clutch

I don't know how the upgrade CD was for Millenium, but for Win98, NT4 (WS and Server), and W2K Server they have all been the SAME as the regular retail CD other than the fact that the upgrade has a different exe/dll/dwarf on the CD that requires a search for a previous product to upgrade from. This can be either from a previous install getting the upgrade, or a fresh hard drive in which case the install will ask for the old CD to check for license compliance. This same situation has been the same for other products (such as Adobe GoLive!) in which the upgrade version simply asks for the serial of the previous product if you don't have the older version installed. Same install, same files, same extras.

Questionnaire, MS wants to make money on anything they sell. That's why they sell different versions of things. If they followed you idea, then why not ship a version of SQL2K with office rather than Access? They use a stipped down version with office extensions already when you install them on a server, so why not do this? Because the average user does not need the complexity of an actively running database server (even if they aren't that complex lately) and would steer away from a version of office that includes it. They can't use it, so why pay for it? That is already an issue with some suites, and the OS is falling into the same category. Operating Systems come with so many "features" and "add-ons" that people don't use, why try to cover the cost of development of more of these by raising the price of an OS and forcing them onto low end users? You don't seem to be familiar with most basic common business practices even though you claim to own your own business. Let me ask you something, how well do you think business would do if they only sold one version of something and forced all the options onto everybody? Then, tried to cover the increased cost per unit of this "idea" by passing it along to anybody that walked in the door?

1. http://www.iisanswers.com/Top10FAQ/t10-FTPuersfolder.htm 2. The "Guest" account is a user account as well. It's just used as a default account when the user as no credentials. Now, if you mean "anonymous" connections, then you will be allowing for anyone to access your site/directories. 3. If you are familiar with NTFS permissions already, then you will be fine when setting up NTFS through FTP. IIS uses pass-thru authentication for directories when using either the WWW or FTP services (this includes the index server, but that's another topic). Just make sure that if someone is supposed to have write ability to a site/directory, to make sure that they not only have that permission in NTFS, but that it's setup in FTP as well. I tend to allow write access in the FTP properties for everything and cut access using NTFS.

The poll is cool. I was using Linux on another box in the past (Redhat 6/7, Mandrake 6/7, Storm 2000) but I just never really got into it. It's great as a utility server for hosting small things and for remote admin of a network. But the Win2K came with Terminal Services, and I lost the need and desire to fiddle with Linux anymore.

Are you going to the properties of each user in your workgroup (usrmgr.exe) and adjusting the logon file to run?

Weird, I haven't had any speed issues with it. But in any case, you can just disable the webs using the IIS MMC from a client PC or on the server itself while retaining the FTP server and vice versa.

Now, you are submitting the new scripts to the "NETLOGON" share, (C:\WINNT\system32\Repl\Import\Scripts) right? I know that it's a dumb question, but I wanted to get that out of the way. Now, all the accounts are pointing to the same batch file that you are up[censored] right? Let me know what you have for these things. You can also add "write" permissions to the NETLOGON share for admins to speed testing, since it's easier to work by that share name than the entire path to the directory. I had this same issue with servers overwriting each other, even though I was changing the file on the PDC, and it was the newest file. I wound up writing a batch file that would copy the new file I was writing to all the servers at once. This fixed the issue completely.

I would *think* so, but I am not sure.

Here's some more info if you like: http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/pca...mp;Expand=17#17

PC Anywhere uses a modified awgina.dll to interact with local user credentials. Many applications that make use of local credentials use this approach to allow authentication to "pass through" without the need for more user input. I would imagine that this is what your issue is. This is the same file that brought Win2K down with any version before 9.2 (and even some installs that claimed to be 9.2 did the same thing). Symantec makes their products SO intertwined with the OS that any variance, such as service packs, seems to cause issues. There will more than likely be a patch to fix this from Symantec once XP goes retail. But hey, be glad that it didn't keep your system from booting...

Kick A$$ Philipp! I like the speed of this a lot better, but I do have a question. I accidentally left "send email when someone responds..." checked, and I would like to know if I can undo that. Is that possible? edit Nevermind, I think I got it. /edit

No, it isn't the same profit in the end. Why sell a ton of admin functionality to home users that don't need them, and then charge them $50 or more for the "combined" version of the OS? That will be another reason for them not to upgrade. It will also bump up the cost of new PCs as well. The difference between the full 9x and 2K OSs seems to be about $100, so if you split the difference in half you will wind up adding another $50 to the home version of the OS. And with the softened market for home PCs lately, why increase the price of them now? As a business man, you should see that this is not good business.

A friend of mine just sent me this link for a program that will let you schedule the built-in defrag utility in Win2K. Just thought I would pass this link along... http://www.morphasys.com/autodefrag/

Well, XP Pro at the moment is in Beta trim, so I don't know what it will have in retail release. However, I don't see a real reason to combine both versions of the OS into one as there are different sets of needs to be met still. And as far as your homoerotic fascination with Bill Gates goes, you are being such a "hard a$$" that I am sure you would be a turn off for him.

Seems to be faster too, it'll just take me a bit to get used to the new toys. So what's the CPU util with this puppy running on your server?

Quote: Why not just can lame home edition and make pro be for both? Like the whole point of XP and just name it Windows XP? No Pro, Home, Soccer Mom, Power User etc versions! (Excluding the advanced webserver versions) Price it somewhere inbetween what home and pro would cost and all confusion solved, lol! Why should the average home user have to pay more for features that he/she wont use? Why should the corporate version be bundled with add-ons and programs that only home users might have a need for (movie maker, and whatever else they throw on). In addition, I don't know if the terminal services/remote desktop features would even make it to the home version, but in your scenario this would be a certainty. I don't believe that would be such a brilliant idea, do you?

It never occured to me that you would have some sort of URL filtering software on your PC. Why is that? Got kids around there?

Just because an OS may support dual cpus, does not mean that applications will. There are MANY NT servers that have been deployed over the years with applications that are not truly multithreaded. It would seem to me that every database application should be multithreaded to scale well (which is what most database installations need to do anyway), yet I have software that is for Unix and NT that is not multithreaded (at least not in NT). Having dual CPUs is still nice for the server, don't get me wrong, but there isn't a performance increase like there would be with another app that supports SMP natively. I just don't get the impression that there is a need SMP capability for the soccer mom who is trying to get the pics off of her newest photocd to send to grandparents. If there are many enterprise applications that don't support SMP, then why should there be a home OS that does?

That's pretty cool dude! It works great! I am glad this came up, since I figured there was no hope for me (I couldn't get the Exchange admin method to work yet).

Cool. So what is this file that you sent? I have seen something for modifying permissions, but you have to use it in a public folder on your Exchange server.

I thought Toby sent you a .RAR attachment. Did you open it up for that?

Well, I am a bit bummed about it. But NT4 runs really well in SP6a trim, so I am not going to be too concerned. I am worried about this long delay with Win2K SP2. I am starting to get the impression that this may be the last SP they do for Win2K since XP will be out relatively soon.

If the average person can afford a dual cpu box, then the average person can afford a dual cpu version of Windows. ------------------ Regards, clutch

This is a pretty nice article as pertains to exam 70-240. This should help demystify the purpose of IPX and DNS on a LAN. http://www.swynk.com/friends/dinicolo/70-240-9-1intro.asp ------------------ Regards, clutch

The best way to do it, is to enable "write" in your FTP properties for that site, and then use NTFS permissions to fine tune your access for people. This is the way that I do it, and it works very well. I don't have much faith in IIS built-in security, so I lock down everything in NTFS. ------------------ Regards, clutch