>Hi,
>
>I would like to set up a bunch of shares as follows:
>1)  readable/writable by everyone
>2)  readable by everyone, but only a select few can write
>3)  only a select few can read and write
>
>I have a mixture of windows XP professional (my "server") and windows XP
>home (my "clients").
>
>I tried to follow the instructions for disabling SFS and setting up groups
>and users, but this doesn't seem to work.
>
>1)  I setup a share which should only be readable by everyone, but is
>writable by a select few, and yet I can log into a test account which isn't
>in the access list and modify the contents of the folder.
>2)  I setup a share which should only by readable/writable by a single
>person, but if I log in using the same user/pass on the client I can't access
>this share.  I tried to change the location when adding the user name such
>that it would be from the client computer but only the server computer
>appeared in the locations list.  I seem to be able to access my client just
>fine.
>
>I have been reading these posts for a few hours on and off, and the more I
>read the more frustrated I become.  It seems like windows 95/98 were so much
>easier to set up and use than windows xp.  It was really simple to decide
>which shares you wanted to be open to everyone, which shares you wanted to
>protect with a read password, and which shares you wanted to protect with a
>write password.  With windows XP I have to do all kinds of funky work
>arounds.  Why would microsoft take a step backward with ease of use?  I am
>dumbfounded as to the reason.
>
>BTW, buying MS server is not an option.  The heck if I am going to pay over
>$350 for something I could get for free before.  I'll invest my time and
>energy into a linux solution before I shell out $350 for a 5 user license.
>
>Sorry for the flame.

"Steve Winograd [MVP]" wrote:

> In article <548EBA5F-6EF8-4785-8592-F7B12A6EC***@microsoft.com>,
> Trance <Tra***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I would like to set up a bunch of shares as follows:
> >1)  readable/writable by everyone
> >2)  readable by everyone, but only a select few can write
> >3)  only a select few can read and write
> >
> >I have a mixture of windows XP professional (my "server") and windows XP
> >home (my "clients").
> >
> >I tried to follow the instructions for disabling SFS and setting up groups
> >and users, but this doesn't seem to work.
> >
> >1)  I setup a share which should only be readable by everyone, but is
> >writable by a select few, and yet I can log into a test account which isn't
> >in the access list and modify the contents of the folder.
> >2)  I setup a share which should only by readable/writable by a single
> >person, but if I log in using the same user/pass on the client I can't access
> >this share.  I tried to change the location when adding the user name such
> >that it would be from the client computer but only the server computer
> >appeared in the locations list.  I seem to be able to access my client just
> >fine.
> >
> >I have been reading these posts for a few hours on and off, and the more I
> >read the more frustrated I become.  It seems like windows 95/98 were so much
> >easier to set up and use than windows xp.  It was really simple to decide
> >which shares you wanted to be open to everyone, which shares you wanted to
> >protect with a read password, and which shares you wanted to protect with a
> >write password.  With windows XP I have to do all kinds of funky work
> >arounds.  Why would microsoft take a step backward with ease of use?  I am
> >dumbfounded as to the reason.
> >
> >BTW, buying MS server is not an option.  The heck if I am going to pay over
> >$350 for something I could get for free before.  I'll invest my time and
> >energy into a linux solution before I shell out $350 for a 5 user license.
> >
> >Sorry for the flame.
>
> Windows XP is based on Windows NT and 2000, not on Windows 95 and 98.
> As you've discovered, control of shared file access works differently
> in NT/2000/XP than in 95/98:
>
> 1. Windows XP doesn't have passwords for shared files.
>
> 2. XP Professional controls access based on permissions that you
> define and on the user name and password of the person who requests
> access.
>
> 3. Permissions can only be defined for local user accounts that exist
> on the XP Professional computer.  If a user account on another
> computer matches a local user account, it gets the permissions for the
> local account.
>
> XP Professional's shared file access control is much more flexible and
> powerful, but harder to set up, than Windows 95/98.  Have you seen the
> web site that Ron Lowe and I wrote?  It has full details and
> illustrated examples of creating shares, defining share permissions,
> and accessing shares from other computers:
>
> Windows XP Professional File Sharing
> http://www.practicallynetworked.com/sharing/xp_filesharing/index.htm
>
> I'll be happy to answer questions about it.
>

"Trance" <Tra***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BE4896C9-B6E0-4F9C-BAB6-66DAB6583EFB@microsoft.com...
> Thank you very much for the walk through.  I think that what was messing
> me
> up was the "everyone".  I had set full access for a particular user, but
> instead of simply removing the "Everyone" I had just set it to deny
> everything.  I guess that XP pro looked at the ACL, saw that everyone was
> denied and that my blessed user was a member of everyone, and so denied
> access.  When I removed the "Everyone" but left the blessed user
> everything
> started to work correctly.
>
> I agree that Windows XP professional is much more powerful than 95/98, it
> is
> just frustrating to figure out everything all over again.  Thank goodness
> for
> all of you folks who take time to anser questions from the masses!
>
> Dave
>
> "Steve Winograd [MVP]" wrote:
>
>> In article <548EBA5F-6EF8-4785-8592-F7B12A6EC***@microsoft.com>,
>> Trance <Tra***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >I would like to set up a bunch of shares as follows:
>> >1)  readable/writable by everyone
>> >2)  readable by everyone, but only a select few can write
>> >3)  only a select few can read and write
>> >
>> >I have a mixture of windows XP professional (my "server") and windows XP
>> >home (my "clients").
>> >
>> >I tried to follow the instructions for disabling SFS and setting up
>> >groups
>> >and users, but this doesn't seem to work.
>> >
>> >1)  I setup a share which should only be readable by everyone, but is
>> >writable by a select few, and yet I can log into a test account which
>> >isn't
>> >in the access list and modify the contents of the folder.
>> >2)  I setup a share which should only by readable/writable by a single
>> >person, but if I log in using the same user/pass on the client I can't
>> >access
>> >this share.  I tried to change the location when adding the user name
>> >such
>> >that it would be from the client computer but only the server computer
>> >appeared in the locations list.  I seem to be able to access my client
>> >just
>> >fine.
>> >
>> >I have been reading these posts for a few hours on and off, and the more
>> >I
>> >read the more frustrated I become.  It seems like windows 95/98 were so
>> >much
>> >easier to set up and use than windows xp.  It was really simple to
>> >decide
>> >which shares you wanted to be open to everyone, which shares you wanted
>> >to
>> >protect with a read password, and which shares you wanted to protect
>> >with a
>> >write password.  With windows XP I have to do all kinds of funky work
>> >arounds.  Why would microsoft take a step backward with ease of use?  I
>> >am
>> >dumbfounded as to the reason.
>> >
>> >BTW, buying MS server is not an option.  The heck if I am going to pay
>> >over
>> >$350 for something I could get for free before.  I'll invest my time and
>> >energy into a linux solution before I shell out $350 for a 5 user
>> >license.
>> >
>> >Sorry for the flame.
>>
>> Windows XP is based on Windows NT and 2000, not on Windows 95 and 98.
>> As you've discovered, control of shared file access works differently
>> in NT/2000/XP than in 95/98:
>>
>> 1. Windows XP doesn't have passwords for shared files.
>>
>> 2. XP Professional controls access based on permissions that you
>> define and on the user name and password of the person who requests
>> access.
>>
>> 3. Permissions can only be defined for local user accounts that exist
>> on the XP Professional computer.  If a user account on another
>> computer matches a local user account, it gets the permissions for the
>> local account.
>>
>> XP Professional's shared file access control is much more flexible and
>> powerful, but harder to set up, than Windows 95/98.  Have you seen the
>> web site that Ron Lowe and I wrote?  It has full details and
>> illustrated examples of creating shares, defining share permissions,
>> and accessing shares from other computers:
>>
>> Windows XP Professional File Sharing
>> http://www.practicallynetworked.com/sharing/xp_filesharing/index.htm
>>
>> I'll be happy to answer questions about it.
>>

>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >I would like to set up a bunch of shares as follows:
>> >1)  readable/writable by everyone
>> >2)  readable by everyone, but only a select few can write
>> >3)  only a select few can read and write
>> >
>> >I have a mixture of windows XP professional (my "server") and windows XP
>> >home (my "clients").
>> >
>> >I tried to follow the instructions for disabling SFS and setting up groups
>> >and users, but this doesn't seem to work.
>> >
>> >1)  I setup a share which should only be readable by everyone, but is
>> >writable by a select few, and yet I can log into a test account which isn't
>> >in the access list and modify the contents of the folder.
>> >2)  I setup a share which should only by readable/writable by a single
>> >person, but if I log in using the same user/pass on the client I can't access
>> >this share.  I tried to change the location when adding the user name such
>> >that it would be from the client computer but only the server computer
>> >appeared in the locations list.  I seem to be able to access my client just
>> >fine.
>> >
>> >I have been reading these posts for a few hours on and off, and the more I
>> >read the more frustrated I become.  It seems like windows 95/98 were so much
>> >easier to set up and use than windows xp.  It was really simple to decide
>> >which shares you wanted to be open to everyone, which shares you wanted to
>> >protect with a read password, and which shares you wanted to protect with a
>> >write password.  With windows XP I have to do all kinds of funky work
>> >arounds.  Why would microsoft take a step backward with ease of use?  I am
>> >dumbfounded as to the reason.
>> >
>> >BTW, buying MS server is not an option.  The heck if I am going to pay over
>> >$350 for something I could get for free before.  I'll invest my time and
>> >energy into a linux solution before I shell out $350 for a 5 user license.
>> >
>> >Sorry for the flame.
>>
>> Windows XP is based on Windows NT and 2000, not on Windows 95 and 98.
>> As you've discovered, control of shared file access works differently
>> in NT/2000/XP than in 95/98:
>>
>> 1. Windows XP doesn't have passwords for shared files.
>>
>> 2. XP Professional controls access based on permissions that you
>> define and on the user name and password of the person who requests
>> access.
>>
>> 3. Permissions can only be defined for local user accounts that exist
>> on the XP Professional computer.  If a user account on another
>> computer matches a local user account, it gets the permissions for the
>> local account.
>>
>> XP Professional's shared file access control is much more flexible and
>> powerful, but harder to set up, than Windows 95/98.  Have you seen the
>> web site that Ron Lowe and I wrote?  It has full details and
>> illustrated examples of creating shares, defining share permissions,
>> and accessing shares from other computers:
>>
>> Windows XP Professional File Sharing
>> http://www.practicallynetworked.com/sharing/xp_filesharing/index.htm
>>
>> I'll be happy to answer questions about it.
>>
>Thank you very much for the walk through.  I think that what was messing me
>up was the "everyone".  I had set full access for a particular user, but
>instead of simply removing the "Everyone" I had just set it to deny
>everything.  I guess that XP pro looked at the ACL, saw that everyone was
>denied and that my blessed user was a member of everyone, and so denied
>access.  When I removed the "Everyone" but left the blessed user everything
>started to work correctly.
>
>I agree that Windows XP professional is much more powerful than 95/98, it is
>just frustrating to figure out everything all over again.  Thank goodness for
>all of you folks who take time to anser questions from the masses!
>
>Dave