[CalcProgrammer1]

Ok, Vista's really making me angry. I like XP, 2000, 98, 95...they all have nice network sharing...

Microsoft decided to implement some dumb user nonsense and force me to share certain folders...it's my computer and I want to share what I want to share!

For one, I want to be able to access shared folders WITHOUT entering a stupid username and/or password ...on ANY computer on my network. I hate the whole "security" nonsense...if I kept any important information on my computer it'd be different, but I don't think it's necessary to lock down my own computers from ...my other computers...which are controlled by me. I don't plan on hacking myself.

So, I want to share "Desktop" (my desktop in Windows Vista) without sharing the entire "Users" folder (the Users folder is stupid, the user system is stupid in my opinion, and why they had to move it from Documents and Settings to Users is beyond me, it just messes up more things). So, every other folder outside of "Users" shares fine, but those inside the Users folder have the dumb "Who owns this folder?" nonsense. I own it...just like I own all the computers on the whole NETWORK! I want to share it with...MY computers, so OF COURSE I OWN IT! How do you implement a "normal" sharing system inside of Users (as in, turn off the nonsense system that Microsoft wanted)?

Also, I can share my own folders, thank you very much, so I don't see why Microsoft shares the Users and Public by default...if you're not smart enough to share your own folders, chances are you probably shouldn't be sharing folders period.

[Mak213]

While you gripe about it. Others applaud it. It is more secure this way from attack. It is more secure over a netowrk in a building. It is more secure period.

If you ever got hacked and it wasnt this way i bet you would be singing a different tune.

Simply put. If you dont like it. Dont use it. I mean honestly what is griping about it gonna do? they finally try to make a OS that is more secure and all everyone does is gripe about the dang thing. Lets jsut go back to Windows 95 and not have a worry in the world.

Not to sound harsh but threads like this are part of the problem. Not the solution.

[mikesgroovin]

If you don't like dealing with the security of Windows within your own network, why not just use something like Radmin over your LAN. You can easily swap files, control your desktop, use telnet, et cetera. It saves time/frustration setting up your network the way that your different OS types wish it to be setup and takes little to no effort to maintain over time as you add/change your machines on your network

[CalcProgrammer1]

Well, sorry to sound harsh, but Vista's brick-wall security is just over-the-top to me. If I were in a business where I had confidential important information that would cost me a lot of money should it get stolen, I'd care. For a home network to share music and pictures easily over my various computers, I care more about simplicity. Sure, someone could hack into my WiFi and try and access my PC, but the odds of that happening in my neighborhood just seem pretty slim. More often than not, people trying to access WiFi are just looking for free Internet, and with a lot of unencrypted connections in my area, I bet they'd ignore mine.

And I'd actually be fine with it if it was just a default setting, but the fact that you can't share a folder in Users without sharing Users itself is just annoying. The main reason I don't like Vista is they redid everything you know about Windows...they eliminated the Menu bar on many apps, got rid of the "Up Folder" button, changed the settings dialog, turned single-windows with tabs into multiple window lists... That said, I do have to say I'm much more impressed with Vista on my new laptop, the looks are great, 64 bit support is awesome, and it handles a lot of things better than XP.

I guess what I'll have to do is create a folder outside of "Users" and put the stuff I want to share in that. I made a folder C:/My Documents and tried sharing it, works fine and Users isn't shared. I guess that'll have to do.