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, I’m
done with Active-Dir…) I’m not going to respond in kind. Cheers. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick 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 there is 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-Int^^^^Vista
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 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
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 Hehe…. Let me know how that full-out testing of 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 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 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 Rick Kingslan
- RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 joe
- RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Rick Kingslan
- RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 joe
- Re: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 steve patrick
- RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Brian Desmond
- Re: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 shereen naser