I'm not gonna do software distrubution or patches with GPO.  We have
started an SMS 2003 upgrade project for that..

I think only basic software will be managed: Windows XP, IE 6, Office
XP & 2003,...


thnks,

Bart


On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:16:57 +0100, Jorge de Almeida Pinto
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yep.... Lets say you some apps that ALL users get and you have a lot of
> apps. In that case I think it is better to create one GPO with those
> "default available apps" instead of creating a GPO for each app. This
> depends on how many apps you and you to distribute with AD
> Cheers
> Jorge
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chandra Burra
> Sent: maandag 14 februari 2005 20:26
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] GPO design
> 
> I suggest have SUS or WUS in the business and create one GP for
> implementation of all patches and updates from MS at one go...
> 
> Other applications consolidate into one and publish.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bart Vandyck
> Sent: 14 February 2005 18:25
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] GPO design
> 
> Hi Jorge,
> 
> Great input.. But do i understand you correct that performance is depended
> on the amount of different GPO instead of the settings done by these gpo's?
> 
> rgds,
> 
> Bart
> 
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:47:43 +0100, Jorge de Almeida Pinto
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Be carefull with creating a GPO for each application. If you have a
> > lot of apps and lets say all computers get those apps then those
> > wokstations will go through each GPO and then you may have performance
> > issue. It may be better to consolidate several apps that have similar
> "characteristics"
> into
> > one GPO.
> > If within a GPO the computer or user configuration is NOT used (not
> settings
> > defined) disable it accordingly. If it is disabled then it will not be
> > processed and that is good for performance!
> >
> > The naming convention for GPOs I always use is:
> > * GPO_<type>_<target>_<scope>_<description>
> >
> > Where:
> > <type> = POL (policy settings) or SWD (software distribution) <target>
> > = C (computer) or U (user) or B (both) this one also tells me
> which
> > configuration is enabled without opening the GPO <scope> = can be
> > anything such as location, region, department, etc.
> > <description> = what it is (e.g. default settings)
> >
> > Examples:
> > GPO_POL_C_Dept01_DefaultSettings
> > GPO_SWD_U_Site01_AcrobatReader
> >
> > As I think of it: don't go crazy on GPOs. GPOs provide lots of
> functionality
> > but may also kill performance
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jorge
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bart Vandyck
> > Sent: maandag 14 februari 2005 10:22
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: [ActiveDir] GPO design
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I just wanted some feedback on this project I'm working on from people
> with
> > real world knowledge.
> >
> > We have AD in place with and OU structure. I've been asked the make
> > plan
> to
> > implement GPO's in this organization. I was thinking about creating a
> > GPO for each application we want to manage  and this in combination
> > with each
> OU
> > level.
> >  For example:  GPO-Region-IE6-users
> >                       GPO-Region-WINXPSP1-machine
> >                          GPO-Site01-IE6-users
> >                          GPO-Site02-IE6-machine
> >                          GPO-Site01-winxpsp1-user
> >
> > The site GPO will only be made or in effect if the need to overrule
> settings
> > made on the region level.
> >
> > Is this a maintainable solutions or will  this become to complex in
> > the
> end.
> >
> > Anybody know some good descriptions or best practices about managing
> > software with GPO.  I've seen lots of stuff about creating GPO's,
> > troubleshoot them, etc.. but haven't found real implementations case
> studies
> > with  advantages and disadvantages..
> >
> > rgds,
> >
> > Bart
> > 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/
> >
> > 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.
> > 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/
> 
> 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.
> 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/

Reply via email to