Will wrote:
> I understand the history, and yes I made a mistake in saying
> something that implied Windows XP was a descendent of Windows 2000
> Server. Having said that, it's no longer relevant to this thread.
> The only thing that is relevant is should Windows XP have the
> ability to have a concurrent user logon and one additional RDP
> administrator logon concurrently.
>
> As an option that you could turn on manually when you need to use
> it, it would certainly have a good use. Run As also has its place.

Would it be useful to be able to log concurrently into Windows XP?

Yes. Very much so - in reference to corporate users and fixing things in
the background of their machine(s) or doing unique software installs
(without bothering the user) when a push situations wouldn't work (albeit
seldomly needed - but sometimes just faster in the short run.)


Could it have a use in the way you describe it? Not remotely logging into a
system, but in fact a concurrent logon to your own PC for administrative
purposes?

- As a software developer - I could see this being very useful. But "Switch
User" would work as well and is already part of the system. However, it
could be that the software developer is in a larger environment (domain) and
thus this option is not available - so again a viable option for testing and
tweaking.
- As a stand-alone user - I doubt this 'feature' would get used much - since
switch user is already available in all versions of XP not joined to a
domain.
- As a system administrator (large or small) - I could see the use remotely,
but as for one's own system - I still have trouble seeing the usefulness -
but arguments for and against can go both ways for this group - depending on
style of administration (GUI or command-line oriented.)

So if I was going to vote one way or another - perhaps a feature available
in the Professional editions but not the home (which is easily implemented
at this point, since Home does not have Remote Desktop anyway) and/or one
only available *if* "Fast User Switching" was turned off - such as would
occur in a domain environment.

Although the way I put it may seem restrictive - at least you know in that
way it would not be turned on "by accident" by "Joe Public" and thus a
possible source of future security issues. It also gives System
Administrators and software developers more options once in a domain
environment for managing their own and other systems.

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

"Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Oqj9yzOEGHA.1736@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Although the way I put it may seem restrictive - at least you know in that
> way it would not be turned on "by accident" by "Joe Public" and thus a
> possible source of future security issues. It also gives System
> Administrators and software developers more options once in a domain
> environment for managing their own and other systems.

I pretty much agree with the idea of allowing switch user for low end users
to login as administrator concurrently with a user login. And I also agree
that for domain users having a real RDP session logged in concurrently as
admin would be a very desirable option.

--
Will

"Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Oqj9yzOEGHA.1736@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Although the way I put it may seem restrictive - at least you know in that
> way it would not be turned on "by accident" by "Joe Public" and thus a
> possible source of future security issues. It also gives System
> Administrators and software developers more options once in a domain
> environment for managing their own and other systems.

I pretty much agree with the idea of allowing switch user for low end users
to login as administrator concurrently with a user login. And I also agree
that for domain users having a real RDP session logged in concurrently as
admin would be a very desirable option.

--
Will