Gibbo

I've just spent the day getting a corrupted server back up and running. However, it's now clear that there is some faults with the domain controller (plenty of errors in the log and any changes made to AD are not showing on the other domain controllers). It's clear I need to demote this server, but how can I be sure that this is the last domain controller in the domain? I've been looking at this thread: http://www.edugeek.net/forums/windows/6752-corrupt-ad-help.html and it seems that I may need to seize the roles to another controller. How can I tell what roles each domain controller has? There are two other working DCs on my network, this one which has failed is the oldest and I'm not sure what the previous NM did regarding the roles. I was planning on phasing out this old DC at the end of this year (during the last week of term while everyone's watching DVDs!), but the hardware failure has brought things forward somewhat. TIA

Thanks, I'll give that a bash. Update: That seems to have done the trick. If there's no network (either wired or wireless) I just get DOMAIN NOT AVAILABLE - which is exactly what I wanted. I had this running at a previous school but it was 2003 when the policy was implemented!

I may have found an appropriate GP setting: Computer Configuration - Windows Settings - Security Settings - Local Policies/User Rights Assignment - Allow log on locally I've set this to just let Administrators log on. EDIT: Scratch that. It didn't allow any staff to logon!

I'm trying to sort out some issues I'm having with logons and roaming profiles. The staff have two accounts - one for the school network and one for home use. I'm trying to get them out of the idea of using their network login at home - simply because they're not at home. I've modified the Group Policy to log off the machine if it cannot load the profile from the network. This works fine on a "clean" machine. But if there is a cached profile already on there it logs them on. This causes us a regular problem of calls saying "I cannot see my H drive" or "cannot see the shared areas" because they've not plugged in the network cable and got a cached login and the login scripts haven't mapped the drives. I'm reluctant to enable the "delete cached profiles at logoff" policy setting because some staff have large profiles and won't change the way they work, despite us removing all access to My Documents. I've also tried to implement mandatory profiles but this also didn't go down well. The problem is that the network has not been securely locked down by my predecessor and I can't get any support for them to come around to my way of thinking and the way things have been in my previous schools. TIA

I am. The third picture in my series shows the wallpaper that the students get through group policy. If you can point to where in group policy the other two can be set I'd appreciate it.

No need to shout! This is all at odds with the experience I've gained under three different LEAs. At the schools I've worked in the LEA have been interested - to the point of being downright nosey - to know what systems we have in place, how regularly they are maintained and serviced, and that we are kept up to date with latest developments in the Every Child Matters strategy, BECTA guidelines, training and so on. When I was interviewed for IT Manager this played a big part of the interview process.

Thanks very much chaps. I've modified the profile to set a black background with no image and it's shaved a good four or five seconds off the login time. From pressing ENTER after typing their details at the CTRL,ALT,DEL page the students can use the computers just six seconds later!

But you're preaching to the converted. We're all pretty much up to speed on Every Child Matters (or Every Child Really Matters according to Zentek ). It would be interesting to know which areas or schools you've visited which don't have the funding to implement it. But from my experience in a number of LEAs across the North West over many years this has not been the case and machines are locked down to within an inch of their life. We know our roles and responsibilities - that's why we're Network Managers after all. It's just some of us have had our fingers burnt by Zentek in the past (I could tell you some great stories!). We keep hearing the rhetoric that they're "changing" but then they go and do a stunt like this which makes me believe that they're still the same. If I were working in your area and read that article, I would be fuming. The head would be swamped by calls and letters from parents reading that story and who would be the next in line to blame - yes us. "220 firewall violations" is a very vague phrase and could relate to anything - even something simple as a games site. If you're happy with Zentek, that's great. I'm not sure how long you've been dealing with them - but make a note of how many different account managers you have over the coming years and see if you can find out why they keep leaving. It seems to me that from that article Zentek is using you and that reflects badly on all IT staff in your area.

I must admit I wasn't aware that the Zentek solution could also monitor text messages sent in school. As for catching students typing text into a document that is not saved, that's easily caught by systems such as Securus, to name but one. I'm sure other "live" systems can do the same. In your newspaper interview I noticed you quoted a figure of £20,000. I sincerely hope that was for the entire LEA or borough?

Maybe in your school or region perhaps, but it doesn't seem to be an issue for the members on here or the schools in my borough. The only issues I come across in my school are pupils trying to find games sites. These are all picked up by our security solution and dealt with accordingly. If you have an issue with students looking for porn, that sounds to me like a classroom management and discipline problem. No pupils would dare do this at my school. I don't wish to have a go at you personally, but your post looks very similar to the one by Zentek, both in style and content - and posted very closely to each other. If you want to be suckered in by Zentek, that's really up to you. Their bridges have been well and truly burnt around my neck of the woods, so I can see why they're looking for new territory. But don't let Zentek fool you into thinking you have the internet bogeyman coming for you and only their solution will save the day. It embarasses you as a Network Manager and it embarasses our profession and brings into question our management skills.

Is anyone able to give me a few pointers regarding backgrounds? When my machines are powered on, they get this customised background, set by me in the registry, with the background in C:\WINDOWS\WEB\WALLPAPER http://s192798389.websitehome.co.uk/files/background1.jpg When the students log in they briefly see this http://s192798389.websitehome.co.uk/files/background2.jpg Then the policy is applied and they get the background image from the server http://s192798389.websitehome.co.uk/files/background3.jpg I'm trying to eliminate the second picture. I realise that it's BLISS.BMP being pulled in from C:\WINDOWS\WEB\WALLPAPER and I can easily change it. But what about the blue border around it? TIA.

This kind of article is offensive to every member of IT support in a school. It makes it look like we do nothing to protect pupils.

Kids abusing school computers - News - Manchester Evening News What do you think? The first comment from Stjohn sums it up for me: Congratulations on being suckered into a story peddled by a commercial enterprise. I note that the article talks of schools generating between 50 and 100 alerts per day. This is not the same as children viewing porn at school. The article also doesn't mention whether each alert resulted in a child viewing an inappropriate web page. Again, entering a rude word into Google will generate an alert, but the pages that the child is attempting to access will be blocked by the filtereing system. Let's face it, when we were children we all looked up rude words in the dictionary. I shall be removing Zentek from my preferred suppliers list when I get back to work Monday.

Thanks for your help!

Does anyone have a copy of the 5.5 software that they could ISO for me? I can provide proof of ownership of the original (it needs a product key anyway so the disc would be useful without that). I did contact SSI but they were only interested in selling me the latest version.

More lies today, direct from their FAQ Interesting how my video streaming system is running on Microsoft software, with IE7, and streams videos direct from a UNC address.

Their site uses the same flashy rubbish as their software. If you're not logged in, try posting something and watch what happens with the pop-up!

A very useful link: ICT 4 Life Support pages The info I was given says: "Cambridge Digital are the company that we worked with when building the software."

Hmmm, I don't have a client version. The original CD has a huge crack in it!

I'm using PMP 5.5 and one thing I've noticed is that the little "you have no credit" and "you cannot print in colour" pop-up boxes aren't showing. This results in about a dozen calls to the office from pupils saying "I cannot print". I don't have any documentation for the software, and contacting the company just results in them trying to sell me the latest version (no budget so I can't). Anyway, all the right boxes seem ticked at the PMP end, so would it be the firewall preventing them showing at the client? TIA

Check your permissions. I recall making sure that the EVERYONE group had full permissions.

Thank you, that seems to be looking ok, I'll make some tweaks and test the new policy.

Ah, great, thanks. Do I need to: "Use the default permissions for new GPOs" or "Preserve the existing permissions"

I have a decent, extensive "No Internet Privs" group policy object that I want to duplicate to a "Low Internet Privs" policy. I've got the GPMC tool and read the manual here but there is a pop-up box I'm not sure of. Here's what I'm doing: 1) Clicking on "Group Policy Objects" to see all my GPOs 2) Right-click my desired "Noprivs" policy, click COPY 3) Browse to the organisational unit I want to put the copy in ("LowPrivs") 4) Click PASTE I then get a popup box saying "Do you want to link the GPOs that you have selected for this organisation unit?) Do I? If I click OK will it just create a link to the group policy, or will it then ask me to give it a new name? I want to call the policy "LowPrivs" when I can, I'll then modify it with the "Lowprivs" desktop background, remove IE from the restricted apps list and point the proxy to a whitelist PAC file. TIA.

Just an update on this. The printer reported a "call engineer, serious error" so I turned it off and on again and all of a sudden the magenta toner was back to 90% and working perfectly again!