APK's suggestions are to enable NetBIOS name resolution over TCP/IP, which is fine but would also negate the need for NetBEUI being installed. Now, when you say "see", are you talking about the PCs being listed in Network Neighborhood? Can you use \\computername\sharename from one machine to other in both directions?
 
Also, due to the pathetic performance of browse master sessions and simple name resolutions without the aid of an outside name handling system, computers can take over 50 minutes to show up in a browse list (Network Neighborhood) depending on the conditions.

Quote:

P.S.=> Clutch... Personally? For security's sake?? I think NetBEUI is his better bet! He has a tiny LAN there it sounds like of 2 systems so his performance should be ok, & on a tiny LAN like that I heard NetBEUI is fastest protocol broadcast vs. collisions speed wise & NetBEUI is not routeable to the net, & thus safer... if you can get him up & running on that?? Do so by ALL means... do you agree? apk

We actually covered this before, and I stated that NetBEUI was a much faster protocol, but I don't believe in using extra protocols for no real reason. If you are using a NAT/PAT scheme, NetBIOS calls are not forwarded out to the internet by default anyway as most of these systems close that port anyway. Hence, no security issue.

Here's why I pointed out the difference between your his running NetBEUI for LAN usage and your troubleshooting TCP/IP;

1. If he got it working that way, he would leave NetBEUI installed but would more than likely NOT be using it as NetBIOS over TCP/IP would be his functional name resolution protocol,

2. He might feel like the issue is solved, and think that NetBEUI was in fact working when it wasn't,

3. He still might not be using NetBEUI anyway, as I think TCP/IP ranks higher in protocol selection than NetBEUI by default for each adapter,

4. He wants to work on systems as a profession, and he should learn the differences between them, and also learn that NetBEUI is dead.

So, now you see why I was pointing out what you were showing. The information wasn't bad or incorrect, but while you may have the ability to troubleshoot this type of problem on your own, he currently does not. He just needed to see what was going on and probably wouldn't have known of the nuances between the protocols and what the resolution would have brought him.

The \\server\share doesn't work when I'm trying to add my other system. It times out and says the share doesn't exist. I can see our workgroup, but not any machines on it.
 
I've created the shares for the drives I want to access. I'm doing a synchronization backup across the network and making the files available offline--which is sort of important to me.
 
I've played with enabling and disabling NetBIOS to no avail on both machines.

APK, you're not quite following my logic, but that's OK. In any case, I would can NetBEUI because there is no need for it. If people are THAT paranoid, they can use an outboard firewall.
 
Now, speaking of firewalls, do you have any running on any of the machines Brian? This would include the native one in WinXP. Were you even able to ping from one machine to the other?

XP's firewall is off.
 
I would ditch NetBEUI, except I have one minor problem: My dad says which protocols we have to use, not vise versa. If someone can convince him to ditch NB, be my guest.
I've gotten it down that I may need to work with some permissions on Win2k machines to get this to work.
Win2k can see XP, but not vise versa.
I also got a tip to check out MS knowledgebase for how to properly install NetBEUI.

Got the fix in MS Knowledgebase
How to get NetBEUI working in XP.
 
Thanks for the help, tho.
 
And XP's firewall was dropped.