#73618 - 2003-03-05 07:40 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
DJ Ballistic
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2003-02-21
Posts: 185
|
I'm sorry I don't mean to sound abrupt.
I am not able to shorten that group name on the account of network admin doesn't want it done.
Shorten a test group name and it seems that the group limitation is 13. It will run correctly at everything 13 and below for a group name.
I guess I am going to have to search for a IF @INWIN or something to have the script stop if it detects a 98 client. That is what my network admin wants.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#73619 - 2003-03-05 07:49 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
Howard Bullock
KiX Supporter
Registered: 2000-09-15
Posts: 5809
Loc: Harrisburg, PA USA
|
You still have similar limitation on NT4. Are you going to just ignore NT4 workstation as well?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#73620 - 2003-03-05 07:55 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
Howard Bullock
KiX Supporter
Registered: 2000-09-15
Posts: 5809
Loc: Harrisburg, PA USA
|
How many of computers of each operating system do you have on your network? What is the planned scheduled replacement of all of the computers with less then Windows 2000 running on it?
If the network and servers were setup without consideration for the client operating systems that need to be supported, you can tell your Admin from me that he was negligent in his professional responsibilities.
[ 05. March 2003, 19:55: Message edited by: Howard Bullock ]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#73621 - 2003-03-05 07:56 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
DJ Ballistic
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2003-02-21
Posts: 185
|
Good grief I didn't realize that NT WS 4.0 would have a problem too. I don't know what to do. I cannot change group names to make them short, end of story, that is not an option. I guess this login script thing is a crazy idea for our situation now. I don't know what to do.
I hooked up the NT 4 box again to try this and it maps all the drives even in "Information Systems" group so the limitation isn't that small for NT 4. I should tell you the Mapping And Addressing & Information Systems are the longest group names we have. Plus I found that there is also a group name called Assessment that Mapping & Addressing users are also in and it seems to work as well in the kixscript for NT 4.0 The 98 box doesn't seem to recognize the "Assessment" group. I guess I have to refresh that token cache.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#73622 - 2003-03-05 07:58 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
DJ Ballistic
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2003-02-21
Posts: 185
|
As for the number of OS's for the PC's on our network. There are very small 98 maybe like 10 if that. NT 4 quite a few and no soon plans for replacement. Many 2000 and XP boxes and everything new coming in is XP.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#73624 - 2003-03-05 08:00 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
Howard Bullock
KiX Supporter
Registered: 2000-09-15
Posts: 5809
Loc: Harrisburg, PA USA
|
NT4 has a group name limit of 20 characters. Apparently you found that Win9x has a groupname limit of less than that.
The logon script is a great managment tool, but one has to properly setup the domain environment for ALL clients.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#73625 - 2003-03-05 08:01 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
DJ Ballistic
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2003-02-21
Posts: 185
|
Well other than the Network Admin doesn't want them changed no. As for the pre-planning stages of the network the first Network Admin is no longer here and that is just going with the time, budget money, etc. NT4 was more expensive then. But that is all shoulda, woulda, coulda. That isn't my fault I am just trying to come up with something workable in our current environment.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#73626 - 2003-03-05 08:02 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
DJ Ballistic
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2003-02-21
Posts: 185
|
Okay good so NT4 boxes aren't going to cause me a problem then. Just the 98 boxes. Since there are so few of them maybe that is why my Admin is telling me to have the script not run on them if 98 is detected. When the systems are replaced they will be XP and still good to go.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#73628 - 2003-03-05 08:06 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
DJ Ballistic
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2003-02-21
Posts: 185
|
I totally agree with you. But since the group names aren't going to affect the NT 4 clients and will only affect the 9x boxes I think the best, and easier thing to do is have the script not to run at all when 98 OS is detected.
That sounds good to me. I guess I'll read up on that and try to figure it out. ![[Frown]](images/icons/frown.gif)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#73629 - 2003-03-05 08:06 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
Howard Bullock
KiX Supporter
Registered: 2000-09-15
Posts: 5809
Loc: Harrisburg, PA USA
|
Did you run the ingroup test script on an NT4 computer using the group name 'Mapping And Addressing'?
Did it success or fail? If it fails, I would expect that. If you say is succeeded then There is some new aspect of the NT4 to AD as compared with NT4 to NT4 DC.
Remember that if Ingroup > 0 then the user is a member. when it equals zero the user is not a member or so thinks the client.
[ 05. March 2003, 20:09: Message edited by: Howard Bullock ]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#73630 - 2003-03-05 08:07 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
DJ Ballistic
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2003-02-21
Posts: 185
|
The Mapping And Addressing works successfully on the NT 4 box that is what I was saying. We won't have a problem then.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#73631 - 2003-03-05 08:08 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
DJ Ballistic
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2003-02-21
Posts: 185
|
The only problem is going to be 9x which I am ready to friggin through all of them out, which I can't do ![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif) .
But I think if I just have it not run then I will be fine and I can disappear from these forums
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#73632 - 2003-03-05 08:16 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
Howard Bullock
KiX Supporter
Registered: 2000-09-15
Posts: 5809
Loc: Harrisburg, PA USA
|
I find that the ingroup working (returning the correct value) on a group greater than 20 on an NT4 client extraordinary and I will have to perform further testing here to understand why. We have seen in the past where a group name longer than 20 character will cause the ingroup command not to recognize that the user is a member of the group when in fact he was.
Please confirm that you did test logging on as an account that is a member of 'Mapping And Addressing' and the Ingroup function returned a value of 1.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#73634 - 2003-03-05 08:48 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
DJ Ballistic
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2003-02-21
Posts: 185
|
i don't have the issue where the 2 group names have the same first 20 characters. That will never happen in our organization.
As for the verifying that the Ingroup produced a value of 1 with the Mapping And Addressing group.
That is affirmative.
It returns a value of 1
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#73635 - 2003-03-05 08:49 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
DJ Ballistic
Starting to like KiXtart
Registered: 2003-02-21
Posts: 185
|
i don't have the issue where the 2 group names have the same first 20 characters. That will never happen in our organization.
As for the verifying that the Ingroup produced a value of 1 with the Mapping And Addressing group.
That is affirmative.
It returns a value of 1
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#73636 - 2003-03-05 09:19 PM
Re: Problem with kixtart and NT4.0
|
Howard Bullock
KiX Supporter
Registered: 2000-09-15
Posts: 5809
Loc: Harrisburg, PA USA
|
I guess that is a good thing. Will have to to do more testing here to gain a better understanding of the issue and why I saw failures in the past.
[ 05. March 2003, 21:20: Message edited by: Howard Bullock ]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Glenn Barnas, NTDOC, Arend_, Jochen, Radimus, Allen, ShaneEP, Ruud van Velsen, Mart
|
0 registered
and 539 anonymous users online.
|
|
|
