|
Please, see my reply at this place.
"we must lose precision to make significant statements about complex systems."
-deKorvin on uncertainty
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, I have configure group policies in order to set an application automatically to the client after they start their computer. But I found it is the problem that the software would be setup after I set the group policies around 30mn. What I want is: after an administrator apply the group policies of setup a software to each computer client that start PC after the group policies is applied. I also use the command gpupdate/force to refresh the group policies, but it still not working. I have to wait around 45mn in order see an installation to each client.
Does any people have any idea to solve this problem?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure I understand your question.
There is always some degree of latency, because the actual setup does not exist on the client machine, it is only assigned. That means that when each client starts up, it has to first transfer the setup to the local machine from some central network location. Only then does the actual setup run.
If you are starting a lot of clients at the same time maybe what you are seeing is a long delay because of competition for network bandwidth as a large number of clients all try to download the same package????
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much for your comment. But in my case, I try to use it in my computer lap which have only 2 computer. One is the client and another one is the server. After I refresh the group policies around the first 20mn, it is not running the setup and the file that I want to setup automatically is the AdminPack.msi which contain around 10MB. What I want is the installation apply to every machine since the time that I apply and refresh the group policies. Because in business environment, time is really valueable. Any idea?
|
|
|
|
|
|
rwestgraham wrote: Have you tried enabling verbose logging to try and troubleshoot the problem?
I didn't try this way yet. But I will try to do it after reading the above link. Thank you very much for your comment.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, in client/server environemtn, an administrator of the server could delegate any task to any specific user to perform (such as creating a user account) in order to reduce administrative task of the administrator by using delegate control.
In windows xp professional, could the local administrator delegate any control to the (such as create a new user account) to any specific user in order to reduce an administrative task for administrator?
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, I have 2 computer which is client/server running windows 2000 server and professional in my computer lap. I also configure roaming profile for the user account in active directory. The problem is when i log to the client with any roaming user account and create a file and maked it with encrypted option, when I log off, my profile could not be save to the server. I know that the problem might the file with encryption might have a problem during save itself to the server. Does anyone have any idea to solve this problem? In my opinion, this problem might cause from permission that I set on the folder that use to store user profile. Is this solution is right? Because I think that an encrypted file which create by the owner of the file should be store on the server in order to keep the file private and secure, but why it could not save to the server when the user logoff? Any idea would be appreciate.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, I have a local windows xp professional and i create a mandatory profile by changing the file NTUSER.DAT to NTUSER.MAN. I try to make change some setting like dekstop picture and create some file and hope that it won't save any setting. But after i log off and log on again it always save the last setting that I have made to this roaming profile. I have check the profile type and found it display that the profile is the mandatory profile. I don't know that mandatory profile always work with client/server environment or work in local or not? If anybody has any solution please let me know?
|
|
|
|
|
I am about exchanging the hard disk with another one less tired of work (and more storage capacity, of course).
I'd like to preserve the existing installation, i.e. not change anything but the hard disk.
How can this be achieved? This is the fourth time I am doing this, and it is becoming increasingly a life-time job, paid by no-one.
My problems are:
1. the idiots of XP developers decided, that I *have to* format NTFS every disk, which is over 32GB (or whatever),
2. I can not copy a hard disk without losing either the full names, or lots of files.
What is the "standard" procedure when migrating to another hard disk?
|
|
|
|
|
Vancouver wrote: 1. the idiots of XP developers decided, that I *have to* format NTFS every disk, which is over 32GB
If you were thinking of using DOS on it, then yes, you have to abide by that limit.
Vancouver wrote: 2. I can not copy a hard disk without losing either the full names, or lots of files.
Shouldn't happen on an NTFS volume. DOS, or a FAT volume, on the other hand, WILL lose the long file names.
Vancouver wrote: What is the "standard" procedure when migrating to another hard disk?
There really isn't a "standard" process for this. But, a great utility to do this is PowerQuest's DriveImage (which I don't think exists anymore), or Norton's Ghost. It'll copy everything from one drive to another, while correcting for new partition sizes and stuff.
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the idea. Apparently DriveImage is still around; however it costs more than an XP full license (and Norton Ghost costs even more).
Btw, XP's enforcement of NTFS has nothing to do with DOS.
Disk Management simply does not create a partition/logical drive with FAT32 larger than 32GB (even though you can use a much larger FAT32 disk with XP - if it has been created by Win98).
|
|
|
|
|
Try to use Partition Magic.
It was from PowerQuest, but now it is Symatrec.
Partition Magic allaws to convert from NTFS to FAT32.
You will not lose Long Name. Only a DOS cann't use Long Names. But in Win95 OSR2 or higher you could see Long names. (Win95 OSR2 has a FAT32 support, Only WIN95 has only FAT16 aka FAT support). You can Split, Merge, Resize, Convert, Split, Move, Copy, Delete or backup entire partition.
|
|
|
|
|
did any one know why the windows prevent and give and error when you rename some folder or file with "con"????
Militiaware
Faris Madi
|
|
|
|
|
This has been covered before.
CON is a device name that represents the CONSOLE stream. You can't use CON, LPT1, LPT2, LPT3, COM1, COM2, COM3, PRN, ..., and others.
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
Hello All,
Not to toot my own horn...well, OK...to toot my own horn 
You may recall my step-by-step DCOM tutorial for VC6, which I posted at
http://www.codeproject.com/com/HelloTutorial1.asp[^]
The tutorial isn't meant to reveal the underlying theory and gory detail of DCOM itself, just like the Scribble tutorial wasn't exactly meant to tour every nook and cranny of MFC. However, the tutorial shows each step to take to build a very simple DCOM server and client.
People have been asking me to update the tutorial for VS.NET. And, at last, the new tutorial series is in the midst of being written. Check it out at
Step 1: http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/HelloTutorial1NET.asp[^]
The tutorial is written in several "Steps" -- the main parts of the process. Step 1 is linked above, and each Step contains links to every other step.
Do me a favor, and use the rating at the bottom of each step to score that Step, and post to the Steps' message boards with your questions, and also suggestions on how to make a certain Step better etc. I welcome any and all input, and both positive kudos and constructive feedback together are great. Thanks!
Sincerely Yours,
Brian Hart
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of California, Irvine
-- modified at 4:30 Saturday 31st December, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
Hi there,
I really can't stand the default Windows file dialog and I'd like to replace it by my own one. I'd like to know if it is possible (did somebody try it yet?) and in which direction should I go to start (system hooks? DLL injection/replacement?). I didn't find any help on the Internet, only some documentation on how to customize it (even Google doesn't know!!  ).
Big thanks in advance and happy new year to all! 
B.MARTIN
|
|
|
|
|
You didn't find anything useful because nobody ever does it.
You actually have to replace the .DLL that supplies the dialog box with your own. I think it's COMDLG32.DLL. The File Dialog is a variant of a Common Dialog found in that .DLL.
If you really want to radically alter the File Dialog, you'll have to re-write the Common Dialog and the File Dialog that is built on top of it. You'll have to dig up all the CLSID's for the objects and methods and what-not that .DLL exposes and replicate the functionality in your own .DLL. You'll also need to update all the Registry pointers for all the CLSID's that you implement in your own code to point to your .DLL too. Since you'll have to work and play nice with the rest of the original .DLL, you'll have to make sure your code is doing EXACTLY what the original objects and method did in the original .DLL.
BTW: I would also NOT recommend doing this in a managed language, since those dialogs are used system-wide, you'll be injecting the full weight of the .NET Framework into just about every user process running on the system, including Explorer, IE, user applications, ..., you get the idea.
Oh! You'll have to also handle the interaction with the various versions of the original .DLL too! Not every Common Dialog is the same between Windows versions and Service Packs.
Sound like fun?
Now you know why noone ever does this, but it is possible to do.
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
Ok you just broke my joy here  (there are the ChooseColor, ChooseFont, FindText, OpenFile, SaveFile, PrintDialog and ReplaceText dialogs in COMDLG32.DLL... to much work!).
But if I remember correctly, a few years ago I saw a Corel application (can't remember which one) which added a right panel to the common file dialog. So I guess that hooking some system events and playing with handles should permit to do something nice without rewritting a complete DLL.
Thanks for your reply.
|
|
|
|
|
That depends on how much you want to modify the dialog. It is possible, using hooks into the dialog, to modify the look and some functionality of the dialog.
For an application specific look, you can look into this[^]. Or, for a .NET perspective, this[^].
But, again, you don't want to do this system-wide in managed code. A huge memory footprint comes with the .NET Framework. A bit too steep for me just for a dialog. On top of that, I think you'll also run into issues if you customized a system-wide dialog box using one version of the .NET Framework, then open a dialog in an application using another version of the .NET Framework. Having two .NET Framework Runtimes in the same process gets ugly.
RageInTheMachine9532
"...a pungent, ghastly, stinky piece of cheese!" -- The Roaming Gnome
|
|
|
|
|
Ok thanks a lot for your replies. I'm gonna check your links and make some experiments. I'll avoid the .NET framework and do this in C++ or maybe Delphi. If I get something interesting I'll post an article here. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
The biggest reason not to do this, other than within an application:
You will piss off your users.
The common dialogs are intended to be just that: common. Users expect to see them when they use 'File Open', 'Save', etc. commands. An application can customize them if necessary, for some application-specific behavior.
Globally replacing them is A Bad Idea.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
It's for my personal use. I like tweaking my system and I can tell you a lot tweaking-fan people are asking/waiting for such a possibility (replacing the common file dialog which is not very flexible and poor in functionnalities).
Anyway, you know sometime it's better to try new things 
|
|
|
|
|
I have a HardDisk with drive letter D:\. I know how to set File sharing over LAN. There is a problem, that in some newly created folders or file, prevents any accsess to that file. I Had cross-linked connection and there were no problems. I have also disabled Windows Firewall, because my router has a firewall integrated. How can i set the system to automatcly allow read only connection (I also allow file to be copying from the system)
ps: I have windows XP SP2
|
|
|
|
|
Saksida Bojan wrote: I know how to set File sharing over LAN
NTFS file system integrate local security and network security over the network. My first question is: did you configure any permission in the local security tab?
I used to share a file over the network too in my home LAN. And I use the normal configuration. Just give Everyone group in sharing tab to full control and give the permission to Everyone group in security tab to Read, Read and Execute and List folder content permission.
Saksida Bojan wrote: There is a problem, that in some newly created folders or file, prevents any accsess to that file.
This problem with came from unproper to configure in your access control list. Try to go to the security tab and click on Advance button. In the permission tab select an appropriate user and click on Edit button and try to configure on the Apply onto combobox. Check this point again and let me know whether it is working or not.
Good luck
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
