clutch

Multi-homing a system (using more than one NIC) can cause serious issues for many admins. Are both networks on different subnets? Say, have the hardline network on 192.168.1.0/24 (255.255.255.0 for the subnet mask) and the WLAN on 192.168.2.0/24 (ditto on the subnet mask). This might remove any confusion on the part of the server as to which NIC is being used, if they were both on the same network. Once the networks are setup, you might need to setup RRAS (that's what I have done in these situations for my needs, but there used to be a way in NT where you could simply enable IP Forwarding on the NICs. Unfortunately, I can't remember how to set that up in Windows 2000/2003. Here is an article on setting up RRAS to make a 2003 box act like a router: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;323355

Check this out, with reference to "ForceGuest": http://www.wown.info/j_helmig/wxpsimsh.htm This is typical behavior for systems running Windows 2000/XP (hence why I didn't think it was a virus) and pretty annoying in general.

Quote: Wow, its been a while since I've visited this forum, but hey. What do you all think of Linux now? I am now 100% Linux/Open Source. I've never been happier as a computer user and administrator. Linux has come a long way since the 3 years ago this thread was started. Windows has had MANY embarassing moments/months over the past year, what has Linux had? None? And don't mention the SCO thing. They'd go after Microsoft if they could get their hands on some code. (Lawsuit Happy...) Anyway, I'm interested to see what everyone thinks now. Wow, I guess you didn't notice the vi or SSH issues eh? Or even better, the lack of *real* ACPI compatibility (and no, I don't care what they say about hardware design, if Windows can support them and Linux is better, then kernel developers can get the lead out) until the last kernel rev (don't know if it works yet either). I love Linux, but when someone wants to do a side-by-side comparison I want to see what they are limiting the comparison to. As a desktop, Linux is abysmal for my needs (such as themes, keeping the Qt, GtK, and GtK2 themes in sync is a pain in the a$$, or fonts...eeesh). As a simple server, it's pretty cool. Unfortunately, LDAP support is rather iffy across all of the services that can support it without extensive compiling and configuration. At least Apple is doing that fairly well with their spin on BSD (OSX). Cool OS, but it isn't all that.

There probably isn't a virus involved, as many systems will prompt with the stupid guest account even if it isn't enabled (although a virus that removes NetBEUI couldn't be all that bad). So... 1. Never install NetBEUI, as it is pointless, extra overhead to begin with. You need TCP/IP to get around anyway, and there is no gain when using it anymore with a typical network from the last 5 years. 2. Make sure that you have NetBIOS over TCP/IP still enabled to resolve typical Windows system resources. 3. Are you using an NT Domain or Active Directory? Workgroups can be unstable at times with odd account confusion. 4. Do you have simple file sharing enabled (this won't make any difference when using a domain)?

Simply disable popups. If you have to, install the Google toolbar or something similar to disable them. You can disable ActiveX if you like, but it may adversly impact websites and applications that use IE and ActiveX components.

Powerquest fan here. I use V2i to manage my lab machines and home systems.

Opera may have been blocking popups, or simply couldn't deal with the scripting used on the site. I just hit some of the search engines there and got popups to install virus scanners and various other crap. This is the stuff that will get most people. Hostile controls are a rarity in general, and using default settings along with virus scanners that check ActiveX behavior will typically catch the rest. I have been using IE since version 3 (when it was fast and this stuff wasn't around) and I haven't run into hostile controls, nor has anyone else I know. It's usually the link that reads "click me" which gets them.

ActiveX is not the cause of the problem, as any browser can have this problem. The popup is merely showing a link to download and install an application, and the application is installed using HKCurrentUser keys and uses directories that any user can write to. This installer behavior allows for any user to install these applications (such as "Web Shots" and other apps that host spyware and the like). Group policy tweaks can limit what the user can launch, and apply very restrictive NTFS permissions. However these configuration options can be very destructive to the OS if configured improperly (and that happens a lot). I would think that anybody traversing ware, err, I mean "security" sites such as the one you mentioned would be wise enough to ignore those things. If you use something like the Google toolbar to block popups, this issue shouldn't come back. Also, you can control the use of ActiveX, but I haven't had any applications installed via a IE without my acknowledgement in the past, and I use the default security setting with respect to ActiveX, JavaScript, and the Java VM.

DNS Kills.

Please help him out over here: http://www.ntcompatible.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=26646

I would ask that you simply link to the posts in the future, rather than double post. This will assure that all of the responses are directed to the same thread. It would seem that your being defensive about it already indicates you are well aware that it can be annoying to others (having been a gaming forums manager and all). Now, I am not sure what you are looking for. It would seem that you want all the users to see the same thing, and see what changes the other person has made. Unfortunately, (depending on your point of view I imagine) the only way to assure this behavior is to have all the users share the same account. The accounts will inherit all the properties of the "Default User" account, and many aspects can be controlled via group policy, but first is a one-time deal for the first logon, and the second is more administrative and not user-centric.

Quote: I may also try DNS settings, It may be looking through the ISP DNS first, cause the settings are coming from my Router and not the DC Ack, that would do it. All of the member systems and peer DCs need to be resolving inside the domain. If the client looks for your DNS name via the allocation from the router (which is probably passing on what it gleened from the ISP's DHCP allocation) you're sunk. If you can, the ideal way would be to setup DHCP on the DC. If you can't, setup the allocated DNS entry in the router's DHCP config to that of the DC. In addition, do NOT provide any other DNS entry. This will keep the client from recursing on its own. Setup the forwarders in the DC's DNS Service config to point to the ISP's DNS servers. This way the DC can quickly resolve IPs for domains (zones) it isn't responsible for (rather than waiting for a query to be returned from root servers, which frequently times out or will simply never given a response).

As I can't post from work (thanks to our Colecovision-powered proxy) I was going to suggest checking for policy application. Also, is the machine using DHCP? If so, what NIC? There is a glitch in certain combinations of NIC hardware and drivers, where during boot Windows will get an IP, then shutdown the NIC, and restart it. However, due to the asynchronous nature of booting, the system will try to locate domain controllers and GPOs at the same time. A quick way to determine if the issue affects you is to check for policy application/domain controller connection problems during boot. Then, try gpupdate to reapply any policies. If that works, try using a static IP and rebooting. I have seen several machines with this issue, and the NICs have ranged from Broadcom to SiS, with the exception of Intel and 3Com. There is a way to "correct" this issue, but it involves disabling DHCPMediaSense in the registry.

What do the logs read?

MS has departed from backing up the registry via copying since W2K, and with XP it's all but gone. Other metadata, such as key permissions, would be lost depending on the export. Applied policies can confound this even more. Using NTBackup is the best way to get many things backed-up (including Exchange Servers). Here's some articles: HOW TO: Back Up, Edit, and Restore the Registry in Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;322756 HOW TO: Backup, Edit, and Restore the Registry in Windows 2000 http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;322755 How to Recover from a Corrupted Registry That Prevents Windows XP from Starting http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;307545 HOW TO: Use the Backup Program to Back Up and Restore the System State in Windows 2000 http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;240363 Description of the Microsoft Windows Registry http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;256986

Check out CACLS.exe. It comes with the OS.

Make sure that the iPod service is running (iPod manager I think) for MusicMatch. For iTunes, make sure that gearsec is running. You can also have clashes between iTunes (gearsec) and various burning apps. I run Nero, and haven't had any issues between that and my iPod when using Windows XP Pro and Windows Server 2003.

XP and 2K have both been exceptionally stable for me. I run XP on my laptops and desktops because I need ClearType for my LCDs. I also run Windows Server 2003 on my dev/troubleshooting laptop for many reasons, but one of which is that it does many things faster than when I had XP on it (yes, this may be odd to many people, but it is true). However, I run all Intel equipment, in addition to many other high-end components from companies that believe in putting out really good drivers. As for Linux, I love Gentoo and Mac OSX (BSD core, but with all the pretty stuff on top). I went back to Windows mostly because of: 1. Visual Studio.NET (yes, it rules. I program in C# because I dig Java, well mostly... ) 2. MS Office XP, and now Office System (no, OpenOffice.org is not a viable replacement for me, and yes I used it for a long time and found KOffice to be better, but still not good enough) 3. SQL Server (if you have used it along with other client/server RDBMS options, you would know why) 4. Exchange Server (very cool, especially when linked to...) 5. Active Directory (you can get many of the same features using Linux and Open LDAP, but you have to recompile many of the apps to tie into it, such as the kernel itself and SAMBA) 6. Windows Server 2003 (it hosts all of the above, and is the fastest and most stable Windows OS ever, period) As a desktop, Gentoo was fine if you learned how to tweak everything (like fonts, but that's mostly an art anyway). However, I had simple apps crash X-Server, which in turn crashed every GUI-reliant app you were using. I still like it a lot though, and recommend it. Gentoo with Fluxbox was the way to go.

If you had a pool setup in RRAS initially to allocate 10 IPs to outside connections, the server could have been reserving them in advance. If you do have RRAS completely disabled, try canning the leases, or if possible rebooting the server to flush out the requests.

Well, Exchange 2000/2003 requires AD in order to run anyway, so you would need to upgrade the OS first. Now, here's the kicker. You would need to upgrade to Windows 2000, upgrade Exchange to 2003, then upgrade the OS again. You see, Windows 2000 will support Exchange 5.5, 2000, and 2003, but Windows Server 2003 will not support Exchange 2000 (although there were some people using a workaround with the betas of Exchange 2003 doing OS upgrades, but Exchange 2003 RTM pretty much killed that) and I don't think it cares for Exchange 5.5 either. Also, you will want to use an AD connector to get all of that extra information (metadata) on the mailbox users, such as phone numbers, into your AD. This will probably require the use of a connector, but I have never had a need to upgrade like this before, so don't know how well it works. I have moved 5.5 installs, and upgraded from Exchange 2000 to 2003 on a Windows 2000 box, and then moved all of the mailboxes to a fresh Windows/Exchange 2003 box later on. BTW, if you have the option of installing the new OS and Exchange on a fresh box, and then moving the mailboxes over, that would be best.

Essentially, just add the new DC using dcpromo, and then move all of the FSMO roles and GC to the new box. You can do this manually (there are several articles covering this at http://support.microsoft.com just enter "move fsmo role") or do it automatically by demoting the current DC using dcpromo (after you have promoted the replacement, of course). The demotion process calls "Give Away FSMO Roles" and it searches the AD looking for the next suitable host. I always move the roles manually myself, and I have multiple boxes acting as DCs to spread them around. Read up on this before you do anything.

I've grown weary of your incessant rambling. Setting anything to run in Realtime mode is a horrible idea. MS and everybody else states that, so get over it.

The G5s are very cool, but they are a worse monopoly than MS ever was. They lock up the school systems and you can only get both hardware and software from them, and they don't really believe in making the hardware upgradable, nor allowing for OS upgrades on older hardware (although I believe that is changing with the IBM-based hardware). They're as bad as Sun. The upshot is that the cost of everything from them is coming down as their quality becomes greater and more consistent thanks to their split from Motorola (not that Motorola is bad, they just weren't all that motivated for Apple).

CUViper has it, it is a poor idea, PERIOD. If you want to contribute to the instability of the OS, fine. Other applications that work in the same concept, but with available RAM, would be the Exchange server series. In Exchange 2000, it would gobble up all the free RAM it could and "release" RAM to the OS when it "needed" it. However, its definition of need seemed to differ from everyone else's and typically wouldn't release a damn thing (much to the chagrin of Small Business Server admins that had to run IIS and SQL server on the same box as Exchange). Running something in Realtime means you are granting the application the ability to supercede other apps and the OS for scheduling (and attempting to provide time constraints on the scheduling, which NT was never really meant to do). So, if you were to do this on a dual CPU box, you could conceivably tie up both CPUs and crash the OS (assuming the app could balance all CPUs). Now, the only way to guarantee that this wouldn't happen is to set the affinity of the process to one CPU, and let it spin its threads over there at Realtime. But, doesn't this defeat the purpose of using an SMP box with a multithreaded app (insert nod here)? Don't waste your time doing this unless it's for testing. Using High priority is good enough and will give your app a nice boost most of the time while not sucking away life from your system.

Again, I stated that takes "most" of the resources, and not all of them. Duh. You also state that it is dependent on the application, which I stated earlier as well. Is there a *real* need to add all that text to simply reiterate what someone else already stated, or are you too busy typing and clicking "quote" to actually go through it? Nevermind, you will probably post "War and Peace" and I wouldn't care.