![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Invisible wrote:
>>> In Windows XP, you cannot "switch users" like that if the computer is
>>> part
>>> of a Windows domain.
>>
>> Is that true even if you log in remotely with RDP? I know we did that
>> with Win2000, so I find it hard to believe XP can't?
>
> Windows XP Professional supports 1 user logging in via RDP (but only if
> nobody is logged in remotely). Windows 2003 Server supports multiple RDP
> sessions, but Windows XP supports only one at a time. As in, before
> anybody else can connect, you must disconnect (i.e., log out).
Yes. Distinguish "logged in" from "connected". Just like you can only
"switch users" on XP Pro by locking the screen, you can have multiple
programs running concurrently under multiple user accounts by logging in
remotely under different names and disconncting rather than logging out.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> Windows XP Professional supports 1 user logging in via RDP (but only
>> if nobody is logged in remotely). Windows 2003 Server supports
>> multiple RDP sessions, but Windows XP supports only one at a time. As
>> in, before anybody else can connect, you must disconnect (i.e., log out).
>
> Yes. Distinguish "logged in" from "connected". Just like you can only
> "switch users" on XP Pro by locking the screen, you can have multiple
> programs running concurrently under multiple user accounts by logging in
> remotely under different names and disconncting rather than logging out.
It's an interesting theory. I don't think it works like that, but I
don't have time to try right now.
(Of course, by default, only an administrator can log in via RDP in the
first place...)
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Invisible wrote:
> It's an interesting theory. I don't think it works like that, but I
> don't have time to try right now.
I can guarantee it works that way without AD.
> (Of course, by default, only an administrator can log in via RDP in the
> first place...)
That's trivial to fix.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |