Talk:NetBIOS

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Untitled

This is a stub. It is still used... (I think).. in what context?

How does it relate to NBTSTAT?

You know, I'm not the biggest microsoft fan out there, but I think this article contains a little bit of loaded language that's biased against Microsoft. I edited some of it out, but part of it might also be biased if someone else wants to review it.

--Dæmon 19:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for information regarding netbios attacks and vulnerabilities. There is no such referance in this article. Viruswitch 09:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too was looking for vulnerabilities, in addition to the port numbers and protocols (tcp or udp) that it uses. Daedalus01 20:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardware NetBIOS

NetBIOS is orginally a hardware solution (hence its name). Can someone write more about it?--202.77.13.1 01:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what part of the name "NetBIOS" implies it's a hardware solution. I have never heard any indication that it was a "hardware solution". Are you referring to Sytek's broadband network, which was a "hardware solution", but not, as far as I know, one that embedded all of NetBIOS within it. Guy Harris 02:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NetBEUI redirects here

NetBEUI redirects to this article but isn't explained here. Wouldn't it make more sense to redirect it instead to the NetBIOS Frames protocol page where NetBEUI and the ambiguity surrounding it are explained. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best having NetBEUI re-direct here to NetBIOS, since the first official use of the name "NetBEUI" was IBM's in reference to its enhanced 1985 version of NetBIOS itself. Basically, NetBEUI = NetBIOS, and NetBEUI != NetBIOS only in Microsoft's imagination. I've enhanced the introduction and history sections to hopefully clarify this confusion. See edits by 71.165.207.155.

I have to say, I think that is a profoundly unhelpful and counter-productive argument. To prefer the formal definition of an obscure bit of nomenclature from a relatively obscure system over the default network protocol of hundreds of millions of computers all over the world in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s is obscurantist and obfuscatory. The /de facto/ meaning of "NetBEUI" is "the default network protocol used by all Microsoft DOS network stacks and all versions of Windows from Windows for Workgroups up to NT 4 and Win98". Neither this not the NBF article even properly mentions or defines this at all. I am amazed and profoundly disappointed. Someone's personal emphasis on formal correctness and historical precedence is preventing these articles from actually being useful or helpful. Liam Proven (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

++ Agree on all points 203.206.162.148 (talk) 07:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote

We can discuss, should "NetBEUI" and "NetBIOS Enhanced User Interface" redirect here or to some dab page. But while these titles redirect here, the {{redirect2}} hatnote is necessary because of ambiguity noticed above. Contrary to LittleWink's opinion, this has nothing to do with "related articles", this is primarily a mean to disambiguate these redirects. A user coming to these two titles may see highly visible indication that such "term" is semantically compromised. LittleWink (talk · contribs) argued that the hatnote should be avoided because "NetBEUI" is mentioned many times in article. It is exactly the reason, why redirecting an ambiguous title to an article can, in such rare cases as this one, be preferred over making a dab page. Technically these are redirects to an article, but virtually these are ambiguous redirects. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me express that I have no opinion on how much the terms differ in meaning or are ambiguous. But as Incnis Mrsi (talk · contribs) said here the confusion is well explained in this NetBIOS article. This means that the degree of ambiguity doesn't play a role in the question whether or not a hatnote should be placed on this article. The central idea of WP:HATNOTE is not to create hatnotes with information which is already present in an article, and since the mentioned articles in the hatnote are already linked vice versa in the body of the articles I used WP:RELATED to emphasize that. To me the hatnote should be deleted. And if that still leads to confusion the lead section of this article should be improved. This applies specifically to the NetBEUI link in the hatnote. LittleWink (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, we all know what hatnotes are for. The proposition "The central idea of WP:HATNOTE is not to create hatnotes with information which is already present in an article" does not entail that "The central idea of WP:HATNOTE is to avoid repeating any information present in the article's body". The {{redirect2}} is present because there are redirects, not because the already article misses something. The article New York has a hatnote "For the city, see New York City", although that city is linked just from the infobox and also from the article proper at least 7 times. There are thousands of dab hatnotes with links present in articles' bodies. Also, I do not understand what means the "confusion the lead section of this article should be improved". There are tens of thousands of dab hatnotes in English Wikipedia.

Next, imagine that we only removed the hatnote, but redirects remained in place. Let a reader go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetBEUI link. Then, s/he will see something like:

(Redirected from NetBEUI)
NetBIOS is an acronym for Network Basic Input/Output System. It provides services related to the session layer of the OSI model allowing applications on separate computers to communicate over a local area network. As strictly an API, NetBIOS is not a networking protocol. Older operating systems ran NetBIOS over IEEE 802.2 and IPX/SPX using the NetBIOS Frames (NBF) and NetBIOS over IPX/SPX (NBX) protocols, respectively.

…

Thus, the reader, even an experienced Wikipedia user, will probably conclude that:

"NetBEUI" is either a synonym for NetBIOS, or a certain component of it.
NetBIOS is an API, not a networking protocol.
There are protocols named "NetBIOS Frames" and "NetBIOS over IPX/SPX", somewhat related to NetBIOS.

If the reader comes to this link because recalls something about the "NetBEUI protocol" from late 1990s, then s/he will have to read about a half of the article to realize that it is "NBF" the name of that thing from 1990s in this wikipedia. I do not think that it would be good.

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can NetBIOS be disabled in Microsoft's newest servers?

Since NetBIOS has really nothing of value to offer vs using pure TCP/IP, can it be simply disabled on the newest Microsoft servers? DMahalko (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you mean by NetBIOS, and what you mean by a server. On MS Domain Servers, Group Policies are transfered to client computers using a file sharing and record locking protocol. You can turn off file and printer sharing and if you aren't using a server as a Domain Controller, the file sharing and record locking protocol is simple disabled.

If you mean NetBEUI, the MS NetBIOS Frames implementation, it's not available on the newest Microsoft servers: you can't even enable it.

Also, your axiom is false. Nobody uses a pure TCP network: a pure TCP/IP network can't do everything you expect from a network, and of the bits of your network traffic that is TCP/IP, not all of it is better than NetBEUI/NetBIOS/NBF. 203.206.162.148 (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VIV() —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.218.246.74 (talk) 13:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NetBIOS hostname versus DNS hostname

This statement does not appear to be correct: "A Windows machine's NetBIOS name is not to be confused with the computer's host name," considering the Microsoft-released .NET class IPGlobalProperties's .HostName field's description on MSDN: "This property calls into the native IP Helper function, GetNetworkParams, which returns a FIXED_INFO structure that contains the NetBIOS host name string."

Consider also that imperative statements are inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. 199.204.56.17 (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the concern, a theoretic possibility of a mismatch is presented as a fact. Moreover, some Windows versions used DNS for name resolution apparently:

In the early days of Windows networks, LMHOSTS files were used for NetBIOS name resolution. Later, these names were often resolved to IP addresses using a NetBIOS Name Server (NBNS). Microsoft’s version of the NBNS was called Windows Internet Naming Service (WINS). With Windows 2000 and Windows Server 2003, hostnames are used instead of NetBIOS names. In a Windows Server 2003 domain, DNS is used to resolve hostnames and locate resources such as network services. https://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/images/9780789736185/samplechapter/0789736187_CH03.pdf

Just to muddy the waters, Microsoft allows IP host names to be used as a substitute for NetBIOS names. https://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-netbios-name-resolution-really-works/ PaulT2022 (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon overload

The premise of this article is to explain the meaning and use of NetBIOS to a person of average intellect. The article fails to achieve this and gets quickly buried in layers of jargon and assumed knowledge. Perhaps those involved in the development and authoring of this page should consider starting again from scratch with the reader in mind. Do not assume that everyone or even the majority of people who read this article have the same understanding as the authors and other commentators. As an observer, it is comical to read the arguments in this talk section making strongly felt but trivial and semantic points that really only add to the obfuscation and confusion. Big picture, people, big picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.195.145 (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99fmgVcu-68 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:8100:68A9:44E3:BE59:8A78:1D8B (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]