I'm still new at this, but when setting up a peer-to-peer network, why do you have to have 'Client for Microsoft Network' for log-on checked instead of 'Windows Logon'? I set my network up with 'Windows Logon' and everything seems to work fine.
Just use windows logon. The Client for MS Networks is only really needed when you have a server that you have to log into in order to function properly. In a peer-to-peer network you don't need this, just select Windows Logon.
Geoff, thanks for the reply. I had an idea that this worked, but in the article on this site about setting up a home network it says you should set the 'Client for Microsoft Network' as the default logon, so I thought I'd ask the question.
TC: as a general rule, take anything you read on this site with a bucket of salt. I read a very very WRONG comparison on SCSI vs IDE where they compared a garden variety 5,400RPM UDMA drive to an 11GB, 10,000RPM SCSI Cheetah drive, and concluded that since the Cheetah was faster therefore SCSI was better. I couldn't believe it, I never touch the hardware section on this site because it's so full of shit.
And why not? This is the perfect place to say it. Some reviews I have read on hardware central's site have been very poorly done, they're not even remotely near equal comparisons. That's not to say there aren't any good reviews, but I'd rather trust a more reliable source than one that chooses to pit a really budget IDE drive ($) against a really high-end SCSI model ($$$$$$$$) and make terrible generalisations about the outcome.
Geoff - you're right; comparisons need to be done by someone who understands the ruler. I didn't see the review you to which you refer but I see that kind of stuff every day. People we deal w/picked up the idea that SCSI is IT & don't really try to relate it all to both the: 1) "bang v. buck" measure, or the 2) "what are you really going to do w/the thing" measure (which are related). Those are both measures that are less easily quantified than drive spin rates, but can ultimately be quantified to some extent if a little bit more of an extended viewpoint and analysis are employed (& I'm not talking about some 3 year thesis research - just fundamental #2 above stuff).
they've removed the review, because I can't find it now. But there was a Quantum drive that had both an IDE and a SCSI version, and the drive was absolutely identical the only difference was the interface (I checked the spec sheets). This is the drive that should be used. If you're comparing interfaces then all other aspects should be the same for both test systems if the results are to have any merit.
We fired the old siteleader. Jeff, our current site leader, is an engineer, and deals with the hardware he talks about on a day-to-day basis -- everyone seems to like the stuff he writes about, we rarely get a complaint about what he writes.
If you find any other articles that are crap, let me know, and I'll make sure they're fixed!