nmX.Memnoch

It's a good idea to keep the configuration in HKLM. That'll keep restricted users from changing their settings. But the session logs...yeah, those'll need to go in HKCU. Let me know when you're done. In the meantime I'm going to see if I can figure out a way to right an AutoIt script to prompt for the configuration of each user on the system. For a stand-alone (non-domain) PC does the registry path contain the workgroup or machine name? In other words, which of the following is correct? HKLM\SOFTWARE\SessionManager\<workgroup>\ Or HKLM\SOFTWARE\SessionManager\<machine_name>\ To me, machine name would make more sense for local accounts, but stick with domain name for domain accounts (I tested it on my PC at home and it was HKLM\SOFTWARE\SessionManager\<domain>\<user>\).

Not bad but that brings me to another point. Why can't they just add enough lanes so that all the slots are electrically X16 instead of splitting it up? You have two options for that board...x8/x8/x4/x8 or x16/x0/x4/x0. Still, it would provide more than adequate performance for current PCIe cards.

To be fair though...the industry was blamed for the PCI bus becoming the choke point when devices started to use more bandwidth. And now that they're trying to stay ahead of the curve they're being blamed for devices not using all of the available bandwidth. So they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. Just because we aren't using the extra bandwidth doesn't mean it's better. Would you rather have more than enough or not enough? Personally, I opt for more than I need in regards to device bandwidth. I do agree with you though...it'll be heavily marketed just because it's faster, which isn't necessarily the entire reason for the spec change. I view the additional bandwidth as an added bonus. Hopefully this will be what's needed to reverse the current "4xPCI and 2xPCIe X1" slot configuration to something like "4xPCIe X1 and 2xPCI" slot configurations. Maybe we can even start seeing some X4 slots on enthusiast boards. That would be nice for running both SLI/Xfire and a nice true hardware SATA RAID controller.

Just so we're clear on what eyeball is asking you to do...you need to extract the SP2 package and run update.exe manually. By default when you run a hotfix or service pack without extracting it, it automatically uses the (local) drive with the most available space. To extract the package, run this command: WindowsServer2003-KB914961-SP2-x86-ENU.exe /X:C:\Srv03SP2 Once you do that then run this: C:\Srv03SP2\update\update.exe

You can do this with a machine startup script through a Group Policy Object. Machine startup scripts run in the SYSTEM context so it should have access to copy the files.

I need to figure out how to handle user configuration with the installer. You have the session settings for each user being written to HKLM\SOFTWARE\SessionManager\<domain_workgroup>\<user>. Regular users don't have permissions to change registry keys under HKLM\SOFTWARE. They also don't have permissions to add files to %SystemRoot%\system32. Since the three accounts in question on restricted accounts they'd currently have to be made Admins temporarily to run the app the first time. I'm thinking maybe create a configuration utility that parses the local accounts and prompts for the configuration of each account. That way someone with admin privs could install and configure the application, but the settings can't be changed by the restricted users. This obviously wouldn't work in a domain environment, but how many home users have a domain?

There's other enhancements and fixes in PCIe 2.0 then just the bandwidth increases. Notice that we haven't seen any PCIe sound cards yet? There's supposedly a timing/packet overhead issue that PCIe 2.0 corrects and will allow for sound cards to work properly on PCIe. Now I know you're probably saying "but it's just a sound card!". And while you're right...I'd love to have a system with no PCI cards in it. Think of PCI as the old ISA bus (for those of you old enough to remember that). Right now my system only has one PCI card...and that's my Audigy 2 ZS. - BFG GeForce 7900GT 512MB PCIe X16 - Intel PRO/1000 PT PCIe X1 NIC - Belkin FireWire 800/USB PCIe X1 Controller - Integrated JMicron SATA/PATA PCIe X1 Controller - Creative Labs Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZX PCI Sound Card I kinda lucked out when I ordered my stuff because the Intel PCIe NIC had just hit the market. Everything has it's own dedicated bandwidth thanks the PCIe and only having the one device on the PCI bus.

jcarle, Would you have any problems with me compiling this into an actual setup/install package?

Since the key is in HKLM\SOFTWARE then Administrators and SYSTEM already have Full Access (or at least enough to change the key). I would start with the following permissions: Everyone - Read Access Administrators - Read Access SYSTEM - Full Access If the application is running at the SYSTEM level (which it probably is) then you'll need to further restrict the key to Read Only access for SYSTEM. Also be warned that this will probably cause a Failure Audit event to be written to your System Event Log every 5 minutes when this application tries to change the key. That's not really a big deal since the frequency isn't that often though.

Uwe Boll is directing it...it'll be much, much worse than DOOM.

Actually...I read a rumor earlier today that NVIDIA is working on updating the 8x00 line for PCIe 2.0. Also, remember that the spec is backwards compatible. The next generation GPUs will probably be native PCIe 2.0.

He just mentioned that she plays games...he didn't say that's all she does. Hell, you can probably go with something as low as a Pentium E2140 (dual-core, 800MHz FSB, 1.6GHz, 1MB L2). Even though she doesn't do much with the PC I'd still recommend at least 1-2GB RAM since it's going to run Vista.

That's if you can even get a license for Windows 2000 Server anymore. Windows Server 2003 will run fine on a PIII 800 for print server duties. Print server resources really depend more on drive space (and the speed of the drive helps) since the documents are spooled on the server and sent to the printer from there. They don't generally require a lot of CPU or RAM resources (unless you use the crappy HP Universal Print Driver). Having said that, you certainly don't want to try to run 2003 on a machine with anything less than 512MB RAM. Find out what the max of that system is...it'll either be 512MB, 768MB or 1GB. Put as much in the system as you can. If the company is willing to spend a little money, you can get a decent entry-level, single dual-core CPU server fairly cheap ($2000USD or less if you're careful with the selections).

If you can get me a copy of the .reg file with the exact keys, values and settings you want to change then I can look into creating a custom ADM template. Just be warned that since these aren't standard Policies keys that the machine will be "tattooed" (Google 'group policy tattoo' for further information). It doesn't sound like you care about that though... Regular Users don't have access to change settings in HKLM\Settings. If you already have logon scripts then there may be a way to do it without creating a custom ADM template. AdminScriptEditor allows you to compile scripts into an executable and have them run with alternate credentials. You need at least the Professional edition and it requires the Secondary Logon service ('RunAs Service' on 2000) be enabled on the workstations.

My guess would be from the CLSID's mentioned.

Do you have access to create Group Policies? You could make a custom ADM template.

Yes, but in this case the difference is going to be fairly substantial. For starters, the X38 will "supposedly" have PCIe 2.0 support.

What are you using to push the registry entries?

When he cleared the CMOS it cleared any custom settings. The boot order is probably jacked up or an option to bypass the "Press F4" prompt probably get reversed.

You can backup the System State with the builtin ntbackup.exe utility. Type ntbackup /? in the Run box. However, the System State is used for recovery purposes. You can't, as far as I know, restore the data into any domain. If I'm not mistaken, it has to be restored back into the original domain. The System State backup contains all necessary boot files, the registry, AD database and several other critical system objects/files.

You're right...we don't understand exactly why you need to do it. The bank example doesn't make sense either. If the user makes a mistake on one PC or another, the mistake is still made. In my line of work, the user is responsible for their account. If the user leaves a PC unattended and someone else uses their account, they're accountable. We have, however, moved to SmartCard logon and there is a policy set to automatically lock the workstation when they remove the SmartCard from the reader. So even if the user does logon to more than one PC at a time, they can't be left unattended. The user can't logon without using the SmartCard so they have to remove it from PC A (which locks it) to logon to PC B. Give these knowledge base articles a look. I found them with a simple Google search. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/237282 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/260364 The only way to do it with Microsoft tools is to purchase the Windows 2000 Resource Kit to get the CConnect.exe utility. Otherwise you'll need a 3rd party tool. Either way, you can't do it with anything that's built in.

You need to force the screen to lock after a certain period of inactivity. Workstations left unattended in a 'public' area and not having a security policy in place to force the workstation to lock is just asking for trouble. Setting this policy can be enforced in a GPO. You should also instruct them to manually lock the workstation if they're leaving it for any period of time. They can do this on Windows XP/Vista by pressing the Windows Key + L key combination. On Windows 2000 you can do it by pressing Ctrl+Alt+Del and selecting Lock Computer.

Did you read the other replies before you posted?

Yes, but there is an actual brand called "Velcro". Other companies can make the same product, but they have to call it "hook and loop"...or at least something other than "Velcro".

"something like this" would be called Velcro (or 'hook and loop' if it's generic).