RDP local drives missing

[Guest dvendt]

Using RDP v6, connect to 2 different w2k3 servers, both domain controllers in

the same domain. I am able to see my local drives as "drive_letter" on

"local_computer_name" on one of the servers, but not the other. I have

checked gpo settings, user profile environment settings, and RDP-TCP client

settings, and they are all configured the same. Do you know what the problem

could be.?

Thanks

[Guest Munindra Das [MSFT]]

Re: RDP local drives missing

 

Does it happen only with the 6.0 client or with the older client (5.2) as

well?

 

--

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

"dvendt" <dvendt@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:3302BC1F-3319-47E7-A1BB-A04A2270F034@microsoft.com...

> Using RDP v6, connect to 2 different w2k3 servers, both domain controllers

> in

> the same domain. I am able to see my local drives as "drive_letter" on

> "local_computer_name" on one of the servers, but not the other. I have

> checked gpo settings, user profile environment settings, and RDP-TCP

> client

> settings, and they are all configured the same. Do you know what the

> problem

> could be.?

> Thanks

[Guest dvendt]

Re: RDP local drives missing

 

It happens on both vesions of the client.

 

"Munindra Das [MSFT]" wrote:

> Does it happen only with the 6.0 client or with the older client (5.2) as

> well?

>

> --

> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

> "dvendt" <dvendt@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:3302BC1F-3319-47E7-A1BB-A04A2270F034@microsoft.com...

> > Using RDP v6, connect to 2 different w2k3 servers, both domain controllers

> > in

> > the same domain. I am able to see my local drives as "drive_letter" on

> > "local_computer_name" on one of the servers, but not the other. I have

> > checked gpo settings, user profile environment settings, and RDP-TCP

> > client

> > settings, and they are all configured the same. Do you know what the

> > problem

> > could be.?

> > Thanks

>

>