Graham- Yes, the dates can be confusing. I typically take these as groupings. So, all of the ADMs that ship with a given OS/Service Pack should stay together. The reality is that the two conf.adm files you list below are identical in content (windiff is a good tool for this), even though their dates are not identical. In the case of system.adm 2003/SP1 added some additional policies for the secure mode IE stuff that wasn't in XP,SP2, but otherwise it was identical (I list out the differences between the XP,SP2 and 2003, SP1 ADMs at www.gpoguy.com/admdiffs.htm). To answer your question, yes, if you are managing GP from a 2003 server machine, then you could certainly have ADMs from XP, SP2 in your GPOs. By default, the ADMs in 2003's c:\windows\inf folder will auto-update each GPO you edit so over time, unless you change that default behavior, your GPOs will be "upgraded" to 2003,SP1, but in general, as long as you are on 2003, SP1 or XP, SP2, you should be good to go.
Clear as mud? Darren -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham Turner Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 8:21 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] adm file management Darren, thanks 4 mail back in the interim i dug into the 'versioning' of these ADM's and it seems that "most recent" versions are not always in the same OS i cite comparison of ADM version (ie dates) on different OS conf.adm - 22/2/03 (2003/SP1) - 17/7/04 (xp sp2) system.adm - 18/02/05 (2003 / sp1) - 17/07/04 (xp / sp2) so if i read this tight it would seem the rule of latest OS is not strict - hence my view to come back to the 'most recent' ?? i assume if the 'admin' workstation is running windows server 2003 we are ok to put in the ADM files shipped with say XP sp2, assuming of course as above they are more recent ? > Graham- > You are correct on both counts. ADMs are typically supersets of each > other--2003, SP1 is a superset of XP,SP2, XP is a superset of 2000, > etc. And it is definitely best to manage such a mixed environment from > the latest platform (e.g. XP). The key of course, is to pay attention > to the "Supported" tags in the newer ADMs. > > Darren > > Darren Mar-Elia > For comprehensive Windows Group Policy Information, check out > www.gpoguy.com-- the best source for GPO FAQs, video training, tools > and whitepapers. Also check out the Windows Group Policy Guide, the > definitive resource for Group Policy information. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham Turner > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 7:41 AM > To: activedir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: [ActiveDir] adm file management > > quick question (hopefully not too daft) ref ADM file management > > it seems different OS's ship with different versions of the 'standard' > ADM files that include conf.adm / interes.adm / system.adm ... > > say if you are maintaining policies that link to containers holding > say XP , 2000, > 2003 computers it would not be unreasonable to manage them all from a > single host on which you edit policies. > > am i correct to say that in maintaining the settings in these files > are always cumulative - if that's the right word > > if so then it is correct working practice to always use the MOST > RECENT version of an ADM file with no fear of breaking previously > functional GPO's ??? > > GT > > > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
