Yeah the feature is SBS only but now the R2 printer widget does the same
thing, basically.

Thanks,
Brian Desmond
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

c - 312.731.3132


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ActiveDir-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Grillenmeier, Guido
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 4:41 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Printers & AD GUI
> 
> > I forget if this is unique to SBS's AD setup or what..... but any
> > network attached printer will automatically get attached to each
> > workstation that is set up with the /connectcomputer wizard
> 
> I'm pretty sure this is unique to SBS - at least I would hope -
nothing
> like adding thousands of printer queues automatically to each
> workstation :)
> 
> However, while we're discussing printer topics, it may be worth to
> point out that Win2003 R2 has added a nice feature to automatically
> distribute printer queues to computers via GPO. This is certainly
> useful for branchoffices to auto-deploy specific shared printers to
all
> machines in a branch office site (incl. traveling users...)
> 
> This features is integrated with R2's Print Mgmt Console (PMC). It
> attaches printer queue information to an existing GP object:
> CN=PushedPrinterConnections underneath
> CN=System,CN=Policies,CN={GPO},CN=Machine or
> CN=System,CN=Policies,CN={GPO},CN=User (you will see a new node in the
> GP editor called "Deployed Printers" on the R2 machine where the PMC
is
> installed). Your AD schema needs to have been updated to the R2
schema.
> PMC is also installed automatically on any Longhorn Server to which
you
> add the Print Server role.
> 
> Note that the printer connections listed in the GPO are not added to
> the clients by magic just because the GPO applies to them. For Windows
> XP (and Windows Server 2003) clients, you have to run a specific
> machine startup script or user logon script
(pushprinterconnections.exe
> from
> %WinDir%\PMCSnap) in the GPO. If you deploy to users, they must have
> the rights to install printers...  Vista (and LH server) do not
require
> the use of a script, as they have the logic to push the printer
> connections built in.  Afaik, there is no support to push the queues
to
> Win2000 clients.
> 
> Naturally, it has been possible for years to push printer queues to
> clients via scripts, but if you have a pure WinXP client environment
> doing so via the PMC and GPOs could be quite attractive and reduce the
> cost for maintenance of the scripts - especially for branch offices...
> 
> /Guido
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan
Bradley,
> CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 9:08 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Printers & AD GUI
> 
> The only printers up in my GUI AD are the ones hanging off the server
> with an IP address.
> 
> Each workstation has a local printer and the last thing I'd want is to
> have ...about 15 to 20 various versions of Laserjet 6L, 1100s and what
> not in the printer drop down for everyone to buzz me and say "which
one
> is my local printer again?"
> 
> I forget if this is unique to SBS's AD setup or what..... but any
> network attached printer will automatically get attached to each
> workstation that is set up with the /connectcomputer wizard
> 
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/archive/2005/01/23/33632.aspx
> 
> joe wrote:
> > But if a printer is not shared out to the network, is it a network
> device?
> > It can only be used on the local machine.
> >
> > Do you want every local printer on every single machine in a company
> showing
> > up in the directory? Consider a large multinational with hundreds of
> > thousands of desktops and thousands with local printers that aren't
> shared.
> > Then you want a printer with a certain capability in a certain site
> and you
> > look and find one in the directory but it isn't actually shared out.
> You try
> > to print to it, you can't. You call IT. They look into it and chase
> it
> to an
> > exec who is like piss off. :) You tell the person they can't use it
> and they
> > get snotty because everyone is better and more important than IT. :)
> > Horrible escalations. :)
> >
> > You could always create your own printqueue objects for your
> non-shared
> > printers. It sounds like they would get zilched back out of the
> directory
> > from the process Brian mentioned unless you disable the pruning. The
> other
> > issue would be the manadatory attribute for the share name but you
> could
> > give it would be if it were shared. I don't know what this would buy
> except
> > that you can see them when browsing AD.
> >
> >
> > --
> > O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition -
> > http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Albert Duro
> > Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 10:24 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Printers & AD GUI
> >
> >
> >> You will note that when you create
> >>
> > a queue, you get the option to publish it to the directory, it isn't
> > mandatory, not required, it is simply an option
> >
> > of course, but ONLY if you share them.  As soon as you stop sharing
> them,
> > POOF
> >
> > both you and Brian essentially said that yeah printers are not full
> AD
> 
> > objects, and that's the way it is.  But wasn't the promise of AD to
> bring
> > ALL network objects (in the prosaic sense) into the manageability
> fold?
> > There's no question that AD is vastly improved over NT as far as
> printers
> > go, but I'd like to see the promise fulfilled.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "joe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 8:20 AM
> > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Printers & AD GUI
> >
> >
> >
> >> Print Queue objects are created by default under the computer on
> which the
> >> printers are shared from. It is, in fact, IMO, an extremely logical
> way of
> >> handling it since you don't have to worry about delegating
> permissions to
> >> print admins, the computer itself can create/delete them as
> necessary.
> >> MSMQ
> >> Queues are handled the same way as lots of objects, in my default
R2
> >> forest this is a list that can be handled this way
> >>
> >> applicationVersion
> >> classStore
> >> comConnectionPoint
> >> dSA
> >> indexServerCatalog
> >> intellimirrorSCP
> >> ipsecFilter
> >> ipsecISAKMPPolicy
> >> ipsecNegotiationPolicy
> >> ipsecNFA
> >> ipsecPolicy
> >> msDFSR-LocalSettings
> >> msDS-App-Configuration
> >> msDS-AppData
> >> msieee80211-Policy
> >> mSMQConfiguration
> >> mS-SQL-OLAPServer
> >> mS-SQL-SQLServer
> >> nTFRSSubscriptions
> >> printQueue
> >> remoteStorageServicePoint
> >> rpcGroup
> >> rpcProfile
> >> rpcProfileElement
> >> rpcServer
> >> rpcServerElement
> >> rRASAdministrationConnectionPoint
> >> serviceAdministrationPoint
> >> serviceConnectionPoint
> >> serviceInstance
> >> storage
> >> Volume
> >>
> >>
> >> As for why they are third class citizens in AD... I expect it is
> because
> >> they are. I haven't done excessive investigation into how printers
> are
> >> handled but I expect the print queue objects in AD are simply
> reflections
> >> of
> >> the actual print queues on the servers. I don't expect you actually
> manage
> >> anything in AD for them, you manage them on the server/ws and then
> the
> >> print
> >> spooler updates any info it wants in AD. Certainly you find them in
> AD but
> >> that just tells the underlying software where to go look and the
> software
> >> goes to that print queue directly on that server. I am pretty
> confident
> >> that
> >> if you delete a print queue object in AD the print queue will work
> >> continue to work fine on the server still, you just can't locate it
> >> via the
> AD.
> >> Contrast that with users, groups, computers, and other objects I
> expect
> >> you
> >> consider first class citizens. If you delete those types of
objects,
> you
> >> will find they no longer work at all. :)  You will note that when
> you
> 
> >> create
> >> a queue, you get the option to publish it to the directory, it
isn't
> >> mandatory, not required, it is simply an option.
> >>
> >>  joe
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 10:44 AM
> >> To: [email protected]
> >> Subject: [ActiveDir] Printers & AD GUI
> >>
> >> After 6 years of working with AD I just realized that when you
> unshare a
> >> printer it becomes invisible and unmanageable. I guess I always
knew
> >> this in the back of my head, but it never hit home until I tried
> >> cleaning up the printer list.  Why are printers third-class
citizens
> of
> >> AD, without a container or a OU to their name?  The only way to
> remotely
> >> manage unshared printers is through the browse list, which is a
> pain.
> >> Am I missing something?  Are there other approaches to this? (no
> >> megabucks solutions, please)
> >> List info   : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> >> List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> >> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
> >>
> >> List info   : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> >> List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> >> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > List info   : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> > List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> > List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
> >
> > List info   : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> > List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> > List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
> >
> >
> List info   : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
> List info   : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
List info   : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx

Reply via email to