Re: [ActiveDir] OT: Request for Test AD Poplulation Data
Mark Parris wrote: Happy New Year to all. Does anyone know where I can obtain generic user data for importing into various AD's. I am starting to improve my knowledge on the concept of Meta directories and I want a little bit more information in the user fields than User1, 2 , 3 etc etc. This is how to turn the topic to the track :) What do You think by generic user data - I don't think there is something like this? -- Tomasz Onyszko http://www.w2k.pl List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: Re: [ActiveDir] icmp's
Cool Darren is blogging. And already in OPML-o-Matter: http://msmvps.com/blogs/ulfbsimonweidner/archive/2005/12/30/80015.aspx Gruesse - Sincerely, Ulf B. Simon-Weidner MVP-Book Windows XP - Die Expertentipps: http://tinyurl.com/44zcz Weblog: http://msmvps.org/UlfBSimonWeidner Website: http://www.windowsserverfaq.org Profile:http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=""> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 2:15 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: Re: [ActiveDir] icmp's Darren and I have had offline chats about this before so I know we are quite in sync on our thoughts. That is one of the reasons I am brave enough to spout them, if Darren isn't beating me up on my GPO thoughts they can't be too far off base. He is the GPOGUY after all. :o) http://www.gpoguy.com/ BTW, I didn't see Darren say it, but I just found today that he has started blogging... http://blogs.dirteam.com/blogs/gpoguy/. But back to this stuff... I agree that the common interface is nice, but don't fully believe the info needs to be written to a policy file in sysvol since you have the DCs right there to write the info into AD. But alas, as you mention, we are talking decent reworkingof how things work and that includes parts of AD to do really do it cool especially in terms of restricted AD groups. I do believe that for some of the stuff, code is now in there to force the change to only occur on the PDC. I am not sure when the change occurred but I am guessing K3 but I was trying to chase some code a month or two back in the Windows source tree and it appeared there was some code in the GPO processing that was looking for a PDC in order to make changes. I ran out of time and never went back to it though. RE the API for settings. It is kind of sad how that wasn't/hasn't/maynotbe implemented. It seems like it would have been easiest way for MS to have done things for themselves as well. I do agree that it is possible to reverse it out and figure out how to do it. Of course we aren't supposed to but that doesn't stop progress in the MS world. Eventuallysomeone at MS will see what someone else is doing with their tech and say hey that is pretty cool, lets dothat now. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darren Mar-Elia Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 7:11 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: Re: [ActiveDir] icmp's Random input below From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 11:54 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: Re: [ActiveDir] icmp's Rick came out of the woodwork and rambled: Huh? Can you explain both statements, joe? First statement being, I would rather not set domain policies in GPOs... I am referring to actual domain policy, not a policy applied to all machines in the domain. You know, the original meaning of domain policy. Pushing any policy to domain controllers that has to do with configuration of AD is assinine in my opinion, you already have a mechanism to push those changes through the environment. You don't need to use another one. Also it is a point of confusion for tons and tons of people. There should be a clear divisor between true domain policy and a policy that gets applied to each individual machine. [Darren Mar-Elia]If you're referring to using stuff like Restricted Groups policy to control domain-based group membership, then I agree and in fact its definitely a bad idea. The thing I don't like is that there really isn't any decent way to remove that capability out of the box. I could see value in using GP to control certain AD config settings, just so that you could have a common interface for all Windows configuration settings, but GP processing should be smart enough to say, hey, I'll only apply these domain changes to the PDC emulator and let AD replicate them out, or something like that. Second statement being programmatically handling settings in policies... You can't set GPO settings programmatically unless you reverse the format of the policy information in sysvol. All you can do is backup/restore/export/import/enable/disable. What if I want to take all policies under the OU Buildings (which could be tens, hundreds, or thousands of policy files) and set one setting, for the sake of argument say password policy for local machinesis equal to some set of values based on the specific OU name that the policy is applied to (say it has finance in the name of the OU) how will you do that programmatically without directly hacking the policy files which last I heard wasn't supported? [Darren Mar-Elia]Agreed that an API into policy settings would be great. I've only asked about 55 times and it still isn't on the horizon. Why? Mostly because there is no standard within GP around how settings are stored. Since separate product teams originally wrote the
Re: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003
men...menmen they can't answer a simple question, they need to know the how's and the why's and the where's and the when's, I couldn't even go through all of your answers cause apparently its not within my scope of interest :), I need to do this damned testing specifically this way, end of story. Its not enough am stucked now with 5 minutes of switching between the 2 OSes and joinining/disjoining domains and loosing my tools from one boot to the other, I have to explain why am in deep shit on top of that! Back to the people who tried to help :) originally I used the same name, when I realized the problem I tried 2 different names, but it didn't work, are you saying that I should use different names to beging with? if so will re-installing the W2k3 be enough without having to mess the xp? :( thank you guys On 1/1/06, ASB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ~Hehe….Let me know how that full-out testing of Vista and Aero Glass is going for you in a VPC or a VMWare virtual machine.~That's what dedicated systems are for.:)Sure, a VM is not the best option here, depending on what aspect of the OS is being tested, but in that case, using a totally separatehard drive or some other separation technology will still likely proveto be more viable than dual-booting.-ASBFAST, CHEAP, SECURE: Pick Any TWO http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/On 1/1/06, Rick Kingslan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hehe….Let me know how that full-out testing of Vista and Aero Glass is going for you in a VPC or a VMWare virtual machine. I agree, dual-booting is not the optimal method to running different OS's, but if you want the OS to have the full machine, rather than the limited virtualized hardware that the VMs are allowed – I think dual booting still has a very strong place in the testing / learning environment. And, make no mistake – this is coming from a guy that when on the road, has a 250GB external with nothing BUT VMs with VPC and VS 2005 R2 on his laptop.I love virtualization….It's just not the right thing for all situations. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 10:40 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I have no clue why it wouldn't allow you to have different names for the OS and then both can be joined at the same time, I have done this often. You did use different directories for the installations right? Any more dual booting is going the way of the dodo, the new thing is to virtualization software so you have both instances up and running at once. Look at Virtual PC or VMWare Workstation. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of shereen naser Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:01 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Hi list, I have windows xp sp 2 on my machine, I need to test something so I installed windows 2003 server enterprise edition R2 on the same machine same hard disk, I can see the dual boot screen and choose the OS, but I can only login to the domain if one of the OS's is disconnected from the domain, meaning if I want to login to the windows 2003 I have to go to the windows xp and disjoin the machine from the domain then restart and login to the domain in windows 2003, if I want to login to winxp I go to windows 2003 and disjoin it from the domain then restart and join the xp to the domain and login, locally I can login to both machines no problem. the error is that the computer account is not found on the domain when I try to login and both OSes are joined to the domain. I tried to rename the machine name to different names in each OS but same thing happens. is there a way to do that? (login to domain using both OS's without having to disjoin?) Thank you
RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003
If you are going to dual boot. 1. Use different hard drives for the installation (logical partitions or physical drives). If you can't be bothered to build different partitions, then you better use entirely different directory paths for all aspects of the installand expect to STILL possibly run into some issues especially if any non-builtin groups or any local users are used in any file system ACLs. 2. Use entirely differentmachine names, this is your one and only issue related to AD and in fact, isn't an AD issue, it isan installation booboo. 3. Use different IPs (I would hard set at least one, possibly both of the machines), I would also consider using different MAC addresses as I have seen weird issues with some older switches(Bay switches) which don't reset theirIP/MAC translation tables enough. The 5 minutes of switching between OSes would all be gone with virtuals which is yet another reason why it is recommended. Since you don't want to use virtuals or separate machines, you need to make sure you isolate the instances properly. Not sure why you are losing your tools from one boot to the next, sounds like yet another issue with how you have installed the products. The reason there was so much discussion about about the hows/whys is because when someone is messing up something fairlywell known we tend to find out on this list later that they really didn't know what they were looking for in the first place or the OP finds outthere were easier ways to do things later and wished someone had mentioned it. Basically you will get someone asking why they can't seem to properly build a life size titaniumeiffel tower in their basement when in fact all theyneed is a 3 inch diameter mudbowl with a stick. This list has a history of really trying to teach people not being the list called AD for dummies. People who do things quick without thinking or without understanding are often the ones doing a lot of the posting saying things aren't right. Often times, there aren't any simple answers that fit everyone, you need to understand the who's, why's, what for's, and intents to come up with some answer approximating what should be done. The most popular answer on this list over the years has been "it depends" or "you need to explain your situation better" because not only could an answer that is perfect foryou and howyou do things be wrong for someone else, it could really screw them up bad. Someone who is asking the question in the first place probably isn't in a good position to try and judge which short answer out of several real quick posts is good for them. The quick simple answer for someone having an issue dual booting is don't dual boot. It should quickly and easily solve all of your statedissues. If you really come down to brass tacks, this issue isn't an AD issue at all. As I indicated above, it is aWindows installation issue. You have two machines trying to use the same machine account in AD. Only one machine knows the AD computer account password at any given time. There is no AD issue there, it is perfectly happy and working exactly as designed. If you had two separate machines being used by two separate people trying to use an AD account would you consider that an AD issue or someone dorked up their machine name issue? If you are running inVM(s) or separate physical machines, you generally make that connection much better, "oh yeah, we can't have two machines with the same name in the same domain at the same time". I am now of the opinion that just changing the machine name of one installation may not solve all of your issues. It soundslike you may also have binary confusion as it is possible you have all of the files slammed together in the same directory structures (Windows and DocsSettings and InetPub and ProgFiles and not to mention ACL issues), yet again, something you won't run into using VM(s) or separate physical machines as it simplifies it all. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of shereen naserSent: Monday, January 02, 2006 8:43 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 men...menmen they can't answer a simple question, they need to know the how's and the why's and the where's and the when's, I couldn't even go through all of your answers cause apparently its not within my scope of interest :), I need to do this damned testing specifically this way, end of story. Its not enough am stucked now with 5 minutes of switching between the 2 OSes and joinining/disjoining domains and loosing my tools from one boot to the other, I have to explain why am in deep shit on top of that! Back to the people who tried to help :) originally I used the same name, when I realized the problem I tried 2 different names, but it didn't work, are you saying that I should use different names to beging with? if so will re-installing the W2k3 be enough without
RE: Re: [ActiveDir] icmp's
Cool. Now I understand the rationale for what you were getting at. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 1:54 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: Re: [ActiveDir] icmp's Rick came out of the woodwork and rambled: Huh? Can you explain both statements, joe? First statement being, I would rather not set domain policies in GPOs... I am referring to actual domain policy, not a policy applied to all machines in the domain. You know, the original meaning of domain policy. Pushing any policy to domain controllers that has to do with configuration of AD is assinine in my opinion, you already have a mechanism to push those changes through the environment. You don't need to use another one. Also it is a point of confusion for tons and tons of people. There should be a clear divisor between true domain policy and a policy that gets applied to each individual machine. Second statement being programmatically handling settings in policies... You can't set GPO settings programmatically unless you reverse the format of the policy information in sysvol. All you can do is backup/restore/export/import/enable/disable. What if I want to take all policies under the OU Buildings (which could be tens, hundreds, or thousands of policy files) and set one setting, for the sake of argument say password policy for local machinesis equal to some set of values based on the specific OU name that the policy is applied to (say it has finance in the name of the OU) how will you do that programmatically without directly hacking the policy files which last I heard wasn't supported? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Kingslan Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 1:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Re: [ActiveDir] icmp's joe stood up and attempted to smack Mark Parris with a large trout, saying: I would rather not set domain policy with GPOs. While I am at it, I think we are far beyond the point that we should have the ability to programmatically handle settings in policies. Huh? Can you explain both statements, joe? I understand the context of the first, but not why. The second I just am not sure what youre getting at. Help out an old haggard road warrior. ;o) Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 10:50 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: Re: [ActiveDir] icmp's Come on, who ya going to believe? Microsoft who has all sorts of typoes in the documentation (I just saw a reference to objectcategory=user in an MS doc 2 days ago, I still have the bruise on my forehead)or our trusted source... Al? :o) Personally I like theold style logon scripts better than GPO logon scripts. Way too many things impact GPO functions. I never found it difficult to write logon scripts designed to work on specific users nor machines sodidn't need the sorting capability of GPOs. Overall I am ok levelhappy with having a default domain GPO and default dc GPO as the only GPOs. I would rather not set domain policy with GPOs. While I am at it, I think we are far beyond the point that we should have the ability to programmatically handle settings in policies. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Parris Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 9:58 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: Re: [ActiveDir] icmp's This is from the Microsoft article Enterprise logon scripts By default, logon scripts written as either .bat or .cmd files (so-called legacy logon scripts) run in a visible command window; when executed, a command window open up on the screen. To prevent a user from closing the command window (and thus terminating the script), you can the Run legacy logon scripts hidden enable policy. This ensures that all legacy logon scripts run in a hidden window. Mark From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tom Kern Sent: 01 January 2006 14:18 To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [ActiveDir] icmp's I thought i read somewhere in some MS doc it being refered to as legacy since now you can put multiple logon scripts in GPO's and that they recommend doing it that way. everytime a new OS or feature comes out, MS tends to refer to the previous os/feature as legacy or down-level. maybe i just made a silly assumption that using a logon script as a user attritbute( i guess somewhat simillar to the way NT did it)instead of a GPO was legacy. thanks On 1/1/06, Al Mulnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I personally haven't heard it referred to as legacy. I think that may be because it wasn't a legacy method when I last heard it ;) I haven't tested this, so your mileage may vary but: the legacy method would have been created and designed for a time before ICMP was
RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003
My point exactly However, use of a separate hard drive in a system that is already running something else or 'separation technology (not 100% sure what that is) usually means 'dual boot' to some degree. And, I would really suggest that if you're not learning HOW to manage the BCD in Vista - it might be an idea. Dual booting is a way to do this. Rick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ASB Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 2:43 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 ~ Hehe…. Let me know how that full-out testing of Vista and Aero Glass is going for you in a VPC or a VMWare virtual machine. ~ That's what dedicated systems are for. :) Sure, a VM is not the best option here, depending on what aspect of the OS is being tested, but in that case, using a totally separate hard drive or some other separation technology will still likely prove to be more viable than dual-booting. -ASB FAST, CHEAP, SECURE: Pick Any TWO http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/ On 1/1/06, Rick Kingslan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hehe…. Let me know how that full-out testing of Vista and Aero Glass is going for you in a VPC or a VMWare virtual machine. I agree, dual-booting is not the optimal method to running different OS's, but if you want the OS to have the full machine, rather than the limited virtualized hardware that the VMs are allowed – I think dual booting still has a very strong place in the testing / learning environment. And, make no mistake – this is coming from a guy that when on the road, has a 250GB external with nothing BUT VMs with VPC and VS 2005 R2 on his laptop. I love virtualization…. It's just not the right thing for all situations. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 10:40 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I have no clue why it wouldn't allow you to have different names for the OS and then both can be joined at the same time, I have done this often. You did use different directories for the installations right? Any more dual booting is going the way of the dodo, the new thing is to virtualization software so you have both instances up and running at once. Look at Virtual PC or VMWare Workstation. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of shereen naser Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:01 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Hi list, I have windows xp sp 2 on my machine, I need to test something so I installed windows 2003 server enterprise edition R2 on the same machine same hard disk, I can see the dual boot screen and choose the OS, but I can only login to the domain if one of the OS's is disconnected from the domain, meaning if I want to login to the windows 2003 I have to go to the windows xp and disjoin the machine from the domain then restart and login to the domain in windows 2003, if I want to login to winxp I go to windows 2003 and disjoin it from the domain then restart and join the xp to the domain and login, locally I can login to both machines no problem. the error is that the computer account is not found on the domain when I try to login and both OSes are joined to the domain. I tried to rename the machine name to different names in each OS but same thing happens. is there a way to do that? (login to domain using both OS's without having to disjoin?) Thank you .Š†ÿÁŠŠƒ²§²B§Ã¶v®Š§²rz§ÃŠryýŠŠ™i½® List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003
If you want to test 64 bit you are kind of screwed too, oh wait vmware workstation does that as well... Just dont like VPC, do you? :o) What about USB are you looking for? What does VMWare do with USB that is this vital? I doubt its the USB coffee warmer As to the 64-bit support, I guess that would concern me if my laptop had an x64 chip. But, then I could use VS 2005 R2. But, Im not going to argue the virtues of VMWare vs. VPC. I Use VPC because its what 100% of the material that I get from internal is supplied on. And, I get about 100 or so DVDs with all types of imaginable configurations. Im glad that youve got the time to put together all of these disks, joe. I wish I had that kind of time. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 1:46 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I am not a big workstation OS type of person, I use XP only when I must. Longhorn seems to work ok in a VM. I do agree that it isn't the right thing for all situations, but half the people setting up dual booting blow it anyway. VM is a much simpler solution for most people. Obviousy if you are doing perf or physical hardware related testing it is tough. Heck even if you want USB you can't use VPC, you use vmware instead. If you want to test 64 bit you are kind of screwed too, oh wait vmware workstation does that as well... From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Kingslan Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 1:05 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Hehe. Let me know how that full-out testing of Vista and Aero Glass is going for you in a VPC or a VMWare virtual machine. I agree, dual-booting is not the optimal method to running different OSs, but if you want the OS to have the full machine, rather than the limited virtualized hardware that the VMs are allowed I think dual booting still has a very strong place in the testing / learning environment. And, make no mistake this is coming from a guy that when on the road, has a 250GB external with nothing BUT VMs with VPC and VS 2005 R2 on his laptop. I love virtualization. Its just not the right thing for all situations. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 10:40 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I have no clue why it wouldn't allow you to have different names for the OS and then both can be joined at the same time, I have done this often. You did use different directories for the installations right? Any more dual booting is going the way of the dodo, the new thing is to virtualization software so you have both instances up and running at once. Look at Virtual PC or VMWare Workstation. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of shereen naser Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:01 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Hi list, I have windows xp sp 2 on my machine, I need to test something so I installed windows 2003 server enterprise edition R2 on the same machine same hard disk, I can see the dual boot screen and choose the OS, but I can only login to the domain if one of the OS's is disconnected from the domain, meaning if I want to login to the windows 2003 I have to go to the windows xp and disjoin the machine from the domain then restart and login to the domain in windows 2003, if I want to login to winxp I go to windows 2003 and disjoin it from the domain then restart and join the xp to the domain and login, locally I can login to both machines no problem. the error is that the computer account is not found on the domain when I try to login and both OSes are joined to the domain. I tried to rename the machine name to different names in each OS but same thing happens. is there a way to do that? (login to domain using both OS's without having to disjoin?) Thank you
RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003
One question is all of your validation testing done on VMs or is the final sign off done on production deployable hardware? Im a big advocate of VM testing, just to set the record straight. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alex Fontana Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 2:07 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I would have to agree;-) At work I run completely on VMs using ESX. All my testing is done on a Dell PE1800 with about 8VMs including AD, Exchange (clustered), SQL, etc. For those looking to do simple testing of apps check out VM Player http://www.vmware.com/vmplayer You cant create VMs but you can run any pre-built VM, including MS VPC VMs. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 11:46 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I am not a big workstation OS type of person, I use XP only when I must. Longhorn seems to work ok in a VM. I do agree that it isn't the right thing for all situations, but half the people setting up dual booting blow it anyway. VM is a much simpler solution for most people. Obviousy if you are doing perf or physical hardware related testing it is tough. Heck even if you want USB you can't use VPC, you use vmware instead. If you want to test 64 bit you are kind of screwed too, oh wait vmware workstation does that as well... From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Kingslan Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 1:05 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Hehe. Let me know how that full-out testing of Vista and Aero Glass is going for you in a VPC or a VMWare virtual machine. I agree, dual-booting is not the optimal method to running different OSs, but if you want the OS to have the full machine, rather than the limited virtualized hardware that the VMs are allowed I think dual booting still has a very strong place in the testing / learning environment. And, make no mistake this is coming from a guy that when on the road, has a 250GB external with nothing BUT VMs with VPC and VS 2005 R2 on his laptop. I love virtualization. Its just not the right thing for all situations. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 10:40 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I have no clue why it wouldn't allow you to have different names for the OS and then both can be joined at the same time, I have done this often. You did use different directories for the installations right? Any more dual booting is going the way of the dodo, the new thing is to virtualization software so you have both instances up and running at once. Look at Virtual PC or VMWare Workstation. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of shereen naser Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:01 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Hi list, I have windows xp sp 2 on my machine, I need to test something so I installed windows 2003 server enterprise edition R2 on the same machine same hard disk, I can see the dual boot screen and choose the OS, but I can only login to the domain if one of the OS's is disconnected from the domain, meaning if I want to login to the windows 2003 I have to go to the windows xp and disjoin the machine from the domain then restart and login to the domain in windows 2003, if I want to login to winxp I go to windows 2003 and disjoin it from the domain then restart and join the xp to the domain and login, locally I can login to both machines no problem. the error is that the computer account is not found on the domain when I try to login and both OSes are joined to the domain. I tried to rename the machine name to different names in each OS but same thing happens. is there a way to do that? (login to domain using both OS's without having to disjoin?) Thank you
RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Request for Test AD Poplulation Data
Tomasz, I think that Mark is looking to populate his metabase with data other than User 1, User 2, User 3, etc. with simple or blank attributes. So, he's looking for stuff like Homer Simpson, with all of the user data, then Marge, etc. Rick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tomasz Onyszko Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 2:52 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] OT: Request for Test AD Poplulation Data Mark Parris wrote: Happy New Year to all. Does anyone know where I can obtain generic user data for importing into various AD's. I am starting to improve my knowledge on the concept of Meta directories and I want a little bit more information in the user fields than User1, 2 , 3 etc etc. This is how to turn the topic to the track :) What do You think by generic user data - I don't think there is something like this? -- Tomasz Onyszko http://www.w2k.pl List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
Re: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003
Hey Rick, can you differentiate for us what the difference would be between 'production deployable' configurations and those that aren't related to virtual machines? Maybe in two sentences or less with hyperlinks? Having used both ESX, and VS 2005 I can honestly say thereis at least one difference maybe more often related to performance; that's not by accident either. I would in no way advocate running Mac-on-IntVista in a VM, but then again I wouldn't advocate running Vista at all and especially not on a 32bit platform at this time. I think the original posters configuration is possible and has some benefits, especially since it sounded like the original poster wants to keep a job. Hopefully she realizes where the error was and is busily fixing it and using the corrected configuration. I think the answer is somewhere in the 30+ posts, but I'm curious about the VM comments you made and I'm hoping to learn something here. Cheers, Al On 1/2/06, Rick Kingslan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One question – is all of your validation testing done on VM's or is the final sign off done on 'production deployable' hardware? I'm a big advocate of VM testing, just to set the record straight. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Alex FontanaSent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 2:07 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I would have to agree…;-) At work I run completely on VMs using ESX. All my testing is done on a Dell PE1800 with about 8VMs including AD, Exchange (clustered), SQL, etc. For those looking to do simple testing of apps check out VM Player http://www.vmware.com/vmplayer You can't create VMs but you can run any pre-built VM, including MS VPC VMs. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of joeSent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 11:46 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I am not a big workstation OS type of person, I use XP only when I must. Longhorn seems to work ok in a VM. I do agree that it isn't the right thing for all situations, but half the people setting up dual booting blow it anyway. VM is a much simpler solution for most people. Obviousy if you are doing perf or physical hardware related testing it is tough. Heck even if you want USB you can't use VPC, you use vmware instead. If you want to test 64 bit you are kind of screwed too, oh wait vmware workstation does that as well... From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Rick KingslanSent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 1:05 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Hehe…. Let me know how that full-out testing of Vista and Aero Glass is going for you in a VPC or a VMWare virtual machine. I agree, dual-booting is not the optimal method to running different OS's, but if you want the OS to have the full machine, rather than the limited virtualized hardware that the VMs are allowed – I think dual booting still has a very strong place in the testing / learning environment. And, make no mistake – this is coming from a guy that when on the road, has a 250GB external with nothing BUT VMs with VPC and VS 2005 R2 on his laptop. I love virtualization…. It's just not the right thing for all situations. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of joeSent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 10:40 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I have no clue why it wouldn't allow you to have different names for the OS and then both can be joined at the same time, I have done this often. You did use different directories for the installations right? Any more dual booting is going the way of the dodo, the new thing is to virtualization software so you have both instances up and running at once. Look at Virtual PC or VMWare Workstation. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of shereen naserSent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:01 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Hi list, I have windows xp sp 2 on my machine, I need to test something so I installed windows 2003 server enterprise edition R2 on the same machine same hard disk, I can see the dual boot screen and choose the OS, but I can only login to the domain if one of the OS's is disconnected from the domain, meaning if I want to login to the windows 2003 I have to go to the windows xp and disjoin the machine from the domain then restart and login to the domain in windows 2003, if I want to login to winxp I go to windows 2003 and disjoin it from the domain then restart and join the xp to the domain and login, locally I can login to both machines no problem. the error is that the computer account is not found on the domain when I try to login and both OSes are joined to the domain. I tried to rename the machine name to different names in each OS but same
RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003
Just to be clear, VS2005R2 does not support 64-bit guests. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Kingslan Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 9:40 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 If you want to test 64 bit you are kind of screwed too, oh wait vmware workstation does that as well... Just dont like VPC, do you? :o) What about USB are you looking for? What does VMWare do with USB that is this vital? I doubt its the USB coffee warmer As to the 64-bit support, I guess that would concern me if my laptop had an x64 chip. But, then I could use VS 2005 R2. But, Im not going to argue the virtues of VMWare vs. VPC. I Use VPC because its what 100% of the material that I get from internal is supplied on. And, I get about 100 or so DVDs with all types of imaginable configurations. Im glad that youve got the time to put together all of these disks, joe. I wish I had that kind of time. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 1:46 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I am not a big workstation OS type of person, I use XP only when I must. Longhorn seems to work ok in a VM. I do agree that it isn't the right thing for all situations, but half the people setting up dual booting blow it anyway. VM is a much simpler solution for most people. Obviousy if you are doing perf or physical hardware related testing it is tough. Heck even if you want USB you can't use VPC, you use vmware instead. If you want to test 64 bit you are kind of screwed too, oh wait vmware workstation does that as well... From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Kingslan Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 1:05 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Hehe. Let me know how that full-out testing of Vista and Aero Glass is going for you in a VPC or a VMWare virtual machine. I agree, dual-booting is not the optimal method to running different OSs, but if you want the OS to have the full machine, rather than the limited virtualized hardware that the VMs are allowed I think dual booting still has a very strong place in the testing / learning environment. And, make no mistake this is coming from a guy that when on the road, has a 250GB external with nothing BUT VMs with VPC and VS 2005 R2 on his laptop. I love virtualization. Its just not the right thing for all situations. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 10:40 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I have no clue why it wouldn't allow you to have different names for the OS and then both can be joined at the same time, I have done this often. You did use different directories for the installations right? Any more dual booting is going the way of the dodo, the new thing is to virtualization software so you have both instances up and running at once. Look at Virtual PC or VMWare Workstation. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of shereen naser Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:01 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Hi list, I have windows xp sp 2 on my machine, I need to test something so I installed windows 2003 server enterprise edition R2 on the same machine same hard disk, I can see the dual boot screen and choose the OS, but I can only login to the domain if one of the OS's is disconnected from the domain, meaning if I want to login to the windows 2003 I have to go to the windows xp and disjoin the machine from the domain then restart and login to the domain in windows 2003, if I want to login to winxp I go to windows 2003 and disjoin it from the domain then restart and join the xp to the domain and login, locally I can login to both machines no problem. the error is that the computer account is not found on the domain when I try to login and both OSes are joined to the domain. I tried to rename the machine name to different names in each OS but same thing happens. is there a way to do that? (login to domain using both OS's without having to disjoin?) Thank you
Re: [ActiveDir] DNS SRV records
Yes ! Not only for remote site DCs but also for regional hub DCs too... -- Kamlesh On 12/31/05, Al Mulnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I understand you correctly, you can already control between local site and regional/central site authentication hierarchy through publication of records (as inbranch office scenario)but you want to further control which DC does authentication by controlling, in the event of failure in the local site, which hub it goes to? Is that correct? Al On 12/31/05, Kamlesh Parmar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) AFAIK, Site is a active directory specific concept, and AD is Directory (LDAP), Authentication server (Kerberos) etc. Theseservices are published by AD in DNS thru SRV records in _sites._msdcs for each site and it covers them all... (LDAP,DC,GC,Kerberos,Kpassword) so I was curious what applications would actually just read sitename from AD and look for a service not offered by DC in that site? AD based distributed applications (other than exchange) ? 2)DNS priorities, I know by default,its only possible per DC basis thru registry. I was hoping it was more customizable, even if it was not officially documented. Basically we do have hub and spoke stuff. We have centralhub and then at its spokes regionalhubs and at their spoke individual remote sites. (This is highly simplified,as there areload balancinglinks across regions, away from central hub, so I would say its a mashbetween center and regional sitesand than hub and spokes at region and remote sites) Now, in case of DC failure at remote site, clients would go to any regional or Central hub DC, and not necessarily its nearest regional hub DC. Withpriority only per DC basis, I would have to create mess of priorities to achieve whatI want. And it would be complex. One solution I thought was to publish regional hub DCs intheir spoke DCs with lower priority This would surely give me some control, on where remote sites go for authentication. But this would not help cover DC failure at region level. Basically, I want to totally control the list of DCs referred to clients at each site and in what order they are referred.So, per DC per Site priority setting would have been ideal. I am open toother possible solutions. -- Kamlesh On 12/31/05, Almeida Pinto, Jorge de [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: _sites.dc._msdcs.DNSDomainName is for locating a DC (hence the _msdcs) that hosts a certain service in a certain site _sites.DnsDomainName is for locating a SERVER (does not need to be a DC) that hosts a certain service in a certain sitefor more info on service resource records see: http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/Windows/2000/server/reskit/en-us/Default.asp?url="">DNS priorities are on a per DC basis, and not on a per DC per site basis. It is not possible to configure a different priority for the same DC covering another site.Why do you want to do that?if clients cannot find a DC in a site by querying for _ldap._tcp.SiteName._sites.DnsDomainName the client will search for a DC in the domain by querying for _ldap._tcp.dc._msdcs.DnsDomainNameIf you have a hub-and-spoke site topology it is OK to configure all spoke DCs (branches) NOT to register domain wide DC locator records and only let HUB DCs register those records JorgeFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Kamlesh ParmarSent: Fri 2005-12-30 22:42To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] DNS SRV recordsFrom my limited knowledge of how AD uses SRV records, I have two queries.1) Why we need separate _sites.DnsDomainName child domain when we have_sites.dc._msdcs.DNSDomainName child domain populated? And I guess that only later is used by clients to find the site specific DC for authentication. Which other applications would need site specific but generic SRV records (former ones) ??2)How to publish DC1 in site1 into remote site site2 with different priority than its own site site1? i.e.DC1site1 priority=0DC1site2 priority=10DC2site1 priority=10DC2site2 priority=0By the way,Happy New Year to you all.--Kamlesh~ Be the change you want to see in the World~This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you. -- ~Be the change you want to see in the World~ -- ~Be the change you want to see in the World~
Re: [ActiveDir] DNS SRV records
Thanks Jorge for so nicely putting it all together... This is what I was thinking as the simplest possible optimized configuration. So, thought lets put it across masters to knowall possibilities... -- Kamlesh On 1/1/06, Almeida Pinto, Jorge de [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what you could do is:* make sure only the main central hub registers domain wide and site wide DC locator records * make sure regional hubs only register site wide DC locator records and NOT domain wide DC locator records* make sure remote offices only register site wide DC locator records and NOT domain wide DC locator records * Leave the priority of the central hub DCs as is* Configure a higher priority value for regional hub DCs* Leave the priority of the remote site DCs as is* Configure regional hub DCs to additionally cover the corresponding lower remote sites This way:* If regional hub DCs fail clients/servers go to the main central hub when these query for DCs in the domain* If remote site DCs fail clients/servers will first go to the corresponding upper regional hub as these also cover the remote site and second these will go to the main central hub when these query for DCs in the domain This configuration could be realized using GPOs with group filtering or SUB OUs below to the Domain Controllers OU (one OU with DCs, all remote sites, that do not register domain wide DC locator records AND one OU per regional hub with DCs that do not register domain wide DC locator records, have a highher priority for the SRV RR and additionally cover the lower remote site) or site GPOs using WMI filtering or a combination of the what is mentioned Cheers,JorgeFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Kamlesh ParmarSent: Sat 2005-12-31 13:57 To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] DNS SRV records1)AFAIK, Site is a active directory specific concept, and AD is Directory (LDAP), Authentication server (Kerberos) etc. These services are published by AD in DNS thru SRV records in _sites._msdcs for each site and it covers them all... (LDAP,DC,GC,Kerberos,Kpassword) so I was curious what applications would actually just read sitename from AD and look for a service not offered by DC in that site? AD based distributed applications (other than exchange) ?2)DNS priorities, I know by default, its only possible per DC basis thru registry. I was hoping it was more customizable, even if it was not officially documented.Basically we do have hub and spoke stuff. We have central hub and then at its spokes regional hubs and at their spoke individual remote sites. (This is highly simplified, as there are load balancing links across regions, away from central hub, so I would say its a mash between center and regional sites and than hub and spokes at region and remote sites) Now, in case of DC failure at remote site, clients would go to any regional or Central hub DC, and not necessarily its nearest regional hub DC.With priority only per DC basis, I would have to create mess of priorities to achieve what I want. And it would be complex. One solution I thought was to publish regional hub DCs in their spoke DCs with lower priorityThis would surely give me some control, on where remote sites go for authentication. But this would not help cover DC failure at region level. Basically, I want to totally control the list of DCs referred to clients at each site and in what order they are referred.So, per DC per Site priority setting would have been ideal.I am open to other possible solutions. --KamleshOn 12/31/05, Almeida Pinto, Jorge de [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: _sites.dc._msdcs.DNSDomainName is for locating a DC (hence the _msdcs) that hosts a certain service in a certain site _sites.DnsDomainName is for locating a SERVER (does not need to be a DC) that hosts a certain service in a certain site for more info on service resource records see: http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/Windows/2000/server/reskit/en-us/Default.asp?url=""> DNS priorities are on a per DC basis, and not on a per DC per site basis. It is not possible to configure a different priority for the same DC covering another site. Why do you want to do that? if clients cannot find a DC in a site by querying for _ldap._tcp.SiteName._sites.DnsDomainName the client will search for a DC in the domain by querying for _ldap._tcp.dc._msdcs.DnsDomainName If you have a hub-and-spoke site topology it is OK to configure all spoke DCs (branches) NOT to register domain wide DC locator records and only let HUB DCs register those records Jorge From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Kamlesh Parmar Sent: Fri 2005-12-30 22:42 To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] DNS SRV records From my limited knowledge of how AD uses SRV records, I have two queries. 1) Why we need separate _sites.DnsDomainName child domain when we have _sites.dc._msdcs.DNSDomainName child domain populated? And I guess that only later is used by clients to
[ActiveDir] OT: Windows Server 2003 Security guide Ver 2.0
Microsoft released a updated version of Win2k3 sec guide last week, Thisupdate adds post SP1 hardening recommendations, including usage of SCW for creating role based templates etc. Windows Server 2003 Security guide Ver 2.0http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=8a2643c1-0685-4d89-b655-521ea6c7b4dbDisplayLang=en And its companion guide Threats and Countermeasures guide Ver 2.0 http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/topics/serversecurity/tcg/tcgch00.mspx -- Kamlesh~Be the change you want to see in the World~
[ActiveDir] DCs generating SRV records for 2 sites!?
We have a couple of child domain controllers that were moved from their respective site into the main site using the AD Site and Services mmc. The subnet definition was NOT changed accordingly. This was to try to solve an Exchange problem (had no effect). The DCs were moved back to their own original site a couple of days later. Now I see that these DCs are advertising SRV records for both sites! We've tried deleting (renaming really) the netlogon.dns and netlogon.dnb files so that they could be generated automatically upon reboot. The bogus site SRV records still show up! Any thoughts on how we can get this back straight? Thanks much for any thoughts. Mike Thommes List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003
Depends; for simple changes such as rolling out a new GPO, testing an import to AD, or changing a logon/startup script the VM works perfect and gives the expected result. Also, the fact that most of my environment is virtual means my results in test should be dead on what they will be in production. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Kingslan Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 9:42 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 One question is all of your validation testing done on VMs or is the final sign off done on production deployable hardware? Im a big advocate of VM testing, just to set the record straight. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alex Fontana Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 2:07 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I would have to agree;-) At work I run completely on VMs using ESX. All my testing is done on a Dell PE1800 with about 8VMs including AD, Exchange (clustered), SQL, etc. For those looking to do simple testing of apps check out VM Player http://www.vmware.com/vmplayer You cant create VMs but you can run any pre-built VM, including MS VPC VMs. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 11:46 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I am not a big workstation OS type of person, I use XP only when I must. Longhorn seems to work ok in a VM. I do agree that it isn't the right thing for all situations, but half the people setting up dual booting blow it anyway. VM is a much simpler solution for most people. Obviousy if you are doing perf or physical hardware related testing it is tough. Heck even if you want USB you can't use VPC, you use vmware instead. If you want to test 64 bit you are kind of screwed too, oh wait vmware workstation does that as well... From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Kingslan Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 1:05 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Hehe. Let me know how that full-out testing of Vista and Aero Glass is going for you in a VPC or a VMWare virtual machine. I agree, dual-booting is not the optimal method to running different OSs, but if you want the OS to have the full machine, rather than the limited virtualized hardware that the VMs are allowed I think dual booting still has a very strong place in the testing / learning environment. And, make no mistake this is coming from a guy that when on the road, has a 250GB external with nothing BUT VMs with VPC and VS 2005 R2 on his laptop. I love virtualization. Its just not the right thing for all situations. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 10:40 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I have no clue why it wouldn't allow you to have different names for the OS and then both can be joined at the same time, I have done this often. You did use different directories for the installations right? Any more dual booting is going the way of the dodo, the new thing is to virtualization software so you have both instances up and running at once. Look at Virtual PC or VMWare Workstation. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of shereen naser Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:01 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Hi list, I have windows xp sp 2 on my machine, I need to test something so I installed windows 2003 server enterprise edition R2 on the same machine same hard disk, I can see the dual boot screen and choose the OS, but I can only login to the domain if one of the OS's is disconnected from the domain, meaning if I want to login to the windows 2003 I have to go to the windows xp and disjoin the machine from the domain then restart and login to the domain in windows 2003, if I want to login to winxp I go to windows 2003 and disjoin it from the domain then restart and join the xp to the domain and login, locally I can login to both machines no problem. the error is that the computer account is not found on the domain when I try to login and both OSes are joined to the domain. I tried to rename the machine name to different names in each OS but same thing happens. is there a way to do that? (login to domain using both OS's without having to disjoin?) Thank you
RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003
Funny. I was more discussing the direction that the overall thread had taken. Since this no longer is along the lines of what the poster was looking for (hopefully, Al you can be the post police to make sure that nothing goes off-topic or askew any longer. Me, Im done with Active-Dir) Im not going to respond in kind. Cheers. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 1:12 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Hey Rick, can you differentiate for us what the difference would be between 'production deployable' configurations and those that aren't related to virtual machines? Maybe in two sentences or less with hyperlinks? Having used both ESX, and VS 2005 I can honestly say thereis at least one difference maybe more often related to performance; that's not by accident either. I would in no way advocate running Mac-on-IntVista in a VM, but then again I wouldn't advocate running Vista at all and especially not on a 32bit platform at this time. I think the original posters configuration is possible and has some benefits, especially since it sounded like the original poster wants to keep a job. Hopefully she realizes where the error was and is busily fixing it and using the corrected configuration. I think the answer is somewhere in the 30+ posts, but I'm curious about the VM comments you made and I'm hoping to learn something here. Cheers, Al On 1/2/06, Rick Kingslan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One question is all of your validation testing done on VM's or is the final sign off done on 'production deployable' hardware? I'm a big advocate of VM testing, just to set the record straight. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Alex Fontana Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 2:07 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I would have to agree;-) At work I run completely on VMs using ESX. All my testing is done on a Dell PE1800 with about 8VMs including AD, Exchange (clustered), SQL, etc. For those looking to do simple testing of apps check out VM Player http://www.vmware.com/vmplayer You can't create VMs but you can run any pre-built VM, including MS VPC VMs. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 11:46 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I am not a big workstation OS type of person, I use XP only when I must. Longhorn seems to work ok in a VM. I do agree that it isn't the right thing for all situations, but half the people setting up dual booting blow it anyway. VM is a much simpler solution for most people. Obviousy if you are doing perf or physical hardware related testing it is tough. Heck even if you want USB you can't use VPC, you use vmware instead. If you want to test 64 bit you are kind of screwed too, oh wait vmware workstation does that as well... From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Rick Kingslan Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 1:05 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Hehe. Let me know how that full-out testing of Vista and Aero Glass is going for you in a VPC or a VMWare virtual machine. I agree, dual-booting is not the optimal method to running different OS's, but if you want the OS to have the full machine, rather than the limited virtualized hardware that the VMs are allowed I think dual booting still has a very strong place in the testing / learning environment. And, make no mistake this is coming from a guy that when on the road, has a 250GB external with nothing BUT VMs with VPC and VS 2005 R2 on his laptop. I love virtualization. It's just not the right thing for all situations. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 10:40 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I have no clue why it wouldn't allow you to have different names for the OS and then both can be joined at the same time, I have done this often. You did use different directories for the installations right? Any more dual booting is going the way of the dodo, the new thing is to virtualization software so you have both instances up and running at once. Look at Virtual PC or VMWare Workstation. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of shereen naser Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:01 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Hi list, I have windows xp sp 2 on my machine, I need to test something so I installed windows 2003 server enterprise edition R2 on the same machine same hard disk, I can see the
RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003
Duly corrected. Thanks. Cheers. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bernard, Aric Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 1:52 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Just to be clear, VS2005R2 does not support 64-bit guests. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Kingslan Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 9:40 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 If you want to test 64 bit you are kind of screwed too, oh wait vmware workstation does that as well... Just dont like VPC, do you? :o) What about USB are you looking for? What does VMWare do with USB that is this vital? I doubt its the USB coffee warmer As to the 64-bit support, I guess that would concern me if my laptop had an x64 chip. But, then I could use VS 2005 R2. But, Im not going to argue the virtues of VMWare vs. VPC. I Use VPC because its what 100% of the material that I get from internal is supplied on. And, I get about 100 or so DVDs with all types of imaginable configurations. Im glad that youve got the time to put together all of these disks, joe. I wish I had that kind of time. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 1:46 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I am not a big workstation OS type of person, I use XP only when I must. Longhorn seems to work ok in a VM. I do agree that it isn't the right thing for all situations, but half the people setting up dual booting blow it anyway. VM is a much simpler solution for most people. Obviousy if you are doing perf or physical hardware related testing it is tough. Heck even if you want USB you can't use VPC, you use vmware instead. If you want to test 64 bit you are kind of screwed too, oh wait vmware workstation does that as well... From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Kingslan Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 1:05 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Hehe. Let me know how that full-out testing of Vista and Aero Glass is going for you in a VPC or a VMWare virtual machine. I agree, dual-booting is not the optimal method to running different OSs, but if you want the OS to have the full machine, rather than the limited virtualized hardware that the VMs are allowed I think dual booting still has a very strong place in the testing / learning environment. And, make no mistake this is coming from a guy that when on the road, has a 250GB external with nothing BUT VMs with VPC and VS 2005 R2 on his laptop. I love virtualization. Its just not the right thing for all situations. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 10:40 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I have no clue why it wouldn't allow you to have different names for the OS and then both can be joined at the same time, I have done this often. You did use different directories for the installations right? Any more dual booting is going the way of the dodo, the new thing is to virtualization software so you have both instances up and running at once. Look at Virtual PC or VMWare Workstation. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of shereen naser Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:01 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Hi list, I have windows xp sp 2 on my machine, I need to test something so I installed windows 2003 server enterprise edition R2 on the same machine same hard disk, I can see the dual boot screen and choose the OS, but I can only login to the domain if one of the OS's is disconnected from the domain, meaning if I want to login to the windows 2003 I have to go to the windows xp and disjoin the machine from the domain then restart and login to the domain in windows 2003, if I want to login to winxp I go to windows 2003 and disjoin it from the domain then restart and join the xp to the domain and login, locally I can login to both machines no problem. the error is that the computer account is not found on the domain when I try to login and both OSes are joined to the domain. I tried to rename the machine name to different names in each OS but same thing happens. is there a way to do that? (login to domain using both OS's without having to disjoin?) Thank you
[ActiveDir] OOT: WSUS
Hi, Is it possible to make the downstream server to retrieve the updates directly from MS WSUS server instead of upstream server in replica mode ? I need to have 1 server to approve and manage the approval, but each server download the patch individually since each site have their own internet connection.. Thanks Yandi This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. The Laryngeal Mask Company (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. www.LMACO.com
RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003
Nope, you assume incorrectly, I run most of my stuff with VPC and Virtual Server and am getting ready to update my main Virtualization Server to R2 VS. Hmmm what from USB do I need... Right off my smart card reader is pretty nice to connect to. Also like connecting to other external disk devices like fobs and media player devices. My laptop does have an x64 chip. Well at least one of my laptops. And no, VS won't work. They don't expect 64 bit guests until the longhorn server time frame, probablylater. In the meanwhile VMWare workstation will allegedly run 64 bit guests on a 32 bit host as long as the underlying chipset supports x64. That is pretty cool. I haven't gotten my butt in gear to get 5.5 yet though. Soon! I actually see the Exchange announcement forcing a lot of people to go pick up vmware for testing. I wishI had that kind of time too. However no one is building my disks for meso I have to make some time and I have been doing it over the years so it really isn't too bad. In the end, it saves me a bunch of time. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick KingslanSent: Monday, January 02, 2006 12:40 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 If you want to test 64 bit you are kind of screwed too, oh wait vmware workstation does that as well... Just dont like VPC, do you? :o) What about USB are you looking for? What does VMWare do with USB that is this vital? I doubt its the USB coffee warmer As to the 64-bit support, I guess that would concern me if my laptop had an x64 chip. But, then I could use VS 2005 R2. But, Im not going to argue the virtues of VMWare vs. VPC. I Use VPC because its what 100% of the material that I get from internal is supplied on. And, I get about 100 or so DVDs with all types of imaginable configurations. Im glad that youve got the time to put together all of these disks, joe. I wish I had that kind of time. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joeSent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 1:46 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I am not a big workstation OS type of person, I use XP only when I must. Longhorn seems to work ok in a VM. I do agree that it isn't the right thing for all situations, but half the people setting up dual booting blow it anyway. VM is a much simpler solution for most people. Obviousy if you are doing perf or physical hardware related testing it is tough. Heck even if you want USB you can't use VPC, you use vmware instead. If you want to test 64 bit you are kind of screwed too, oh wait vmware workstation does that as well... From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick KingslanSent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 1:05 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Hehe. Let me know how that full-out testing of Vista and Aero Glass is going for you in a VPC or a VMWare virtual machine. I agree, dual-booting is not the optimal method to running different OSs, but if you want the OS to have the full machine, rather than the limited virtualized hardware that the VMs are allowed I think dual booting still has a very strong place in the testing / learning environment. And, make no mistake this is coming from a guy that when on the road, has a 250GB external with nothing BUT VMs with VPC and VS 2005 R2 on his laptop. I love virtualization. Its just not the right thing for all situations. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joeSent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 10:40 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I have no clue why it wouldn't allow you to have different names for the OS and then both can be joined at the same time, I have done this often. You did use different directories for the installations right? Any more dual booting is going the way of the dodo, the "new" thing is to virtualization software so you have both instances up and running at once. Look at Virtual PC or VMWare Workstation. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of shereen naserSent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:01 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Hi list, I have windows xp sp 2 on my machine, I need to test something so I installed windows 2003 server enterprise edition R2 on the same machine same hard disk, I can see the dual boot screen and choose the OS, but I can only login to the domain if one of the OS's is disconnected from the domain, meaning if I want to login to the windows 2003 I have to go to the windows xp and disjoin the machine from the domain then restart and login to the domain in windows 2003, if I want to login to winxp I go to windows 2003 and disjoin it from the domain then restart and join the xp to the domain and login, locally I can
RE: [ActiveDir] DCs generating SRV records for 2 sites!?
Sounds like you don't have scavenging enabled. Also I have seen interesting DNS deployments where a backup is made of the zones on a regular basis and the whole zone is reloaded from the backups every x hours. I won't argue for or against that type of system, only acknowledge that I have seen it in the wild... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thommes, Michael M. Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 4:06 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] DCs generating SRV records for 2 sites!? We have a couple of child domain controllers that were moved from their respective site into the main site using the AD Site and Services mmc. The subnet definition was NOT changed accordingly. This was to try to solve an Exchange problem (had no effect). The DCs were moved back to their own original site a couple of days later. Now I see that these DCs are advertising SRV records for both sites! We've tried deleting (renaming really) the netlogon.dns and netlogon.dnb files so that they could be generated automatically upon reboot. The bogus site SRV records still show up! Any thoughts on how we can get this back straight? Thanks much for any thoughts. Mike Thommes List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003
Rick, you are like permanently grumpy since you went to the dark side. Not a single smiling face in there. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick KingslanSent: Monday, January 02, 2006 7:20 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Funny. I was more discussing the direction that the overall thread had taken. Since this no longer is along the lines of what the poster was looking for (hopefully, Al you can be the post police to make sure that nothing goes off-topic or askew any longer. Me, Im done with Active-Dir) Im not going to respond in kind. Cheers. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al MulnickSent: Monday, January 02, 2006 1:12 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Hey Rick, can you differentiate for us what the difference would be between 'production deployable' configurations and those that aren't related to virtual machines? Maybe in two sentences or less with hyperlinks? Having used both ESX, and VS 2005 I can honestly say thereis at least one difference maybe more often related to performance; that's not by accident either. I would in no way advocate running Mac-on-IntVista in a VM, but then again I wouldn't advocate running Vista at all and especially not on a 32bit platform at this time. I think the original posters configuration is possible and has some benefits, especially since it sounded like the original poster wants to keep a job. Hopefully she realizes where the error was and is busily fixing it and using the corrected configuration. I think the answer is somewhere in the 30+ posts, but I'm curious about the VM comments you made and I'm hoping to learn something here. Cheers, Al On 1/2/06, Rick Kingslan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One question is all of your validation testing done on VM's or is the final sign off done on 'production deployable' hardware? I'm a big advocate of VM testing, just to set the record straight. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Alex FontanaSent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 2:07 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I would have to agree;-) At work I run completely on VMs using ESX. All my testing is done on a Dell PE1800 with about 8VMs including AD, Exchange (clustered), SQL, etc. For those looking to do simple testing of apps check out VM Player http://www.vmware.com/vmplayer You can't create VMs but you can run any pre-built VM, including MS VPC VMs. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of joeSent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 11:46 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I am not a big workstation OS type of person, I use XP only when I must. Longhorn seems to work ok in a VM. I do agree that it isn't the right thing for all situations, but half the people setting up dual booting blow it anyway. VM is a much simpler solution for most people. Obviousy if you are doing perf or physical hardware related testing it is tough. Heck even if you want USB you can't use VPC, you use vmware instead. If you want to test 64 bit you are kind of screwed too, oh wait vmware workstation does that as well... From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Rick KingslanSent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 1:05 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Hehe. Let me know how that full-out testing of Vista and Aero Glass is going for you in a VPC or a VMWare virtual machine. I agree, dual-booting is not the optimal method to running different OS's, but if you want the OS to have the full machine, rather than the limited virtualized hardware that the VMs are allowed I think dual booting still has a very strong place in the testing / learning environment. And, make no mistake this is coming from a guy that when on the road, has a 250GB external with nothing BUT VMs with VPC and VS 2005 R2 on his laptop. I love virtualization. It's just not the right thing for all situations. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of joeSent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 10:40 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I have no clue why it wouldn't allow you to have different names for the OS and then both can be joined at the same time, I have done this often. You did use different directories for the installations right? Any more dual booting is going the way of the dodo, the "new" thing is to virtualization software so you have both instances up and running at once. Look at Virtual PC or VMWare Workstation. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of shereen naserSent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:01 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject:
Re: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003
If you really want to test the smartcard dealy, I built a whole lab around smartcards and VPC , just have to TS to the client using RDP and SC redir. But, I too wish VPC had true USB ports.. steve - Original Message - From: joe To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 5:57 PM Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Nope, you assume incorrectly, I run most of my stuff with VPC and Virtual Server and am getting ready to update my main Virtualization Server to R2 VS. Hmmm what from USB do I need... Right off my smart card reader is pretty nice to connect to. Also like connecting to other external disk devices like fobs and media player devices. My laptop does have an x64 chip. Well at least one of my laptops. And no, VS won't work. They don't expect 64 bit guests until the longhorn server time frame, probablylater. In the meanwhile VMWare workstation will allegedly run 64 bit guests on a 32 bit host as long as the underlying chipset supports x64. That is pretty cool. I haven't gotten my butt in gear to get 5.5 yet though. Soon! I actually see the Exchange announcement forcing a lot of people to go pick up vmware for testing. I wishI had that kind of time too. However no one is building my disks for meso I have to make some time and I have been doing it over the years so it really isn't too bad. In the end, it saves me a bunch of time. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick KingslanSent: Monday, January 02, 2006 12:40 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 If you want to test 64 bit you are kind of screwed too, oh wait vmware workstation does that as well... Just dont like VPC, do you? :o) What about USB are you looking for? What does VMWare do with USB that is this vital? I doubt its the USB coffee warmer As to the 64-bit support, I guess that would concern me if my laptop had an x64 chip. But, then I could use VS 2005 R2. But, Im not going to argue the virtues of VMWare vs. VPC. I Use VPC because its what 100% of the material that I get from internal is supplied on. And, I get about 100 or so DVDs with all types of imaginable configurations. Im glad that youve got the time to put together all of these disks, joe. I wish I had that kind of time. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joeSent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 1:46 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I am not a big workstation OS type of person, I use XP only when I must. Longhorn seems to work ok in a VM. I do agree that it isn't the right thing for all situations, but half the people setting up dual booting blow it anyway. VM is a much simpler solution for most people. Obviousy if you are doing perf or physical hardware related testing it is tough. Heck even if you want USB you can't use VPC, you use vmware instead. If you want to test 64 bit you are kind of screwed too, oh wait vmware workstation does that as well... From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick KingslanSent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 1:05 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Hehe . Let me know how that full-out testing of Vista and Aero Glass is going for you in a VPC or a VMWare virtual machine. I agree, dual-booting is not the optimal method to running different OSs, but if you want the OS to have the full machine, rather than the limited virtualized hardware that the VMs are allowed I think dual booting still has a very strong place in the testing / learning environment. And, make no mistake this is coming from a guy that when on the road, has a 250GB external with nothing BUT VMs with VPC and VS 2005 R2 on his laptop. I love virtualization . Its just not the right thing for all situations. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joeSent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 10:40 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I have no clue why it wouldn't allow you to have different names for the OS and then both can be joined at the same time, I have done this often. You did use different directories for the installations right? Any more dual booting is going the way of the dodo, the "new" thing is to virtualization software so you have both instances up and running at once. Look at Virtual PC or VMWare Workstation. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of shereen naserSent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:01 AMTo:
RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003
yeah or do what i did - switch to vmware. I have multiple smartcard readers mapped to different VMs. Thanks, Brian Desmond [EMAIL PROTECTED] c - 312.731.3132 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of steve patrickSent: Mon 1/2/2006 11:21 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 If you really want to test the smartcard dealy, I built a whole lab around smartcards and VPC , just have to TS to the client using RDP and SC redir. But, I too wish VPC had true USB ports.. steve - Original Message - From: joe To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 5:57 PM Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Nope, you assume incorrectly, I run most of my stuff with VPC and Virtual Server and am getting ready to update my main Virtualization Server to R2 VS. Hmmm what from USB do I need... Right off my smart card reader is pretty nice to connect to. Also like connecting to other external disk devices like fobs and media player devices. My laptop does have an x64 chip. Well at least one of my laptops. And no, VS won't work. They don't expect 64 bit guests until the longhorn server time frame, probablylater. In the meanwhile VMWare workstation will allegedly run 64 bit guests on a 32 bit host as long as the underlying chipset supports x64. That is pretty cool. I haven't gotten my butt in gear to get 5.5 yet though. Soon! I actually see the Exchange announcement forcing a lot of people to go pick up vmware for testing. I wishI had that kind of time too. However no one is building my disks for meso I have to make some time and I have been doing it over the years so it really isn't too bad. In the end, it saves me a bunch of time. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick KingslanSent: Monday, January 02, 2006 12:40 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 If you want to test 64 bit you are kind of screwed too, oh wait vmware workstation does that as well... Just dont like VPC, do you? :o) What about USB are you looking for? What does VMWare do with USB that is this vital? I doubt its the USB coffee warmer As to the 64-bit support, I guess that would concern me if my laptop had an x64 chip. But, then I could use VS 2005 R2. But, Im not going to argue the virtues of VMWare vs. VPC. I Use VPC because its what 100% of the material that I get from internal is supplied on. And, I get about 100 or so DVDs with all types of imaginable configurations. Im glad that youve got the time to put together all of these disks, joe. I wish I had that kind of time. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joeSent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 1:46 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I am not a big workstation OS type of person, I use XP only when I must. Longhorn seems to work ok in a VM. I do agree that it isn't the right thing for all situations, but half the people setting up dual booting blow it anyway. VM is a much simpler solution for most people. Obviousy if you are doing perf or physical hardware related testing it is tough. Heck even if you want USB you can't use VPC, you use vmware instead. If you want to test 64 bit you are kind of screwed too, oh wait vmware workstation does that as well... From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick KingslanSent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 1:05 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Hehe. Let me know how that full-out testing of Vista and Aero Glass is going for you in a VPC or a VMWare virtual machine. I agree, dual-booting is not the optimal method to running different OSs, but if you want the OS to have the full machine, rather than the limited virtualized hardware that the VMs are allowed I think dual booting still has a very strong place in the testing / learning environment. And, make no mistake this is coming from a guy that when on the road, has a 250GB external with nothing BUT VMs with VPC and VS 2005 R2 on his laptop. I love virtualization. Its just not the right thing for all situations. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joeSent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 10:40 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 I have no clue why it wouldn't allow you to have different names for the OS and then both can be joined at the same time, I have done this often. You did use different directories for the installations right? Any more dual booting is going the way of the dodo, the "new"
