Microsoft's official enterprise support blog for AD DS and more
Here are the new KB articles related to Directory Services published between 3/22-4/4. Obviously the big news has been the release of the 2008 remote administration tools (RSAT) and Hyper-V RC0. We use Virtual Server heavily for testing and reproducing customer issues, so I was interested to try out Hyper-V. It is a big help being able to use x64 guests, and overall the performance definitely seems improved from Virtual Server. Lots of nice little things also, like the ability to change the boot order of the guest without having to boot into the guest's BIOS.
Description of Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) caching behavior in Windows Vista TCP/IP implementations
Availability of the Windows Vista Service Pack 1 management tools for the Hyper-V release candidate
Changes to the default NTFS Discretionary Access Control List (DACL) settings in Windows Vista
When you import an event log file into Excel 2007 on a Windows Server 2008-based computer, event logs are not readable
A memory leak occurs on an RPC server that is running Windows Server 2008 after the RPC server function runs an RPC client callback function
How to configure event subscription to pull BMC SEL events into the event logs in Windows Server 2008
How to back up the data recovery agent certificate together with the private key in a Windows Server 2003-based domain
LDAP queries fail for large result sets after security update MS08-003 is applied on a Windows Server 2003-based computer
If a user account belongs to 16 groups, access to some resources is denied on a computer that is running a 64-bit version of Windows Server 2003
You are prompted two times for credentials when you use the Remote Desktop Client to connect to a Windows 2000 Terminal Server from Window Vista or from Windows Server 2008
Error message when you start a program that must run with elevated permissions on a Windows Vista-based computer: "The directory name is invalid"
How to generate a full user-mode dump file in Windows Vista
NSPI connections from Microsoft Outlook to a Windows Server 2008-based domain controller may fail with an error code: "MAPI_E_LOGON_FAILED"
A Windows Server 2003-based domain controller may request multiple certificates every 8 hours
Authentication of trusted users fails on a Windows Server 2003-based server if the UPN format is used and if the value of the LmCompatibilityLevel entry is equal to or larger than 3
I don't see any mention of the missing WINS snap-in? This tool was present in the previous admin toolset and is also present in the Windows Server 2008 resident toolset?
Since it isn't mentioned in the RSAT description article, I have to assume its absence is another oversite (like the 4 missing tabs in the ADUC tool)?
I must say that the apparent lack of quality in the RSAT release is disturbing.
These aren't oversights (i.e. they were not fogotten). The developers of the components chose at the time not to include them based on cost, lack of perceived customer demand (after all, RSAT was beta tested by Microsoft customers for a year - if a tool wasn't there, they didn't complain) or sometimes EU/DOJ bundling rules.
As customers request the tools, the developers will reevaluate them case by case. In Support, we are pushing very hard for this naturally, as we are the voice of the customer to Development. And just as an individual, I agree with you - I want all this in here just like it is on server 2008.
Please continue to highlight any missing functionality in RSAT that you find so that we have a stronger case to drive with Dev. Along those lines, please kind in mind that the people here in Support are on your side and not villains. :)
Thanks for the info Ned. The missing ADUC tab issue along with the smtpadm.dll that requires registration don't seem to me to be intentional design decisions. And I would have expected any tools not present in the RSAT (and present in previous releases) be at least mentioned in the "Release Notes" for the tool.
Didn't those who tested the beta of RSAT also have to be running the beta of Vista SP1? If so, I don't think that was a large group.
I can't argue with your thinking - it's difficult to imagine it as an experienced network engineer like yourself. Much easier when you step into Dev shoes unfortunately, as well as factor in rulings from the EU and DOJ.
You're correct, the beta group wasn't as large as say, Vista TAP beta's and certainly not the Vista public betas. It's fairly relative though - it was still a *lot* of customers, and those customers were huge ones. Taking the Terminal Services tabs for example - when that question was posted I first checked our bug database - no beta customer had ever brought it up. So intentional or not (and I'm no mind reader :-) ), no one complained until it shipped.