Re: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003
I have 2 seperate directories, I used static IP for the server and left it at dynamic for the xp. I loose the tools cause of 2 things, am so lazy to install all that on the new windows 2003 server installation, besides if I actually wanted to do that most of the tools won't work, in addition its temporarily testing its not worth the effort of trying to have all my tools in that installation, what I wanted to do is that only rebooting the machine which takes seconds will be able to get me back to my XP and tools thats all, I will give this renaming thing and IPs another shot and see how it goes as far as you guys say it should, or else am not doing that da... testing! I know this is AD list and I know that u can answer me thats y I asked here, On 1/2/06, joe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 men...menmen
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-install
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] 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] 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
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
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, loca
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.
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 &quo
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 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
Did you originally use different names, or the same name for each computer? And I agree with Joe: Dual-booting is becoming obsolete. http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/?File=BootMgr.TXT -ASB FAST, CHEAP, SECURE: Pick Any TWO http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/ On 1/1/06, shereen naser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 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
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
Re: My message to joe. Maybe 50% of the time - I'd agree. However, if you want to test that snazzy new Fibre HBA or would like to see what the impact for the user is going to be with CAD with the newest High End InterGraph workstation video card - VMs aren't going to work. The hardware selection in VMs is intended to be generic. Which for testing or learning BizTalk and SQL interaction with ADAM and ADFS - it rocks because the hardware doesn't matter. Again - be sure of this - I love VMs. I just can't test Vista on it because Aero Glass is the target, and I can't quite put an LDDM driver on the generic graphics coded in, for example. Rick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ASB Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 10:51 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Did you originally use different names, or the same name for each computer? And I agree with Joe: Dual-booting is becoming obsolete. http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/?File=BootMgr.TXT -ASB FAST, CHEAP, SECURE: Pick Any TWO http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/ On 1/1/06, shereen naser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 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
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 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
I would think software level testing would result in more than 50% of the cases for most people. I run about 30 machines in my home (I have probably a hundred on CDs) on a regular basis, nearly all are virtual. The only physical limitation I have run into in my VMs so far was the lack of USB support in VPC which I solved by using VMWARE. My next major hurdle is 64 bit guests for a piece of software that decided would only be available in 64 bit, which I will again solve with VMWARE. I haven't dual booted a machine nor had a need to dual boot a machine since vmware 2 which was about 2000/2001 or so. If you start doing hardware integration testing or production perf testing, you have no choice but to use physical hardware obviously. In every test lab for business I have been involved in the last few years, the virtualized instances have far outstripped the number of physical instances. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Kingslan Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 1:14 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Re: My message to joe. Maybe 50% of the time - I'd agree. However, if you want to test that snazzy new Fibre HBA or would like to see what the impact for the user is going to be with CAD with the newest High End InterGraph workstation video card - VMs aren't going to work. The hardware selection in VMs is intended to be generic. Which for testing or learning BizTalk and SQL interaction with ADAM and ADFS - it rocks because the hardware doesn't matter. Again - be sure of this - I love VMs. I just can't test Vista on it because Aero Glass is the target, and I can't quite put an LDDM driver on the generic graphics coded in, for example. Rick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ASB Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 10:51 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Did you originally use different names, or the same name for each computer? And I agree with Joe: Dual-booting is becoming obsolete. http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/?File=BootMgr.TXT -ASB FAST, CHEAP, SECURE: Pick Any TWO http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/ On 1/1/06, shereen naser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 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/ 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
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
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 -- Cheap, Fast, Secure -- Pick Any TWO. http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] šŠV«r¯yÊý§-Š÷�Š¾4™¨¥iËb½çb®Šà
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
