Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsWindows VistaWindows XPWindows MeWindows 98Windows 95Virtual PCInternet ExplorerOutlook ExpressWindows MediaSecurity
Related Topics
MS Server ProductsMS OfficePC HardwareMore Topics ...

Windows Forum / Windows XP / Remote Desktop / February 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

RDP With XP-Pro

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
rock9819 - 24 Feb 2006 21:31 GMT
Question about remote desktop with XP-Pro. I am trying to set up another user
to use my desktop but when he try to log on, we get the message that my user
id is logged on and it will log off the current user. My understanding is
that we can have two simultaneous sessions in the same time. Another thing is
when I go home and I can vpn to my desktop in the office and I can see all
the applications that I left open. If I rdp from home should I have a new
session? A friend told me that the 2 sessions is only true for servers. I
looked for any documentation and I could find any. Would somebody please
clarify this for me. If there a link to indicate how XP behaves with RDP it
will be greatly appreciated.

thanks!
Shenan Stanley - 24 Feb 2006 22:19 GMT
> Question about remote desktop with XP-Pro. I am trying to set up
> another user to use my desktop but when he try to log on, we get
> the message that my user id is logged on and it will log off the
> current user. My understanding is that we can have two simultaneous
> sessions in the same time.

Your understanding is incorrect.  It was a "thought" - a "blip on the radar"
to do that before SP2 was released.  However the official release of SP2
does not allow that - just as before SP2.  It is not only a "hack" some use.

> Another thing is when I go home and I
> can vpn to my desktop in the office and I can see all the
> applications that I left open. If I rdp from home should I have a
> new session? A friend told me that the 2 sessions is only true for
> servers.

Your friend is correct - and those are administrative sessions and there can
actually be three individual sessions at a time on the server OSes.. Console
and two remote sessions.

Signature

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

John Jay Smith - 25 Feb 2006 02:14 GMT
No MVP, YOUR understanding is incorrect!

It was more that a thought.. it was implemented fully in the beta of  SP2
and they removed it because they didnt want to give people that function.
So they disabled it on purpose.... dumbed it down in other words.

There is a PATCH that re-enables that in SP2
and you can log on with as many users as you want at the same time.

Of course this is not supported by Microsoft.....

But hey.. you know that MS support is only a myth anyway!
LOL!!!

:-)

>> Question about remote desktop with XP-Pro. I am trying to set up
>> another user to use my desktop but when he try to log on, we get
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> can actually be three individual sessions at a time on the server OSes..
> Console and two remote sessions.
Shenan Stanley - 25 Feb 2006 05:51 GMT
rock9819 wrote:
> Question about remote desktop with XP-Pro. I am trying to set up
> another user to use my desktop but when he try to log on, we get
> the message that my user id is logged on and it will log off the
> current user. My understanding is that we can have two
> simultaneous sessions in the same time.

Shenan Stanley wrote:
> Your understanding is incorrect.  It was a "thought" - a "blip on
> the radar" to do that before SP2 was released.  However the
> official release of SP2 does not allow that - just as before SP2. It is
> now only a "hack" some use.

> No MVP, YOUR understanding is incorrect!
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> But hey.. you know that MS support is only a myth anyway!
> LOL!!!

So.. We give the SAME answer and my understanding is incorrect?
How do you figure? heh

Notice ..  "It is now a 'hack'.." at the end of my statement.

Also a search of Google Groups will show I have mentioned this hack several
times before.

Unsupported for pretty good reason - since it replaces a file with an
unsupported one and who knows when another patch might replace that file
again - breaking the hack until the person puts it back in place again?

Signature

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

Shenan Stanley - 25 Feb 2006 06:13 GMT
<snipped>

Ah - could have been my "not"/"now" typo.
Even spell-checkers still don't find those. hah

Signature

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

John Jay Smith - 25 Feb 2006 10:34 GMT
Yep.. that typo changed all the meaning...

:-)

Sorry... I have a tendency to pick on MVPs
when I see them saying that something cannot be done... or is impossible.

Of course you knew about the patch. I dont like to call it a hack.
Its really just replacing stuff with older versions that were in SP2 beta.

> <snipped>
>
> Ah - could have been my "not"/"now" typo.
> Even spell-checkers still don't find those. hah
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.