Windows 8 Home cannot map to NAS Folder

Started Aug 3, 2013 | Discussions thread
Jim Cockfield Forum Pro • Posts: 16,333
Re: no problems here, and please stop with the Linux brainwashing

Scott Eaton wrote:

The comments Jim made about Linux never changing and always following standards might be the dumbest thing I've heard on this forum in awhile. However, any time you mention the word Linux the fanboys rise from their parent's basement and start spouting the gospel.

Excuse me. I think you're putting words into my mouth, as I don't recall claiming that Linux never changes.

Of course it changes, as features are added with each new release (kernel, drivers, user interfaces available with various distros, programs bundles, etc. etc. etc.).

Parent's basement, huh? Speak for yourself, as you appear to be a pretty young guy from photos I've seen of you.

Perhaps you're too young to know these things. But, my problem with SMB is that Microsoft has a long history of making undocumented changes that introduce compatibility problems. So, please forgive me if I suspect they're doing the exact same thing with Windows 8.

For example, even *after* the U.S. Justice Department required them to document their network protocols, they still made changes to SMB resulting in compatibility issues with third party products like SAMBA. That's well documented in the EU case against Microsoft. In fact, the EU Microsoft-Samba rulings are believed by some to be the most important of any legal decisions against Microsoft, forcing them to document the changes made in SMB.

You'll find lots of documents submitted by the SAMBA team members about Microsoft's tactics in that area (deliberately causing compatibility issues by making undocumented changes to SMB protocols)

But, unfortunately, they still didn't learn their lesson, despite the U.S Justice Department rulings and European Union rulings.

You can find interviews with SAMBA team members indicating that Microsoft Employees told them that they had "marching orders" to "f*** up" SAMBA compatibility when introducing SAMBA 2.0 with Vista.

Sure enough, there were problems with it (requiring registry tweaks to get Windows PCs to connect to SAMBA shares using CIFS).

Since the OP's Windows 7 machines worked OK with the new NAS, I figured that wasn't the issue (Microsoft changes in authentication methods that you may need registry changes to fix in order to connect to NAS models running older SAMA versions).

But, I don't believe for a second that file corruption was the culprit.

I've seen too many reports of Windows Home releases not allowing needed changes to connect to older SAMBA versions used by many NAS devices without registry level changes (as their UI didn't support the changes needed).

Sure, if you're using Windows 8 Pro or Enterprise releases, perhaps they may actually work with many NAS devices running SAMBA.

But, if you're using Home, don't count on it. Heck, for it to take multiple Microsoft Employees hours to make it work (finally escalating to more skilled employees that probably made registry tweaks that were not available via the User Interface) is absurd.

Microsoft has a history of changing their SMB Protocols for the sole purpose of causing compatibility issues with third party products.

So, again, please forgive me if I suspect them doing the exact same thing with Windows 8 (especially Home versus Pro or Enterprise releases).

Microsoft's reputation precedes them.

The latest distros based on the recent Ubuntu / Debian Kernel, particularly the desktop shells break pretty much everything including virtualization, customized interfaces, and anything else some of our clients have developed on their own. FreeNix is trashed, and pretty much anything else in that department. There's pretty much no uniformity at all in the Linux sphere at this point, and while Microsoft aggravates their consumer audience their professional Server division is starting to get it's act together. More than I can say for Red Hat. Then again when you work with systems engineers all day long -vs- people using Dpreview as their personal blog you have a different perspective.

Again, excuse me.

I've seen you make derogatory comments about moves to Linux in the past (even pointing out that making sure hardware is compatible was "beneath your paygrade"

I "bit my tongue" when I saw those kinds of comments in previous threads.

Basically, any corporation that's moving to new computers or Operating Systems needs to test those configurations with all of their software, *before* deploying them.

Systems Engineers, huh? I was a Network Engineer, then a Senior Network Engineer before moving into Management position with Sprint (the long distance company) some years back, working in one of their Major Network Control Centers.

When we got ready to move to a different OS, you can be assured that every app we wanted to run was tested on it to make sure the new OS was fully compatible.

Ditto for new hardware. We made sure all of our applications were fully compatible before deploying new computer models.

After leaving Sprint, I later managed MIS Network Services for Wells Fargo Armored Services, managing the Network Engineering Group, MIS Help Desk and much more (including responsibility for purchasing of all software, workstations and servers for over 140 Branches with thousands of employees).  IOW, I ran their entire MIS Staff out of their Corporate Headquarters except for the development team.  So, I'm no stranger to IT.

We didn't just deploy new Operating Systems or Hardware without thorough testing of it.

So, if you ran into issues with software when upgrading to a new OS version, I'd say somebody didn't do their job first (as in testing the the apps on the new OS *before* upgrading to it). The same thing applies to new hardware (before buying and deploying new computer models, your existing OS and software configs need to be tested for compatibility).

Now.. I haven't been actively involved in IT for around 10 years now (after leaving Wells Fargo, I worked as Director of Network Management Products for a Wireless Company, then as Manager of In Store Systems for JDA Software -- a company developing retail information systems software). But, for about 10 years now, my IT involvement has been minimal (I'm currently just acting as Forums Manger/Admin for another Digital Camera review site, versus doing anything more sophisticated)

But, I'd still find it hard to believe that any corporation with a decent staff would actually upgrade to a new OS without thorough testing first (as your complaints would imply).

But, perhaps the companies you work with do things differently, and don't mind having lots of issues and down time.

I otherwise hate Office 2013 and the Metro dumbing down. Nothing wrong with Libre Office, and Thunderbird beats the Win8 Mail Client to death.

Where I disagree is photo editing. Adobe PS / LR, etc., are the standards, and if you don't like this get a job where you can afford them. Linux can't run these native, and until Linux can you should choose your OS based on what you do, not what a bunch of Linux geeks tell you to do.

Some of us don't need Photoshop. I use Corel AfterShot Pro (see for more info). It provides what I need for Photography related software (Image Management, RAW Conversion, editing that I'd need to perform, etc.). Frankly, I think more than 99% of Photographers would find it meets their needs.

Of course, there are may other choices for image management and editing (may of which have native apps for Linux).

If you want to pay Adobe for Photoshop because you really need something it provides that you wouldn't have in the many Linux Imaging Editing apps that are available now, more power to you. As for me, no thanks.

-- hide signature --


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow