Clean ones, both of them. 1 in English, 1 in a regional language called Dutch. Both act the same way. On both boxes I raised the functional level the same way.
On 11/16/06, Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Were these clean installs or inplace? Bart Van den Wyngaert wrote: > Well I also have a strange thing... It concerns 2 SBS 2003 systems. > Some months ago I raised both domain and forrest functional level on > those boxes. By reading this thread I decided to have a look... > > Both tools report the correct OS actually on both boxes. > > The only I wonder is a bit that they both report with the gpresult > tool that the domain type is Windows 2000.... > > If I look using GUI, they both report functional level of domain & > forest being at 2003. > > Don't really get actually. Is this related? Normal or missed something > when I did raise the functional levels? > > Thanks, > Bart > > On 11/10/06, Noah Eiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Good question. DFL = 2003 and FFL = 2003. So it must just be some >> lingering >> text string. Does anyone think there is more it? >> >> Thanks. >> >> -- nme >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Clingaman, Bruce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 9:39 AM >> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Is it 2000 or 2003? >> >> >> >> What does it say under: AD Users & Computers | [right click domain >> name] | Raise Domain Functional Level... >> >> ? >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Noah Eiger >> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 11:12 AM >> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >> Subject: [ActiveDir] Is it 2000 or 2003? >> >> Hi - >> >> >> >> Several months ago, I upgraded a small, multi-site domain from W2k to >> W2k3. Or so I thought. The various markings in the schema indicate that >> the upgrade was successful. But when I run, for example, gpresult, it >> reports a Windows 2000 domain. Is this just some flag or string that did >> not get set properly or is there really a problem with the upgrade? >> >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> -- nme >> >> >> >> P.S. I also just noticed that when I run netdiag on a new W2k3EN DC, it >> says "System info: Windows 2000 Server (Build 3790)". >> >> >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.32/523 - Release Date: >> 11/7/2006 >> >> >> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >> List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir@mail.activedir.org/ >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.32/523 - Release Date: >> 11/7/2006 >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.32/523 - Release Date: >> 11/7/2006 >> >> >> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >> List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir@mail.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@mail.activedir.org/ > -- Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days? http://www.threatcode.com If you are a SBSer and you don't subscribe to the SBS Blog... man ... I will hunt you down... http://blogs.technet.com/sbs List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir@mail.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@mail.activedir.org/
