Klark

Quote: Is there any way we can connect computers wirelessly? with out spending thousands of dollars? Yes, a Breezecom rig would work perfectly...providing you have a fairly decent line-of-site. I bought one and installed it between 2 buildings, took only a few hours to install and works perfectly. Here's a link to an ebay auction with the entire kit, which is both radios, antennas, cables, power adapters, etc... Breezecom setup Let me know if you need any help, there's actually not much to it.

Servers are NT4, clients are 2K Professional. I disabled the proxy server in our PDC, then reconfigured the client machines to no longer use it....just the default gateway which is a linux firewall/router. Well, some of the clients have NO problem getting to the internet, but most of them can't get to the internet...unless I leave the proxy settings in their browsers?? WTF ?? The proxy server is disabled on the PDC !! Anyway, something is totally fubar, and I gotta track it down or come up with another option. Any ideas ? Thanx in advance !!

All of the computers at my house are members of my domain, which is named LOTL. But when friends come by and I try to access some of there shares, the login box pops up, and in the login box I try guest on both user and pass and the login box immediately comes back with LOTL\guest prefilled into the username spot. Even if I get their actual username and password, the login box still comes back with LOTL\username, which won't allow me to get in. Any ideas? Thanx in advance.. -Klark

I don't even remember what I installed that caused this problem. Or what I did. But it's driving me freakin' insane. Every damn folder I look in has a folder name _vti_cnf inside. WTF are all they for? And WTF did all come from? Please help!! ThanX in advance.

Clutch was absolutely correct once again....Butternuts, You're a sad little man and we all pity you. First of all, since you obviously cant read, everyone here has come to the conclusion that you're simply pissed off about being completely wrong, and unfortunately you can't handle it. Which ultimately led to you making a complete ass out of yourself. Now you can say that you came here for fun, laughs, and to cause trouble, but I being a moderator on numerous forums have heard that cop-out numerous times from other folks that were in your shoes. You came in, you posted your opinions/answers, you were very wrong, you made an ass out of yourself, and now you say it was all just for fun to cover up your humility.....Sure thing man, it's your story, so tell it anyway you like! Second, If you're so clever, smart, wity, or highly trained, why don't you start answering some of the unsolved threads that are still open on this forum? Oh, I forgot, you can't because you're too busy at your job fixing all the things that you f*cked up. Either that, or you have no idea how to answer any of them correctly....which is more than apparent judging by your last attempt at helping someone solve their problem. Lastly, it's extremely unfortunate that you have to come here and disrupt things simply because you're upset that your Daddy used to molest you, your girlfriend left you for a chic, and that your penis hasn't grown since you were nine years old. We are all sorry for your misfortune, and you have our sympathy. On that note, please seek some professional help...you could definately use it. Oh, and by the way, nice threats....Those will come in handy.

Quote: ...The Question was about Windows 2000 work station and server.... Personally, I have never heard of Windows 2000 work station. Anyway... Batternuts, I'm sure I am not the only one that believes you need to return to grammar school and learn how to read...correctly. The original post had everything to do with domain level permissions. Clutch simply expanded on various methods of adding an administrative account, and the differences between adding them at the client machine or the server. Simple as that. And too second that, I just tryed his methods on our 2K Advanced Server domain controller, and he is absolutely correct. On another note, we have no way of verifying whether or not you and SysAdmin are infact the same person or not....Nor do we care. Just remember this: Moments from now, when your accounts are disabled, no one will remember you. But we all here will remember Clutch for many years too come. All in all, you should run home now, and disrespect everyone you can on the way home....Cuz you obviously need to do that since your mommy and daddy don't provide you with the attention that you need.

Just wanting to know if anyone here has ran the downloadable UT2K3 server on a Debian machine yet. Clutch has managed to convince me that Debian is the shiznit, which so far I agree with him. But rather than using the machine as a workstation, I need to put it to good use. If you've ran a dedicated UT2K3 server on Debian, any help or tricks would be greatly appreciated. ThanX in advance! -Klark

I had to return just to see if my post was actually here....and that I wasn't dreaming when I posted this. Cuz by the vast number of replies, I was beginning to believe that I was dreaming...

What I am trying to do is limit certain users from getting the default gateway IP so they will not be able to access the internet. I am trying to create 2 seperate DHCP scopes on the same network....ie: One scope with gateway information, and another scope without the gateway information. Whenever I create the new second scope, I get an error about the new scope conflicting with an existing scope. The first scope is 192.168.0.100 - 192.168.0.120. And the second scope is 192.168.0.150 - 192.168.0.200. Both of the scopes are on the same subnet mask at 255.255.255.0 ...When I change the subnet mask of the second scope to a different subnet mask, it ofcourse lets me create the new scope. But I need them both on the same subnet mask. I've read numerous articles on Technet concerning this, and all say it CAN be done with great success, but none of them explain the tricks to get it working. Please help if you can, OR if anyone can think of a good way to limit certain DHCP clients from accessing the internet without configuring our very limited router, please let us know of any ideas. ThanX !!

Quote: net send * msg I belive that will send msg to everyone, never really tried it on a workgroup though, heh. Yes vern2 you are correct, but I too have never tried it on a workgroup....but I use it all the time on our domain.

Quote: ...boy i wish there was a way to merge the two into one super connection though! No, I have experience with this unit, and it does not actually merge the 2 connections into one. Using this unit with 1 or even 2 clients will not gain you a single thing, other than failover as Clutch said. But using this unit with multiple clients is what it's designed for, similar to Cisco's Fast Ether Channel technology.

Just adding a domain controller will not help network performance ...It's what you assign that domain controller to do that will speed up your performance. Such as making it a WINS server, which would definately speed up things for you ten fold....ecspecially with all them 9X clients 8) you have....

Anyone know of a program to verify my hard drive speeds?? Cuz I've believe I'm running at ATA66 speeds...

Here is the list of changes... IE6 SP1 changes

Man....doesn't this problem bother anyone else??