I have no clue why it wouldn't allow you to have different names for the S
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: ActiveDir-owner (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org] Behalf shereen naser
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:01 AM
To: ActiveDir (AT) mail (DOT) 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 S, but I can only
login to the domain if one of the S'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
Ses are joined to the domain. I tried to rename the machine name to
different names in each S but same thing happens. is there a way to do
that? (login to domain using both S's without having to disjoin?)
Thank you

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 S 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 TW

1/1/06, Rick Kingslan <rkingsla (AT) cox (DOT) netwrote:
--
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 S's,
but if you want the S 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: ActiveDir-owner (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org] Behalf
joe
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 10:40 AM
To: ActiveDir (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003
>
>
>
>
I have no clue why it wouldn't allow you to have different names for the S
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: ActiveDir-owner (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org] Behalf
shereen naser
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:01 AM
To: ActiveDir (AT) mail (DOT) 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 S, but I can only
login to the domain if one of the S'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
Ses are joined to the domain. I tried to rename the machine name to
different names in each S but same thing happens. is there a way to do
that? (login to domain using both S's without having to disjoin?)
--
Thank you

menmenmen 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 Ses
and joinining/disjoining domains and loosing my tools from one boot to the
other, I have to explain why am in deep **** 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

1/1/06, ASB <abaker (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

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 S 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 TW

>
>
>
1/1/06, Rick Kingslan <rkingsla (AT) cox (DOT) netwrote:
--
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
S's,
but if you want the S 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: ActiveDir-owner (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org] Behalf
joe
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 10:40 AM
To: ActiveDir (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003
>
>
>
>
I have no clue why it wouldn't allow you to have different names for the
S
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: ActiveDir-owner (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org] Behalf
shereen naser
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:01 AM
To: ActiveDir (AT) mail (DOT) 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 S, but I can
only
login to the domain if one of the S'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
Ses are joined to the domain. I tried to rename the machine name to
different names in each S but same thing happens. is there a way to do
that? (login to domain using both S's without having to disjoin?)
--
Thank you

What didn't work with two different names?

And you didn't answer Joe's question about using different directories for
the installation. If you used the same directories, I can see some
potential for issues as you describe. If you used separate installation
directories, then they are separate machines that share the same NIC. Which
brings up another question: how is your IP address being handed out? If it's
via DHCP, trying giving the Server a static ip address vs. DHCP that's
different than your XP workstation.

Depending on that above information, if that doesn't help set you straight,
then give us the error code you see that causes you to remove from the
domain. Likely more related to DNS, but let's be thorough.

Else send you a bigger shovel :)

1/2/06, shereen naser <shereen.naser (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

menmenmen 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
Ses and joinining/disjoining domains and loosing my tools from one boot to
the other, I have to explain why am in deep **** 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

1/1/06, ASB <abaker (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

H. 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 S 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 TW

>
>
>
1/1/06, Rick Kingslan <rkingsla (AT) cox (DOT) netwrote:
--
H. 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
S's,
but if you want the S 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 . It's just not the right thing for all
situations.
>
>
>
Rick
--

--
From: ActiveDir-owner (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org
[mailto: ActiveDir-owner (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org] Behalf
joe
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 10:40 AM
To: ActiveDir (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003
>
>
>
>
I have no clue why it wouldn't allow you to have different names for
the S
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: ActiveDir-owner (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org
[mailto: ActiveDir-owner (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org] Behalf
shereen naser
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:01 AM
To: ActiveDir (AT) mail (DOT) 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 S, but I can
only
login to the domain if one of the S'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
Ses are joined to the domain. I tried to rename the machine name to
different names in each S but same thing happens. is there a way to
do
that? (login to domain using both S's without having to disjoin?)
--
Thank you
>
>
>

I have 2 seperate directories, I used static IP for the server and left it
at dynamic for the xp.
I loose the tools cause of 2 things, am sooooo lazy to install all that on
the new windows 2003 server installation, besides if I actually wanted to do
that most of the tools won't work, in addition its temporarily testing its
not worth the effort of trying to have all my tools in that installation,
what I wanted to do is that only rebooting the machine which takes seconds
will be able to get me back to my XP and tools thats all,
I will give this renaming thing and IPs another shot and see how it goes as
far as you guys say it should, or else am not doing that da testing!
I know this is AD list and I know that u can answer me thats y I asked here,

1/2/06, joe <listmail (AT) joeware (DOT) netwrote:

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 Ses 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 P 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. 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. 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:* ActiveDir-owner (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org [mailto:
ActiveDir-owner (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org] * Behalf *shereen naser
*Sent:* Monday, January 02, 2006 8:43 AM
*To:* ActiveDir (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org
*Subject:* Re: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003
--
menmenmen 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
Ses and joinining/disjoining domains and loosing my tools from one boot to
the other, I have to explain why am in deep **** 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

1/1/06, ASB <abaker (AT) gmail (DOT) comwrote:

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 S 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 TW

>
>
>
1/1/06, Rick Kingslan < rkingsla (AT) cox (DOT) netwrote:
--
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
S's,
but if you want the S 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: ActiveDir-owner (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org
[mailto: ActiveDir-owner (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org] Behalf
joe
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 10:40 AM
To: ActiveDir (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003
>
>
>
>
I have no clue why it wouldn't allow you to have different names for
the S
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: ActiveDir-owner (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org
[mailto: ActiveDir-owner (AT) mail (DOT) activedir.org] Behalf
shereen naser
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:01 AM
To: ActiveDir (AT) mail (DOT) 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 S, but I can
only
login to the domain if one of the S'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
Ses are joined to the domain. I tried to rename the machine name to
different names in each S but same thing happens. is there a way to
do
that? (login to domain using both S's without having to disjoin?)
--
Thank you
>
>
>