Rick, you are like permanently grumpy since you went to the
dark side. Not a single smiling face in there. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Kingslan Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 7:20 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Funny. I was more
discussing the direction that the overall thread had taken. Since this no
longer is along the lines of what the poster was looking for (hopefully, Al –
you can be the post police to make sure that nothing goes off-topic or askew any
longer. Me, I’m done with Active-Dir…) I’m not going to respond in
kind. Cheers. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Al
Mulnick Hey Rick, can you differentiate for us what the
difference would be between 'production deployable' configurations and those
that aren't related to virtual machines? Maybe in two sentences or less with
hyperlinks? Having used both ESX, and VS 2005 I can honestly say
there is at least one difference maybe more often related to performance;
that's not by accident either. I would in no way advocate running
Mac-on-Int^^^^Vista in a VM, but then again I wouldn't advocate running Vista at
all and especially not on a 32bit platform at this time.
I think the original posters configuration is possible
and has some benefits, especially since it sounded like the original poster
wants to keep a job. Hopefully she realizes where the error was and is
busily fixing it and using the corrected configuration. I think the answer is
somewhere in the 30+ posts, but I'm curious about the VM comments you made and
I'm hoping to learn something here. Cheers, Al
On 1/2/06, Rick Kingslan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: One question – is all
of your validation testing done on VM's or is the final sign off done on
'production deployable' hardware? I'm a big advocate of
VM testing, just to set the record straight. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Alex Fontana I would have to
agree…;-) At work I run completely on VMs using ESX. All my testing
is done on a Dell PE1800 with about 8VMs including AD, Exchange (clustered),
SQL, etc. For those looking to do
simple testing of apps check out VM Player http://www.vmware.com/vmplayer You can't create VMs
but you can run any pre-built VM, including MS VPC
VMs. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of joe
I am not a big
workstation OS type of person, I use XP only when I must. Longhorn seems to work
ok in a VM. I do agree that it
isn't the right thing for all situations, but half the people setting up dual
booting blow it anyway. VM is a much simpler solution for most people. Obviousy
if you are doing perf or physical hardware related testing it is tough. Heck
even if you want USB you can't use VPC, you use vmware instead. If you want to
test 64 bit you are kind of screwed too, oh wait vmware workstation does that as
well... From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Rick Kingslan Hehe…. Let me
know how that full-out testing of 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 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 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 |
- RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 joe
- Re: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 steve patrick
- RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 Brian Desmond
- Re: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 shereen naser