Will wrote:
> "Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eikeLyGEGHA.1264@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> You should not expect a Server Operating system and a Workstation
>> operating System to have the same feature sets.
>>
>> Windows XP Professional (an upgrade from Windows 2000 Professional
>> workstation) allows Remote Desktop where Windows 2000 Professional
>> (workstation) does not even have that capability. Only the server
>> version of Windows 2000 had Terminal Services. You were comparing
>> Apples and Oranges in the first place. (Server vs. workstation
>> OS.)
>
> You are making generalizations. Those aren't useful in the
> context of a discussion about specific features.

You said you used Windows 2000 Server before and it allowed multiple TS
sessions.

Windows 2000 Workstation never even had Terminal Services.

You stated, "I can't believe they would take a step backwards and forbid
that practice in Windows XP?".

Which would imply that Windows XP should have been - in your mind - an
UPGRADE to Windows 2000 server - when in fact it is not - it is a different
type of OS (server vs workstation.) This assumption was incorrect. Windows
XP was never meant to replace Windows 2000 Server - so expecting the
features of one type of OS (server) to be included in another type of OS
(workstation) is stretching things.

> It's a legitimate requirement for a workstation product to have a
> secure administration mode for that product. It's bad reasoning
> to say that they should cripple the current workstation product
> because the former workstation product was even more crippled.

I never said that - and it XP is an improved OS over Windows 2000 because
there is a remote desktop feature as well as remote assistance. It is not
crippled - it, in fact, gained features. I said that it was a bad
assumption to go from a server OS to a workstation OS and expect that all of
the features from one had magically been included in the other. =)

Aslo - there is a way to run administrative tasks as a non-admin user - just
because you think it is easier to use Remote Desktop doesn't mean RUNAS is
not equally as useful.

> Any workstation needs administration. And as any good UNIX
> administrator can tell you, you should never login to a primary
> console session as administrator. Using the the Windows Run As
> command while logged in as a user helps, but it's often more useful
> to have a background administrative session going at the same time
> that you are logged in as a user. Since Microsoft pretends to
> care about security these days, they should learn something from
> the competition in this case.

Well - personally I do believe it is more secure to have to use the RUNAS..

Think of it like this.. thousands of people use Windows XP Professional
everyday and do not know that Remote Desktop even exists - although it may
be turned on, hole poked through the software firewall, etc. *If* more than
one session was allowed without interfering with the primary session in any
way - that would be a big secuirty hole for those thousands (millions
likely) of uninitiated computer users - since it is just another backdoor
that an uncaring public would leave wide open. Not saying that it would be
easily exploited - but it could be - like any other trojan backdoor device -
and one built into the OS! yay!

No - I feel RUNAS - as inconvenient as it might seem - is just as useful if
you take the time to learn to use it and setup your shortcuts to the
necessary functionality you need beforehand. Then you can run as a USER but
easily access the necessary admin functions you need with a double-click on
one of your shortcuts.

> I'm not asking for terminal services as an application server on
> Windows XP. That is something you should certainly only get in the
> server version of the product. I'm asking for one miserable
> concurrent administrative login session, and I'm asking Microsoft
> to do all of its users a favor and put that requirement in for a
> future update of Windows XP. It's not something we should have to
> be downloading hacked beta code to do (although I appreciate your
> letting me know about that option).

And it might be available in Vista - who knows? It was almost amade
available in SP2 - but was not. My guess was for security reasons - but it
could be greed or anything else for that matter.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html