Slashdot Mirror

Yes, because it's quite simple to backport fixes to a codebase that is 10 years out of sync with your mainline.

I call bullshit, 2003 Server is basically the same codebase as XP with some extended (server) features. This is purely a strategic move to scare people into upgrading. You can even copy DLL's from 2003 to XP to enable server features like multiple concurrent users in Terminal Services. Perhaps we can do the same thing to fix TCP/IP in XP?

Their reasoning that XP is safe because it comes with the firewall enabled by default is bullshit too, soon as you join the machine to AD it's going to be vulnerable to any rouge device on the local broadcast domain.

in all situations where fast user switching is possible, (not domain enviroements, not media editions with extenders) you can have one user on an XP machine locally, and one on RDS logged in remotely.. so- two people could connect to xp at a time.

see http://sig9.com/articles/concurrent-remote-desktop

before my network at home became a domain enviroment, I used this to run xp sessions off a crappy win me laptop....

except for processing video, it was just like a full fledged xp on my laptop..

This article looks only in one direction. Mark Golden has years and years of Microsoft experience, working with Windows is just what he knows. Its just never easy to swap to a whole different operating system.

But what if you take somebody who has been working with Linux non-stop for 10 years, and has never worked on a Windows machine. Place him before a empty computer with a Windows CD. How easy would that go..?
(Anybody willing to test...? Probably not...)

The switch itself might be hard, but it says nothing about how easy working on Windows or Linux is, just a matter of what they've learned to work with.

Link with intresting discussion:
http://sig9.com/node/269/

Actually, with a hack, it is. It's using a version of the terminal services from a SP2 beta. Not sure if there are any security problems though.

http://profiles.indesolutions.com/paul/tech/archiv es/000064.html
http://sig9.com/articles/concurrent-remote-desktop

I remember reading through the directions on those two sites and not following either exactly. BTW, the Google search query I used was windows xp sp2 remote desktop concurrent connections
Some sites say you can only have two concurrent users, but that is not so. My original purpose for the hack was to allow myself to RDP in as an admin user, as I do all my daily computing as a non-administrator user. I also gave out access to a few people so they can get on AIM from school.

But you can enable it...
Worked like a charm for me. (YMMV)

If you decide to go with MS Remote Desktop on XP-Pro you might want to try this patch, it allows multiple concurrent users (like on Win2003/Citrix/Unix). It's replacing some system files by DLLs from a beta XP SP2, so use at your own risk, but for me it has worked flawlessly.

check out this site, and yeah the other reply is right you need to replace the termsrv.dll with the provided one from build 2055. Plus a registry edit and switch on Fast User Switching, and one policy edit. Only problem I have seen is you can't have the same user logged on concurrently. Oh well, but it works.

A multi-user OS means that I can log in several times on the same computer at the same time. And that multiple users can log on at the same time from different places.

This allows you to have up to two sessions on at once (for free). If you want more (for $$$) with Windows XP, try WinConnect Server XP