows versions (and file systems) although I think I philosophically want communication lines rather than complete networking. That's the way I basically do it, each time I connect one machine to another it is a deliberate transfer task using a crossover cable directly between the ethernet ports. This is without a hub and when you switch machines you sometimes get phantom users who are no longer there but it hasn't messed any of the WIndows versions up yet. However I would want the OS in each machine to have a maximum of one possible user in the most fundamental way that it could. The ethernet straightforwardly translates between FAT, FAT32 & NTFS in a more or less transparent way. Without that I wouldn't anticipate trying to accomplish anything in windows with less than a dual boot system in the future (still when booted to lesser versions of Windows you can not see NTFS partitions) and I expect my MSFT museum will eventually consist of DOS 5.0, DOS 6.2, WFW3.11, W95b, W98SE, & Wxp machines plus spares to last a decade. The ethernet is about the only breath of fresh air left in the hardware area, where so many other features have long abandoned the PC concept of overall compatibility forward and backward. Leading board vendors like 3com & Linksys routinely have updated drivers for their ethernet hardware posted on the internet covering DOS to WinXP and everything in between. That's a challenge I have not seen suppliers of other hardware types overcome, they appear to stumble so clumsily by comparison, barely getting new drivers ready while they are still useful, while failing to provide drivers for older hardware at all, just about as if disavowing any knowledge of it. Plus failure to post the files and documentation or even have a functioning website so many times. Who knows maybe the most expedient way is to try writing the files to a floppy or burning to a CD? After a while I think you begin to wonder who the real Bob is anyway Mike

3/5/2004 8:06 AM

MBSetzer

Hopefully you got Xp less than 30 days ago, MSFT does have limited free installation support as well as free longer-term support for security issues.

And to me this is a file security issue, but MSFT might just be referring to software patches.

Well if file security was not an issue they would not have multiple *accounts* with different permissions, and you wouldn't have a problem, correct? Plus NTFS is supposed to be all about file security. Even though some of us suspect its main purpose is to render useless all the legacy DOS utilities and applications, as well as previous MSFT OS versions.
If you paid for the OS you already paid for the support to overcome this snafu.

regardless I get much more familiar and predictable performance from XP when I take all measures to limit the PC to a single user. I think I'm up to about mike.8 by now

When you first install XP you need to just enter one user only and it should automatically have all administartor priveliges, plus reduce the number of confusing choices and popups when you need to do something which would otherwise be expected to behave just like a more personally productive earlier version of Windows.

If yours is an upgrade rather than a clean install, hopefully it is not as unpredictable as earlier version upgrades or you may be SOL.
I imagine this could happen if you went from a FAT32 W98 system and tried to upgrade by having WXP & NTFS take over from there.

NTFS allows more file security but from what I understand this is done using attributes stored with the file, some of which no corresponding attribute exits under FAT32. Maybe the wizard takes your input then sets these items accordingly, perhaps he lost his mojo and the spell didn't take

Who knows, maybe you just need to make sure you are using the same (case sensitive?) user name you were using before the upgrade, or in case you weren't naming yourself at the time you might need to duplicate that too.

What I do know is that when I had an administrator plus a separate Mike, the operation was often compromised in ways that were not available with regular single-user PC's under W95 or W98. I didn't become a better operator overnight but when I reinstalled as a single user I was sure able to operate more effectively overnight.

Since I never have used Unix or any effective purpose-engineered multi-user business OS so far, the way that XP is now simply reminds me of the way AOL has handled their multiple users for quite some time. I guess its for locations where families or small communities do not have more than one computer or make more than one connection to the web at a time.

Anyway that's why the XP multi-user arrangement seems to be copied from AOL, this is not comforting.

What I do find effective is the networking for interfacing between the different Windows versions (and file systems) although I think I philosophically want communication lines rather than complete networking. That's the way I basically do it, each time I connect one machine to another it is a deliberate transfer task using a *crossover* cable directly between the ethernet ports. This is without a hub and when you switch machines you sometimes get phantom users who are no longer there but it hasn't messed any of the WIndows versions up yet. However I would want the OS in each machine to have a maximum of one possible user in the most fundamental way that it could. The ethernet straightforwardly translates between FAT, FAT32 & NTFS in a more or less transparent way.

Without that I wouldn't anticipate trying to accomplish anything in windows with less than a dual boot system in the future (still when booted to *lesser* versions of Windows you can not see NTFS partitions) and I expect my MSFT museum will eventually consist of DOS 5.0, DOS 6.2, WFW3.11, W95b, W98SE, & Wxp machines plus spares to last a decade.

The ethernet is about the only breath of fresh air left in the hardware area, where so many other features have long abandoned the PC concept of overall compatibility forward and backward. Leading board vendors like 3com & Linksys routinely have updated drivers for their ethernet hardware posted on the internet covering DOS to WinXP and everything in between. That's a challenge I have not seen suppliers of other hardware types overcome, they appear to stumble so clumsily by comparison, barely getting new drivers ready while they are still useful, while failing to provide drivers for older hardware at all, just about as if disavowing any knowledge of it. Plus failure to post the files and documentation or even have a functioning website so many times.

Who knows maybe the most expedient way is to try writing the files to a floppy or burning to a CD?

After a while I think you begin to wonder who the real Bob is anyway

Mike

3/5/2004 2:31 PM
SpeedRacer	Re: NTFS

Page 1 of 7

Next>

Last Page>>