I hope you don't mind a Windows 9x peer2peer Exchange question being posted.
One of my clients uses Schedule+ from the MS Office 95 package on a peer to peer network of mixed 9x machines. They are used to the software and are not interesed in upgrading.
You probably know that user accounts are based on Windows 95 Exchange mailboxes (Exchange support for 98 can be installed from the CD).
The one machine running 98 no longer automatically updates changes to shared access schedules with the user accounts on the mail server. I have been able to "kick start" it by loging in as the owner of the schedule and forcing a immediate synchronization from the Tools menu. It also seems to work on all workstations if I leave the schedule in question open on one of the 95 machines.
My clients have recently abandoned a practice of leaving all the workstations on 24/7. I suppose there could be differences in the implementation of Exchange between 95 & 98 that prevents workstations from communicating when they come back up. I'd rather say that a network driver or part of the program itself is corrupted and needs to be reinstalled (but any ideas will be entertained).
I've already figured out that Exchange must not use TCP/IP. When I wanted to ping the other workstations and check for lost packets, I found that TCP/IP was not bound to the Ethernet adapter on every workstation. I'm guessing Exchange uses UDP under NetBEUI. I would think that if messages were acknowledged the schedule would eventually synchronize iteself or generate an error message.
I'm hoping someone can suggest a course of action less drastic than re-installing peer to peer networking, Exchange, and Schedule+ both on the malfunctioning workstation and the mail server. Is there a diagnostic test I can run to narrow down the source of the error? Could it be the adapter itself (drive sharing is working). Would it be more appropriate to address my questions somewhere else? Microsoft doesn't seem to support Schedule any longer. I appreciate any insight you can provide.
firstname.lastname@example.org -- Direct replies appreciated, especially since I am sure I am way off topic.