Some of GP not applied to one PC

[Pear]

There is one Windows XP workstation which has this problem, all the others work fine so I assuming its not a network problem.

User can browse network files.
User can browse the internet.
User profile is correct, it is loading the correct profile as specified in active directory from the network.
The network appears to be working perfectly fine.

But:
The start menu is wrong, it is loading the default profile.
The student users can access any of the local admin settings.
My GPO installed MSI's do not apply infact it doesn't say applying network settings at startup.
The script applied at login to connect drives are that for a default user and not my students user.

Note:
The policy to disable the connection of users if there is no network is turned on, I've had this problem before when there was no connection and thats why I turned it on, so now there is a connection and it only does it on this one pc.

I think this is the key clue to the policy aborting:
Event ID 1054
Windows cannot obtain the domain controller name for your computer network. (the network location cannot be reached) Group policy processing aborted

But I also get these error message in the event log:
Event ID 4356 - The Com+ event system failed to create an instance of the subscriber partition {guid}. CoGetObject returned HRESULT 80070422

Event ID 4353
The Com+ event system attempted to fire teh EventObjectChange:Change Subscription event but received a bad return code. HRESULT was 80040201.

Event ID 1110
Attemp to determine whether user and machine accounts are inthe same forest failed (The interface is unknown)

EVENT ID (missed it out)
The system failed to register host (A) resource records (RRs) for network adapter
with settings:

Adapter Name : {guid}
Host Name : 18it20
Primary Domain Suffix : main.ac.uk
DNS server list : 10.67.15.3
Sent update to server : 10.1.1.1 (SHOULDNT THIS BE ABOVE ADDRESS ?)
IP Address(es) :
10.67.14.84

The reason the system could not register these RRs was because the DNS server failed the update request. The most likely cause of this is that the authoritative DNS server required to process this update request has a lock in place on the zone, probably because a zone transfer is in progress.

EVENT ID 10005
DCOM got error "the service cannot be started, either because it is disabled or because it has no enabled devices associated with it." attempting to start the services SENS with arguments "" in order to run the server {guid}


I assume the motherboard (with onboard lan) is the problem as I have tried lots of different ram modules already. If it is the motherboard, is there anyway I can be sure without opening up two workstations to swap hard drives ?

(although that doesn't eliminate the CPU being the problem) I don't think its got anything to do with the nic because the internet works perfectly.

[Dos_Box]

I would suspect a corrupt computer account which is allowing the computer to logon to the domain but has dropped off GPO registration. I've had this before. Try deleting the computers account and re-creating it.

[tarquel]

As DB says, and also, is it in your OU / GP tree? or is the computer object just sitting in the default Computers folder in AD?

DNS server list : 10.67.15.3
Sent update to server : 10.1.1.1 (SHOULDNT THIS BE ABOVE ADDRESS ?)

Possibly - if it is refering to DNS info sent to the server.

Bit more info though would be handy...ie...

- Is this a new pc you have only just got?
- Has it worked previously?
- Have you tried redeploying the machine or wiping the PC and starting from scratch?

Just a few things to let us know there too - might help

Cheers
N.

[Pear]

Nope, it didn't work, I tried to re add it to the domain as well.

Its had a long and illustrious history, the problem machine of my site.

It was win 2000.
On board network apparently died so I replaced it with a network card.
Then I upgraded it to Win XP.
Not too long later that network card apparently died so I replaced that.
Then the new network card died so I went back to Win 2000 and it was working.
But eventually that network card died, so I switched the PCI slot
But of course after a while that died, so I reinstalled XP and used original onboard lan that doesn't work with win 2000 but does with XP :s

[Ric_]

@Pear: Perhaps the machine should be written off as a lemon? You could replace the mobo for £40.

[beeswax]

as a last resort, before you bid it adieu...if you've got another machine with the same hardware spec which logs on to the domain without any problems, then try a ghost image of the good machine to the faulty one. then run newsid.exe.
beeswax

[kevinmcaleer]

I've seen that before, its usually caused by a number of things:
* disjoined machine (take it off the domain and then add it back on**)
* the time on the machine is invalid
* the certificate for the machine is invalid (take it off the domain and add it back on**)

**Rebooting between taking off and adding back on.

-Kev

[RobC]

Nope, it didn't work, I tried to re add it to the domain as well.

Its had a long and illustrious history, the problem machine of my site.

It was win 2000.
On board network apparently died so I replaced it with a network card.
Then I upgraded it to Win XP.
Not too long later that network card apparently died so I replaced that.
Then the new network card died so I went back to Win 2000 and it was working.
But eventually that network card died, so I switched the PCI slot
But of course after a while that died, so I reinstalled XP and used original onboard lan that doesn't work with win 2000 but does with XP :s

Pear, I would recommend changing the power supply in this machine - it sounds like one of the voltage rails has gone. I had this on my main PC at home and it blew two sound cards and a memory chip before I figured it out. I still think it's damaged the MB to some degree, but I can't afford a replacement at the moment. I have since replaced the PSU and everything seems to be running fine. And for the price of a PSU, it's worth a try.

[tarquel]

A quality PSU i hope Rob

*never* buy cheapo PSUs - you will *regret* it hehe

Nath