IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Windows vX.X Forum / Re: Certainly
Post #133,517
by deSitter
Picture of deSitter
1/4/04 12:57:05 PM
Reply
New Re: Certainly
Exactly - Terminal server is an add-on to the base operating system, because the latter is not really a multi-user OS. Only one user in base NT has a "desktop" context. In order to have many desktops you have to change the OS in such a way that large parts of it are replicated for every user. And this is just the login context.
-drl
Post #133,576
by Arkadiy
Picture of Arkadiy
1/4/04 8:35:49 PM
Reply
New You keep hearing yourself, not me
NT can have arbitrary number of desktops, only one of them normally visible on a given console. All services run on an invisible desktop (I am not aware of any way to make that one visible). Terminal server gives you the ability to make invisible desktops visible. Another way to get an alternative desktop, I believe (I may be wrong here) is to hit ctrl-alt-del. The visual you see is actually a different desktop.

Also, you don't have to have a desktop to run a process, hence telnet server.
--

"It\ufffds possible to build a reasonably prosperous society that invests in its people, doesn\ufffdt invade its neighbors, opposes Israel and stands up to America. (Just look at France.)"

-- James Lileks
     NET SEND to all except a few systems? - (SpiceWare) - (42) - Dec. 5, 2003, 04:08:12 PM EST
         Send to group -NT - (Silverlock) - Dec. 5, 2003, 04:30:20 PM EST
         If you send not to machine names, but... - (CRConrad) - (6) - Dec. 7, 2003, 03:50:29 PM EST
             Re: If you send not to machine names, but... - (deSitter) - (5) - Dec. 7, 2003, 04:08:32 PM EST
                 "Messenger" != "NET SEND" ? - (CRConrad) - (4) - Dec. 7, 2003, 06:48:13 PM EST
                     NET SEND Help - (orion) - Dec. 7, 2003, 08:13:06 PM EST
                     Re: "Messenger" != "NET SEND" ? - (deSitter) - (2) - Dec. 7, 2003, 09:38:51 PM EST
                         Alternatively... - (pwhysall) - Dec. 8, 2003, 03:11:38 AM EST
                         So if Darrell's gang use W2K or later, they could try my way -NT - (CRConrad) - Dec. 8, 2003, 03:18:19 AM EST
         update - (SpiceWare) - Dec. 8, 2003, 10:00:34 AM EST
         Re: NET SEND to all except a few systems? - (qstephens) - (32) - Jan. 1, 2004, 10:30:25 AM EST
             ROFL - (deSitter) - (31) - Jan. 1, 2004, 11:47:06 AM EST
                 It inspires me - (orion) - (30) - Jan. 1, 2004, 11:50:45 AM EST
                     Re: It inspires me - (deSitter) - (22) - Jan. 1, 2004, 12:11:51 PM EST
                         On this we agree - (orion) - Jan. 1, 2004, 03:23:51 PM EST
                         Windows has no user context? - (Arkadiy) - (20) - Jan. 2, 2004, 06:38:33 PM EST
                             process-level user context - (deSitter) - (19) - Jan. 2, 2004, 07:53:05 PM EST
                                 I am still at a loss as to what you mean -NT - (Arkadiy) - (18) - Jan. 2, 2004, 10:22:02 PM EST
                                     A login is a profile - (orion) - Jan. 2, 2004, 11:36:02 PM EST
                                     Re: I am still at a loss as to what you mean - (deSitter) - (16) - Jan. 3, 2004, 12:02:12 AM EST
                                         You're much mistaken - (Arkadiy) - (15) - Jan. 3, 2004, 04:05:28 PM EST
                                             Can you be logged in as two people at once? - (ben_tilly) - (7) - Jan. 3, 2004, 05:09:19 PM EST
                                                 Not log in, no. - (admin) - (3) - Jan. 3, 2004, 05:13:05 PM EST
                                                     I'll tuck that away in case I ever need it -NT - (ben_tilly) - Jan. 3, 2004, 07:33:08 PM EST
                                                     Yes you can and it is a weak security system - (orion) - (1) - Jan. 3, 2004, 08:10:23 PM EST
                                                         Re: Yes you can and it is a weak security system - (pwhysall) - Jan. 3, 2004, 11:54:08 PM EST
                                                 Certainly - (Arkadiy) - (2) - Jan. 4, 2004, 12:10:45 PM EST
                                                     Re: Certainly - (deSitter) - (1) - Jan. 4, 2004, 12:57:05 PM EST
                                                         You keep hearing yourself, not me - (Arkadiy) - Jan. 4, 2004, 08:35:49 PM EST
                                             Re: You're much mistaken - (deSitter) - (6) - Jan. 3, 2004, 09:28:42 PM EST
                                                 What does hiererchy of processes have to do with it? - (Arkadiy) - (5) - Jan. 4, 2004, 12:14:02 PM EST
                                                     Re: What does hiererchy of processes have to do with it? - (deSitter) - (4) - Jan. 4, 2004, 12:54:51 PM EST
                                                         I am not sure what NT_AUTHORITY is - (Arkadiy) - (3) - Jan. 4, 2004, 08:42:31 PM EST
                                                             Except: - (FuManChu) - (2) - Jan. 5, 2004, 01:55:07 AM EST
                                                                 RIght you are -NT - (Arkadiy) - Jan. 5, 2004, 07:18:30 AM EST
                                                                 Bottom line - (pwhysall) - Jan. 5, 2004, 07:20:06 AM EST
                     Careful there . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (5) - Jan. 1, 2004, 12:31:49 PM EST
                         Does it really? - (ben_tilly) - (3) - Jan. 1, 2004, 01:53:29 PM EST
                             I don't remember all the details . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2) - Jan. 1, 2004, 02:23:54 PM EST
                                 The licenses are more forgiving than you think - (ben_tilly) - (1) - Jan. 1, 2004, 02:48:58 PM EST
                                     Really interesting issue - (orion) - Jan. 1, 2004, 03:27:39 PM EST
                         Bah! I'll make it freeware then. - (orion) - Jan. 1, 2004, 02:07:29 PM EST
                     that's what I did - (SpiceWare) - Jan. 2, 2004, 12:36:33 PM EST

Thanks for noticing.
87 ms