New users get temp profiles

Meinolf Weber [MVP-DS] wrote:
> Hello ToddAndMargo,
>
> Please clarify the "New users that reside on a separate computer acting
> as an NT Domain Controller",is that machine a NT4 PDC or not, you stated
> something with samba-3.0.33-3.15.el5_4 server?

If you configure it as such, Samba acts as an "NT Domain
Controller". I have mine configured as an "NT 4.0 PDC".

>
> Is the firewall disabled form the 2008 R2 machine?

Tried the firewall both on and off: no symptom change.

>
> Also 2008 and higher have a a higher level of security configuration
> which blocks connectivity with with NT4 in a domain.

Too many things on the PDC are working for that to be a suspect.
The old domain users on the TS got there the exact same why
I am trying to get the new users on.

Update: Cobian is not responsible

-T

Hi Ace and Meinolf,

I fixed it.

<Editorial comment> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!</Editorial Comment>

These two things led me to the fix:

1) Event ID 1515: Windows has backed up this user profile. Windows
will automatically try to use the backup profile the next time
this user logs on.

2) "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows
NT\CurrentVersion\ProfileList".

As I stated before, "ProfilesList" did not have my new user
in it. So I got cleaver (a weasel word for "desperate") and
found where "ProfilesList" had created a key for TEMP and
renamed TEMP's "ProfileImagePath" to my actual (new) user's name.
When the user logged out, the entire key with my modification
in it got erased. Rats.

Then I logged back in with my new user and checked "ProfilesList"
again. There he was back as TEMP and "ProfileImagePath" =
C:\Users\TEMP. But this time I had an interesting addition.
TEMP's key had a second idential key underneath it it, with a
".bak" at the end of the key name. So, I erased the ".bak" key
and again renamed TEMP's "ProfileImagePath" to my actual (new)
user's name (again).

I have now logged in and out three time correctly. (Verified
by "echo %userprofile%" and by checking his "ProfilesList"
entry.)

There are times I hate Windows.

Thank you all for being there for me to bounce things off
of. Never underestimate the power of having to write
things down to other professionals to straighten your
brains out.

Many, many thanks,
-T

"ToddAndMargo" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Hi Ace and Meinolf,
>
> I fixed it.
>
> <Editorial comment> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH
> HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!</Editorial Comment>
>
> These two things led me to the fix:
>
> 1) Event ID 1515: Windows has backed up this user profile. Windows
> will automatically try to use the backup profile the next time
> this user logs on.
>
> 2) "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows
> NT\CurrentVersion\ProfileList".
>
> As I stated before, "ProfilesList" did not have my new user
> in it. So I got cleaver (a weasel word for "desperate") and
> found where "ProfilesList" had created a key for TEMP and
> renamed TEMP's "ProfileImagePath" to my actual (new) user's name.
> When the user logged out, the entire key with my modification
> in it got erased. Rats.
>
> Then I logged back in with my new user and checked "ProfilesList"
> again. There he was back as TEMP and "ProfileImagePath" =
> C:\Users\TEMP. But this time I had an interesting addition.
> TEMP's key had a second idential key underneath it it, with a
> ".bak" at the end of the key name. So, I erased the ".bak" key
> and again renamed TEMP's "ProfileImagePath" to my actual (new)
> user's name (again).
>
> I have now logged in and out three time correctly. (Verified
> by "echo %userprofile%" and by checking his "ProfilesList"
> entry.)
>
> There are times I hate Windows.
>
> Thank you all for being there for me to bounce things off
> of. Never underestimate the power of having to write
> things down to other professionals to straighten your
> brains out.
>
> Many, many thanks,
> -T


Consider it a challenge that you've overcome, learned from, and moved on!
Good to hear you figured it out.

:-)

Ace

Ace Fekay [MCT] wrote:

>> <Editorial comment> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH
>> HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!</Editorial Comment>

> Consider it a challenge that you've overcome, learned from, and moved on!
> Good to hear you figured it out.
>
> :-)
>
> Ace

Challenge: yes.

Learned from: yes.

Moved on: I don't think so. Not until I forget the
$850.00 in free consulting I had to give away. That
really, really hurt. It will remain burned into my
memory for a very, very long time. Sometimes I
really hate Windows, even though it puts a lot of
food on my table. Maybe I will forget when the next
big Windows job that comes along that I can actually get
paid for.

:-)

-T

"ToddAndMargo" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Ace Fekay [MCT] wrote:
>
>>> <Editorial comment> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH
>>> HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!</Editorial Comment>
>
>> Consider it a challenge that you've overcome, learned from, and moved on!
>> Good to hear you figured it out.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Ace
>
> Challenge: yes.
>
> Learned from: yes.
>
> Moved on: I don't think so. Not until I forget the
> $850.00 in free consulting I had to give away. That
> really, really hurt. It will remain burned into my
> memory for a very, very long time. Sometimes I
> really hate Windows, even though it puts a lot of
> food on my table. Maybe I will forget when the next
> big Windows job that comes along that I can actually get
> paid for.
>
> :-)
>
> -T


You mean you didn't charge them for your time? Was it your fault?

Ace

Ace Fekay [MCT] wrote:

>> Moved on: I don't think so. Not until I forget the
>> $850.00 in free consulting I had to give away. That
>> really, really hurt. It will remain burned into my
>> memory for a very, very long time. Sometimes I
>> really hate Windows, even though it puts a lot of
>> food on my table. Maybe I will forget when the next
>> big Windows job that comes along that I can actually get
>> paid for.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> -T
>
>
> You mean you didn't charge them for your time? Was it your fault?
>
> Ace

It was not my fault. It was "Windows being Windows". The thing
here is that the customer is my oldest customer of 15 years
and they have put a lot of food on my table. They also are
extremely considerate of me. The problem was that you can
not charge the customer for that many hours for a problem
as simple (or so it would seem to the customer) as not being
able to add a new user. It is a customer service thing.

I have an auto repair customer who had a similar problem.
A customer had been to several mechanics trying to find out
why his car blew a fuse every time he tried to start it.
When he finally got to my customer's place, he had spent
almost a thousand dollars trying to get it fixed. My
customer put five hours into finding that the owner's
kid had jammed a metallic gum wrapper into the cigarette
lighter. So my customer only charged him an hour. You
just can not charge a guy five hours to find a gum wrapper.

So, I chalked it up to good customer relations and only
charged my customer for three hour. I'd rather keep
this customer for another 15 years than insist on being
paid the full freight on the time it took me to
troubleshoot a failure to add new users.

Hopefully, this will not happen again for a few years.

-T

"ToddAndMargo" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Ace Fekay [MCT] wrote:
>
>>> Moved on: I don't think so. Not until I forget the
>>> $850.00 in free consulting I had to give away. That
>>> really, really hurt. It will remain burned into my
>>> memory for a very, very long time. Sometimes I
>>> really hate Windows, even though it puts a lot of
>>> food on my table. Maybe I will forget when the next
>>> big Windows job that comes along that I can actually get
>>> paid for.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> -T
>>
>>
>> You mean you didn't charge them for your time? Was it your fault?
>>
>> Ace
>
> It was not my fault. It was "Windows being Windows". The thing
> here is that the customer is my oldest customer of 15 years
> and they have put a lot of food on my table. They also are
> extremely considerate of me. The problem was that you can
> not charge the customer for that many hours for a problem
> as simple (or so it would seem to the customer) as not being
> able to add a new user. It is a customer service thing.
>
> I have an auto repair customer who had a similar problem.
> A customer had been to several mechanics trying to find out
> why his car blew a fuse every time he tried to start it.
> When he finally got to my customer's place, he had spent
> almost a thousand dollars trying to get it fixed. My
> customer put five hours into finding that the owner's
> kid had jammed a metallic gum wrapper into the cigarette
> lighter. So my customer only charged him an hour. You
> just can not charge a guy five hours to find a gum wrapper.
>
> So, I chalked it up to good customer relations and only
> charged my customer for three hour. I'd rather keep
> this customer for another 15 years than insist on being
> paid the full freight on the time it took me to
> troubleshoot a failure to add new users.
>
> Hopefully, this will not happen again for a few years.
>
> -T


That makes sense, and I agree. I do the same for my folks.

Ace