Re: Group Policy and user level access
- From: "Dana" <raff242@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 00:25:41 -0400
"Roger Abell [MVP]" <mvpNoSpam@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OZKvjbHhHHA.3852@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Dana" <raff242@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:159c9$462a3cb9$944e306e$645@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Roger Abell [MVP]" <mvpNoSpam@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23aS8vJ2gHHA.4692@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Dana" <raff242@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6beb9$46285710$944e306e$21159@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Falcon1" <Falcon1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:A8B0CD29-813E-4509-88CA-97AD85252E88@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,
We are running Windows XP Pro and 2000 Pro on our computers. I'm in
the
process of learning Group Policies and how to create, manage, deploy
and
troubleshoot them (AD is still on 2000 Server based)
My 2x questions are:
How come when I remove the local Administrator rights to a user and
leave
him on a basic user level access we run into all kinds of software
issues
that we do not have if the user is part of the admin group. Such as
Outlook
printing issues that can't create documents in Temp folders and so
many other
sotwares having all kind of hickup behaviors?
Why do you want to interfere in the productivity of others.
I do not know for the original poster, but see below . . .
My second question is it possible to leave my users in the local admin
groups but with group policy deny them the rights to install or remove
any
applications? If so how?
Why do you want to limit what a person can or cannot do.
Most studies have shown the a main factor in the cost of supporting
desktop systems is whether the users of those systems are or are not
running as admins, with it obviously being much higher if they are.
Interfering with their productivity is usually not required, if one does
first test and prepare for the reduction of their priv level.
True.
Using a different OS like UNIX will get away from teh windows admin issue
anyway.
Yes, it would, tossing right into the root issue though, and
trashing the productivity until they learned to do things with
the limited set of software alternatives available.
Using Unix for network monitoring and engineering has way more functionality
than Windows.
So in an engineering environment, Unix is the preferred system.
Especially when using very large databases of collected info, which is why
we use Oracle on unix boxes, rather than using windows.
Ditto Mac X. Domination has its rewards I guess, a larger
target market so more targetting. I don't use/run Windows
because I like it, but because I like / need to support those
that require, capabilities.
From an engineering and reliablity standpoint, and environment windowscannot compete with the reliabilty and capabilities of a Unix box.
When you have to have over 100,000 subscribers on your system using Windows
just does not work as your main OS.
In business and home environments, windows is great, though Linux is
starting to give windows a run for its money as linus becomes more user
friendly, and attracts more apps.
I myself have never been a big apple fan, except for their graphic
capability.
Any help will be greatly appreciated since I'm kind of in a nightmare
in
troubleshooting and administering all of what goes on the users
computers
Thank you
Gabriel
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Group Policy and user level access
- From: Roger Abell [MVP]
- Re: Group Policy and user level access
- References:
- Re: Group Policy and user level access
- From: Dana
- Re: Group Policy and user level access
- From: Roger Abell [MVP]
- Re: Group Policy and user level access
- From: Dana
- Re: Group Policy and user level access
- From: Roger Abell [MVP]
- Re: Group Policy and user level access
- Prev by Date: Re: Encryption
- Next by Date: Re: Group Policy and user level access
- Previous by thread: Re: Group Policy and user level access
- Next by thread: Re: Group Policy and user level access
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|