If you are going to dual boot.
1. Use different hard drives for the installation
(logical partitions or physical drives). If you
can't be bothered to build different partitions, then you better use entirely
different directory paths for all aspects of the install and expect to
STILL possibly run into some issues especially if any non-builtin groups or any
local users are used in any file system ACLs.
2. Use entirely different machine names,
this is your one and only issue related to AD and in fact, isn't an AD issue, it
is an installation booboo.
3. Use different IPs (I would hard set at least one,
possibly both of the machines), I would also consider using different MAC
addresses as I have seen weird issues with some older switches (Bay switches) which don't reset
their IP/MAC translation tables
enough.
The 5 minutes of switching
between OSes would all be gone with virtuals which is yet another reason why it
is recommended. Since you don't want to use virtuals or separate machines, you
need to make sure you isolate the instances properly.
Not sure why you are losing
your tools from one boot to the next, sounds like yet another issue with how you
have installed the products.
The reason there was so much discussion about about the
hows/whys is because when someone is messing up something fairly well known we tend to find out on this list
later that they really didn't know what they were looking for in the first place
or the OP finds out there were easier ways to do things later and wished someone had mentioned it.
Basically you will get someone asking why they can't seem to properly build a
life size titanium eiffel tower in their basement when in fact all
they need is a 3 inch diameter mud bowl
with a stick.
This list has a
history of really trying to teach people not being the list called AD for
dummies. People who do things quick without thinking or without understanding
are often the ones doing a lot of the posting saying things aren't right. Often
times, there aren't any simple answers that fit everyone, you need to understand
the who's, why's, what for's, and intents to come up with some answer
approximating what should be done. The most popular answer on this list over the
years has been "it depends" or "you need to explain your situation better"
because not only could an answer that is perfect for you and how you
do things be wrong for someone else, it could really screw them up bad. Someone
who is asking the question in the first place probably isn't in a good position
to try and judge which short answer out of several real quick posts is good for
them. The quick simple answer for someone having an issue dual booting is....
don't dual boot. It should quickly and easily solve all of your
stated issues.
If you really come down to
brass tacks, this issue isn't an AD issue at all. As I indicated above, it is
a Windows installation issue. You have two machines trying to use the same
machine account in AD. Only one machine knows the AD computer account password
at any given time. There is no AD issue there, it is perfectly happy and working
exactly as designed. If you had two separate machines being used by two separate
people trying to use an AD account would you consider that an AD issue or
someone dorked up their machine name issue? If you are running in VM(s) or
separate physical machines, you generally make that connection much better, "oh
yeah, we can't have two machines with the same name in the same domain at the
same time".
I am now of the opinion that
just changing the machine name of one installation may not solve all of your
issues. It
sounds like you may also have binary confusion as it is possible you have
all of the files slammed together in the same directory structures (Windows and
Docs&Settings and InetPub and ProgFiles and not to mention ACL issues), yet
again, something you won't run into using VM(s) or separate physical machines as
it simplifies it all.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of shereen naser
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 8:43 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003
men...men....men.... they can't answer a simple question, they need to know
the how's and the why's and the where's and the when's, I couldn't even go
through all of your answers cause apparently its not within my scope of interest
:), I need to do this damned testing specifically this way, end of story.
Its not enough am stucked now with 5 minutes of switching between the 2
OSes and joinining/disjoining domains and loosing my tools from one boot to the
other, I have to explain why am in deep shit on top of that!
Back to the people who tried to help :) originally I used the same name,
when I realized the problem I tried 2 different names, but it didn't work, are
you saying that I should use different names to beging with? if so will
re-installing the W2k3 be enough without having to mess the xp? :(
thank you guys
On 1/1/06, ASB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hehe…. Let me know how that full-out testing of Vista and Aero Glass
is going for you in a VPC or a VMWare virtual machine.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's what dedicated systems are for. :)
Sure, a VM is not the best option here, depending on what aspect of
the OS is being tested, but in that case, using a totally separate
hard drive or some other separation technology will still likely prove
to be more viable than dual-booting.
-ASB
FAST, CHEAP, SECURE: Pick Any TWO
http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/
On 1/1/06, Rick Kingslan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Hehe…. Let me know how that full-out testing of Vista and Aero Glass is
> going for you in a VPC or a VMWare virtual machine.
>
>
>
> I agree, dual-booting is not the optimal method to running different OS's,
> but if you want the OS to have the full machine, rather than the limited
> virtualized hardware that the VMs are allowed – I think dual booting still
> has a very strong place in the testing / learning environment.
>
>
>
> And, make no mistake – this is coming from a guy that when on the road, has
> a 250GB external with nothing BUT VMs with VPC and VS 2005 R2 on his laptop.
> I love virtualization…. It's just not the right thing for all situations.
>
>
>
> Rick
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> joe
> Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 10:40 AM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003
>
>
>
>
> I have no clue why it wouldn't allow you to have different names for the OS
> and then both can be joined at the same time, I have done this often. You
> did use different directories for the installations right?
>
>
>
>
>
> Any more dual booting is going the way of the dodo, the "new" thing is to
> virtualization software so you have both instances up and running at once.
> Look at Virtual PC or VMWare Workstation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> shereen naser
> Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:01 AM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003
>
>
> Hi list,
>
>
> I have windows xp sp 2 on my machine, I need to test something so I
> installed windows 2003 server enterprise edition R2 on the same machine same
> hard disk, I can see the dual boot screen and choose the OS, but I can only
> login to the domain if one of the OS's is disconnected from the domain,
> meaning if I want to login to the windows 2003 I have to go to the windows
> xp and disjoin the machine from the domain then restart and login to the
> domain in windows 2003, if I want to login to winxp I go to windows 2003 and
> disjoin it from the domain then restart and join the xp to the domain and
> login, locally I can login to both machines no problem. the error is that
> the computer account is not found on the domain when I try to login and both
> OSes are joined to the domain. I tried to rename the machine name to
> different names in each OS but same thing happens. is there a way to do
> that? (login to domain using both OS's without having to disjoin?)
>
>
> Thank you
