clutch

Generally, you are better off trying to add the user through the GUI browse button in the user manager. This way, you KNOW that your system is aware of the domain and finding the right SAM to request account info from. So, the idea would be to get this: to show up and list all the domains that the workstation can see as available. In this case, the WXP-1 workstation can see itself and the driventechnologies.com AD domain as being valid sources to get account information from. By using the GUI, you are positive that you have a good connection to the domain contollers and can browse out to them if needed.

I mostly get timeouts and problems loading the page (probably the same thing you are getting). Have you tried running a trace to this server to see what your performance is like?

I was a real fan of it, but as of late I have been turning it off. And you know what, IE doesn't seem to be crashing as much anymore. Yeah, I know, it sounds wierd and it wasn't like IE crashed a lot anyway, but when it did I got tired of constantly sending the reports in. The only system that I keep it running on is my work one since I am using beta service packs of SQL on it, and it would only make sense to send those reports in.

OK, so are you asking "how" to do it, or have you done it and you are asking why it isn't working? What is the problem that you are seeing? Is the software not installing, or just not working? Sometimes, with some software (especially DB software using ODBC connections) you have to upgrade the person to an admin (either local or domain, doesn't matter as it's temporary) and then install the software under THAT person's logon. That way, all the keys that it makes under HKey Current User will pertain to him/her. Then, when you remove the user from the admin group and have him log back in again, he will be able to use the software as all the keys are linked to him. One other issue that can happen is that the person will ALWAYS need admin permissions to certain keys because the programmer didn't pay attention to (or bother to learn) how software interacts under NT-based permissions. I had this same problem with a fixed asset software package, and had to give the user r/w permissions to a few ODBC keys in order for the software to work properly.

Honestly, I can't follow your question particularly well. You state that you want to add a particular user to the local admin group of the system? Or are you asking if the domain users group is added to the workstation's local users group? By default, any system attached to a domain will add the domain users group to its local users group, and the domain admins group to its local admins group. As for this "software managing" thing, is this a domain group? I am not sure what you mean by it being on the server, so please clarify. And with the person using Win98, if you could get onto the workstation (assuming no policies were setup to block non-authenticating users from getting on the system) then you can install software. Win98 didn't have any decent methods of prohibiting this, whereas NT does.

Sounds more like the workstations cannot determine who and where the domain controllers are. Just because they can ping them by name (assuming they can at this point), that doesn't mean they are "aware" that the servers are DCs. What are you using to host DHCP? Are you using the NT Server, or some other DHCP hosting service? One more thing, if you added the clients manually in server manager (which you are supposed to be able to, and it does *sometimes* work ) they may take a while to get cycled out of the domain. If possible, you could try renaming one of the workstations, and then having it rejoin the domain but this time attempt the join from the workstation directly.

We didn't cover this already?

NetBEUI was the king of protocols for small LANs because of its low overhead and fast transfer speeds. Also, it used less conventional memory in DOS workstations when I set them up for our telephony products at an old job. It's small, and fast. Now, you can add "outdated" to the list of its features...

What name resolution method are you using (DNS, WINS, LMHOSTS)? What protocols are you using? If you are using TCP/IP, do you have NetBIOS enabled for it as well? How many domain controllers do you have?

A. You can't make a software stripe set in WinNT/2K using a system partition, and B. You don't get that much of an improvement due to the overhead anyway. I used it in NT 4 Server at home for a long time with my 3 4.3GB Western Digital harddrives so I could have a stripe set with parity (software RAID 5), but when I went to Win2K server it was noticably slower. If you have a system that has one boot drive, and 3 or more of the exact same drive for other files, then it might be worth your while. Mirroring (software RAID 1) has a good deal of overhead, and wouldn't be that hot either. Also, if these drives are sitting on the same IDE chain, then performance will be even worse since IDE doesn't support simultaneous read and write actions to multiple devices on the same chain. Sorry to be a downer on it, but it isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

OK, here's some points for you: 1. You can use file and print sharing just fine with NetBIOS over TCP/IP setup. This can be done manually on the clients, or through some DHCP servers. 2. You can even have workstations (Win2K and newer preferrably) not use NetBIOS/WINS at all. When using Active Directory, all resources are handled via the directory and resource location is handled via DNS. You can check out the info here: http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q229/6/63.ASP It does state that some software may not care for the total removal of NetBIOS and File and Print Sharing will probably not work with older clients as well. 3. Since it's a 2 system LAN, scalablity isn't even an issue, however learning good practices with current technology is something that should be carried over to all setups, not just ones that you are paid for. I mean, if you are going to settle for an out of date protocol, then why bother with a cutting edge OS to begin with, right? 4. Client for Microsoft Networks isn't something that's "broadcasted", but rather a function of the local OS and its ability to: a. Be a member of a network (register with a browser, handle authentication, etc) b. Handle and route local resources to external requests as per membership in said network. NetBIOS can ride piggyback on the TCP/IP and IPX/SPX protocols that come from MS, and is half of what NetBEUI is all about. I hope this clarifies the differences between them, and I why I feel NetBEUI should be left alone to die in peace. MS left the protocol around as a last ditch effort for people that need it for compatibility, not because it's an easier protocol to use. TCP/IP is VERY easy to use once it's understood, and that doesn't take very long for the usage in this case here. It will be killed off, that's a fact. It was left around in Win2K because of the server release more than anything else, that's why you saw it there. Don't you think it's odd that it is now more difficult to find and setup than in the past? They WANT it gone, as this would make that last few networks using it to upgrade to TCP/IP and make the transition to AD much simpler. So yeah, I guess you can say I have issues with it.

Quote: Not to flame or anything, but YOU ARE A FREAKIN IDIOT. Once you move to the NT code, you realize that 9x does suck. NT's only real disadvantage comes when software comapanies decide to be an arse about it and not do or poorly do an implementation of it on NT. Oh, and whatever you're smoking---send me some of that!! Well, calling somebody a "FREAKING IDIOT" would classify as a flame, regardless of the disclaimer. Plus, both OSs share the same NT core anyway so he was more wrong on THAT account than by saying games don't run well on NT. Now, I would have been more of the mindset of Palos, and that since Home has less services running by default that it would have more resources to give for gaming. But, since I only use Pro (and can disable services if I REALLY want to as EddiE indicated), I would have to vote "Pro".

I posted the following to their messageboard after reading that "wonderful" (*cough*, *cough*) article: Quote: Umm, I wish the person quoted would have actually installed SQL 2K server, as it DOES ask for an Admin password during installation. And, while you can leave the password blank, it gives a warning that it isn't such a hot idea. This sounds a lot like the Red Hat vulnerability from a while ago, where they had a default admin password left from installation that allowed hackers to access their systems. But boy, nobody remembers that, now do they? Oh, and anybody would half a brain would at least have either the ports blocked in a firewall, or use some sort of authentication protocol (like IPSec) amongst the replicating servers and server/admin console systems. Duh. If you are dumb enough to install a major application like that with a KNOWN issue as the sa/blank password account, AND leave the port open to it from the outside, then you deserve to get hacked. The wonderful world of w4rez is giving high-powered applications and operating systems to people that have had no training in such, and these systems wind up hosting a ton of bots due to poor administration. Oh yeah, and there are a bunch of PAID admins that screw things like this up too.

Must be the meds...

If Jobs was smart (and he has been known to be), he would embrace Linux/BSD as a server OS to compliment the Apple systems he sells. That would be a good way to go for both companies, and it would allow them to unify against MS. Then, you could have a nice platform to sell a real desktop OS, and have a scalable server to back it up. In addition, you would make all server management utilities HTML-driven so any desktop could handle management of the servers and keep a somewhat similar environment in relation to the Mac OS. I mean, that's one thing I REALLY like about MS products; they behave and look the same from desktop to server, and across all of their apps. Linux can scale well and can be quite stable, but lacks usability for the average user and doesn't have that many applications. The Mac has quite a few apps for desktop usage, but no real server OS to power the backend natively and isn't known to be highly configurable by the user it's targeted for. Why should the two of them fight over the desktop? That's a complete waste of energy. Of course, there would be the issue of "compatability" if Apple was to release applications for managing fleets of their systems. Even if they are talking to each other, there's no guarantee either side would be listening most of the time. Case in point, Novell and Netscape. When Novell 5 first came out, it came with the Netscape web server application. Now, here's the funny part. Even though Novell OBVIOUSLY talked to Netscape on occasion due to the bundling of the web server application, they NEVER seemed to talk about Navigator and Client 32 interaction on the desktops. There were many times where a simple update/upgrade of Navigator would break Novell's Client 32 on Win9x workstations, or the newer Client 32 would break something in Navigator. And the best part would be that Novell would just blame Netscape, but just happen to have a fix on their site for the issue (this also applied to McAfee, and they had compatibility issues as well from time to time). But, working together is a better way for both of them to go. I mean, if it's cold outside the tent, huddling together would keep them BOTH warm...

Quote: Hehe, Clutch! (Man, you DO hate NetBEUI for real...) It's not that I "hate" it as a protocol, but I hate its availability as a crutch. It lets people connect to other Windows systems on a network without having to properly setup TCP/IP. Now I know some people have their reasons for running it (like you do), but to use it just because you can't get TCP/IP running or for its ease of use is a bad choice. It doesn't scale well, and with the improvements in TCP/IP under Win2K I can't see a reason to use it. That's why I was glad to see it go, only to find out that it can be manually installed. But, if MS could finally kill off DOS, I imagine they can kill off NetBEUI too.

Oh well, at least you can access the network now. So what's his reasoning for sticking with NetBEUI so strongly?

Quote: I swore I've seen something like this before... If you ever used Win ME, I would imagine you have. I haven't seen any of those issues myself, sorry bud.

Damn, going that fast, did you even have time to notice all the pretty pictures on the screen?

ABSO-****1NG-LUTELY!!!

Yeah, I have been watching the GUIs in Linux try more and more to be like Windows, even though they don't care for the OS. Most of the exploits that you see in Windows haven't happened in the Linux world because: A. MS is a much bigger target for the monkeys of the world, and B. The exploits focus on features Linux servers don't have. IIS buffer exploits have been focused on Index Server (for those that have used it properly, they know how much a$$ it kicks) and the web printing ISAPI filter (nice extension for monitoring printers online, especially via AD). MS puts a MAJOR amount of time into these extra features, but they become easy targets since they spent most of the overall project time in adding usable features, and not securing them and making sure admins that use them understand how to properly secure the server. It's getting better though, and I volunteer to test MS apps whenever possible. Currently, I am testing service packs for MS SQL Server 2000 and I am hoping to get IIS 6.0/.NET server pretty soon (just sent in my NDA on Wednesday) so I can play with all the new features, and see what needs to be done to harden them against attack. I think I just get tired of these monkeys that find it easier to berate MS because so many other people do it, and yet they haven't actually TRIED to learn all the aspects of the software they are b1tching about. Case in point, the moron "expert" that was quoted about the lack of a password being allowed during setup. That a$$ should know what he is talking about BEFORE he blabs about it to an online publication. Plus, the editors didn't even bother to verify the statement, so they are just as stupid. These people should stop whining about the problem, and be a part of the solution instead. How many people have you seen whine about MS products, yet still use Windows, Office, and other MS products? Seems kind of stupid, doesn't it? The only person that I have ever seen complain about MS products that I have respect for is a friend of mine that got me into networking to begin with. He has moved from MS/Windows systems to Linux, and he is FULLY dedicated to the OS. He has made an effort to learn everything he could about MySQL, Apache, and other products that run on that OS. The main reason why I respect him, is that he actually KNEW what he was talking about when it came to most MS products, and he chose Linux due to its much more lax licensing and would use it as some of his client sites (he's a consultant now). Most people that whine about "holes" in Outlook or IIS don't even realize what they were talking about. Case in point, there was this BRILLIANT piece of coding using CDO/ActiveX from MS, it was the Outlook Web Control object. You could write webpages that would actually show your current inbox, calendar, contacts, etc from Outlook (normally shown in "dashboards" for corporate Intranets) and allow the person to create, open, and delete emails and such from Outlook but through the webpage. Unfortunately, this led to issues where people would host the object and try to get email account info from an unsuspecting web surfer with low security settings and outdated web browser (old or unpatched). MS had to take the cab file offline because it was too hard to get people to simply update their web browsers and Office versions with simple patches. They eventually released a fix for machines that already had it installed, but I don't think they ever put the cab file back online (I still host it on my Intranet site for the Team Calendar app that MS released shortly after Office 2K came out). Now, you can't use these features anymore, and many people lose out. Same thing goes for Palm units connecting to Outlook 2K; people b1tched about how easy it was to "hack" into Outlook, and MS had enough of it. They released SP2 which locked it down HARD. Now, with SP2 (and Outlook XP), every time I sync I have to authorize the application to talk to Outlook and give it an amount of time that it can continue to do so. Also, in this same patch, it damn near kills most attachments that come through to prevent morons from opening VBS files and trashing their Exchange servers. So, do you hear "Thanks!" from the users? Hell no. They NOW whine that they can't "do" anything anymore in Outlook and that all of their attachments are hidden from them. So yeah, I guess I have a beef with MS bashers at large. Oh well. Oh and sorry for the long post, I was just a bit pissed about the whole thing.

I was hoping to read "Don't use it!" for your post, but I guess this will work too...

Cool.

LOL That sounds about right. I could remember the Mystique, Millenium, Millenium II, etc but I couldn't think of the name of that little card. At the time, I couldn't even afford that, but once I did have the money for an accelerator (to help out my ATI All-In-Wonder Pro) I decided to wait for the Voodoo2 12MB (12MB? Seemed like a lot at the time... ) to come out.

Wow, I am lazy and just use a single partition for my 20, 25, 30, and 40GB harddrives on my workstations (NTFS, of course). I always use servers for storage, so formatting the entire partition is never a problem.