Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Service Pack 1 for Windows Server 2003

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the security-is-priority-one dept.

Windows 429

mithridate writes "Microsoft has posted the Windows 2003 Service Pack 1 Release Candidate. eWeek has a short review of the service pack. My favorite quote from the article is, 'The company argues that the improvements are important enough that applications should be changed to accommodate them.' I know I still have not installed SP2 because of the problems it causes with SQL Server, I can't wait to see what kind of havoc it causes on the servers..."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11025678)

first post hehe

SP1 (-1, Flamebait)

Ghostgate (800445) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025686)

SP1st post!!

Great, but... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11025691)

...why not just install Linux?

Re:Great, but... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11026116)

...why not just install Linux?

Parent has a point. I personally wouldn't apply a beta patch like this - sorry, "release candidate" - until it's clear that it'll result in a safer, more reliable, and above all secure system.

(Posting AC so that I don't fall out of favour.)

Eweek (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11025695)

And we should care about what Eweek says because?

damn. (-1, Flamebait)

AntiTuX (202333) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025698)

is microsoft just shooting themselves in the foot again? I'm scared shitless of XP SP2, I can't imagine this being much better.

Re:damn. (2, Informative)

NotoriousQ (457789) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025763)

I hope that you mean this for a corporate production environment.

As for home use, you can simply upgrade, and turn off the firewall. That will allow most programs to work as before.

There are a couple of things that I believe have changed in SP2 that can affect you but are not firewall related: No more raw sockets, and a limit to how many connection can be created per second.

No reason to not install, especially if you are an IE user.

Re:damn. (1)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025809)

"No more raw sockets" is firewall related. If you turn off the firewall, raw sockets can be created.

I don't know if the connection limit is also done by the same service process or not.

Re:damn. (2, Informative)

Foolhardy (664051) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026078)

The connection limit is done directly in the TCP/IP protocol driver, tcpip.sys which makes it much harder to remove; you have to patch the binary.
Search for "Event ID 4226".

Re:damn. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11025814)

is microsoft just shooting themselves in the foot again? I'm scared shitless of XP SP2, I can't imagine this being much better.

Scared of what? If you install it and something actually doesn't work then you can simply uninstall it.

By now there are workarounds or updates available for most of the apps that didn't work with SP2. .m

Re:damn. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11025909)

"The company argues that the improvements are important enough that applications should be changed to accommodate them.' I know I still have not installed SP2 because of the problems it causes with SQL Server, I can't wait to see what kind of havoc it causes on the servers...""

You know for an editor of slashdot, you should really do some research.

If you use the latest service pack for SQL server, XP service pack 2 works fine. The same thing goes for running SQL 2k on Windows 2003. Maybe if you kept up with the current application service releases you would not have problems with the OS ones. :)

I could bitch and whine about vi, gnome, or anything else and I would told to upgrade to the latest revision. Why should you not do so on SQL?

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11025987)

see subject : )

Come on. (4, Informative)

BoldAC (735721) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025922)

I am much of an anti-Microsoft person as anybody...

But, guys... this is a release candidate. It designed to test out in your test environment... Even the evil overlords say:

We advise against installing and evaluating beta software on any production computers.

When they don't fix the problems we find before they release the final version... that's when we should start the griping. :)

Re:damn. (2, Interesting)

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026158)

If programs are written properly and use all the calls and procedures they're meant to then they should work with XPSP2. SP2 did not break anything, it merely patched holes that shouldn't have been there and put an extra layer between the average user and the bits they can take out their PC with. If you use an app which utilises security holes to function, it's your lookout.

Win2k & Server 2k3 (2, Insightful)

mr.henry (618818) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025701)

I am no MS fanboy -- and I will be the first to admit that Windows 95, 98, ME, and XP are unstable and crappy -- but Windows 2000 and Windows 2003 Server are both solid operating systems.

Re:Win2k & Server 2k3 (4, Insightful)

NotoriousQ (457789) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025838)

I would not call XP unstable, but it is now suffering from what linux users have suffered for too long: bad hardware / drivers.

If I put cheap memory into the machine - I should expect it to crash. If I run bad drivers - I should expect it to crash.

I do not believe that 2000 is that much more stable than XP. 2003 I do not know, but I guess all of these have the same level of stability, however XP goes on to more computers made out of crap, and therefore it craps out more.

Windows9x was crappy because it did not implement correct separation of processes from each other and from the kernel.

Re:Win2k & Server 2k3 (0)

DogDude (805747) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025937)

Windows9x was crappy because it did not implement correct separation of processes from each other and from the kernel.

No, it was much simpler than that. Windows 95,98,ME sucked because they were all just GUIs on top of DOS. I think that most of the NT based MS OS's are pretty damn stable by this point (NT 3.51, 4.0, W2K, XP, etc.).

Re:Win2k & Server 2k3 (1)

TLLOTS (827806) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025959)

Actually I think it's quite likely for 2K to be that much more stable than XP. I run Win2k myself and never suffer crashes at all. I did try WinXP for a time, but sometimes I'd see crashes more than twice a day. This is more because Win2k is a more mature OS, as it has had a great deal more time to have various bugs fixed. Given Win2k when it was first released and WinXP when it was first released and you'd likely not see any significant difference between the in stability.

Re:Win2k & Server 2k3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11026041)

Actually I think it's quite likely for 2K to be that much more stable than XP. I run Win2k myself and never suffer crashes at all. I did try WinXP for a time, but sometimes I'd see crashes more than twice a day. This is more because Win2k is a more mature OS, as it has had a great deal more time to have various bugs fixed. Given Win2k when it was first released and WinXP when it was first released and you'd likely not see any significant difference between the in stability.

If the computer crashes twice a day something is wrong. Have you tried to actually determine what the problem is? Hardware? Drivers? XP might do stuff in a slightly different way, triggering bugs that W2k didn't. That doesn't mean XP is buggy.

I haven't seen actual statistics on XP, but I'd say it's at least as stable as W2k with SP6.

M

Re:Win2k & Server 2k3 (1)

Ianoo (711633) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026061)

Although I don't run Windows as my desktop operating system, I've seen machines at work with XP go for weeks without restarting or bluescreening. I don't think XP is more or less stable than 2K, they're about the same. After all, the kernel is practically identical.

Re:Win2k & Server 2k3 (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026146)

Don't try to use a SoundBlaster Live on a dual CPU machine with Win2K - mine's been crashing regularly for years (BSOD) whenever I try to play music. I can only listen to CDs, not WAV, MP3, etc. Then there's the issue the machine has with hibernate: 50% of the time it comes back up and locks up immediately with a black screen. WinXP on my laptop has proven to be far more stable. I hibernate it several times a day and go weeks between real reboots. I've only seen in BSOD once - after installing pcAnywhere, it BSODed after rebooting. I needed to Symantec's LiveUpdate PCA to fix that.

Conclusion: stability mostly depends upon your hardware and drivers (suprise surprise).

Re:Win2k & Server 2k3 (2, Interesting)

ad0gg (594412) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026030)

Bad drivers are cause of lot of problems. I know with the old version of the ATI drivers would blue screen my win2k workstation box on a weekly basis. Called up ATI and they told me they didnt' support win2k workstation, ended up buying an nvidia card and my problem was solved. I won't even talk about XP and my soundblaster card, i don't know how much hair i tore out of my head dealing with that crap.

Now with our server, I still haven't seen a blue screen almost two years now. Of course they are all Dell servers. And not like my homebuilt workstations.

Re:Win2k & Server 2k3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11026077)

I'd echo the sentiment of the parent post.

I've been running XP (with SP2 and the firewall enabled) for a while now. The only crashing I've every seen on my XP computer have been due to:

1) Bad drivers, such as certain version of the ATI catalyst drivers.
2) Bad hardware, such as the day my NB fan died.

Even with the bad drivers, XP stayed stable, UT2K4 was the one who decided to unceremoniously crash.

I consider XP probably one of the most stable OSes I've used right out of the box (and behind a firewall).

Re:Win2k & Server 2k3 (2, Informative)

XopherMV (575514) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026071)

Win2003 was forked from the WinXP code base. They are basically the same OS with some minor tweakages. WinXP is made for single users who usually run just a few programs at a time. Win2003 is a server OS, made for running tons of programs all at once.

That's why you often don't see drivers for Win2003. Companies mostly just write one driver for both WinXP and Win2003. That saves them time and money.

To say WinXP or Win2003 is better than the other is kind of ridiculous since they're about the same. It just depends on what you want to do. If you use WinXP for a file server, then you get the problems you deserve. Likewise, if you use Win2003 for playing Half-Life 2, then you get the poor performance you deserve.

Re:Win2k & Server 2k3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11026166)

Since they use almost identical code; there shouldn't be ANY big differences. 2003 shouldn't be slow for games and XP shouldn't have problems with file sharing (except for the 10 connection limit, policy for NT workstation since 3.5)
The amount of concurrent processes is irrelevant.
Some manufactures use the same drivers because the driver interfaces are so close that no difference would be wanted or even possible for the same driver between those versions.

Looks like they are starting to understand? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11025713)

...Security. Oh god, that -1 for me!

Scoff all you want (1, Troll)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025719)

But up2date tells me I need to upgrade about 50 million packages and they're all urgent security issues.

Re:Scoff all you want (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11026129)

Go fuck yourself troll

Re:Scoff all you want (1)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026200)

Go fuck yourself troll

My work environment (not entirely my choice):

https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rh8-errata.html [redhat.com]
https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rh73-errata.html [redhat.com]
https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rh72-errata.html [redhat.com]

I'm locked behind a pretty ironclad firewall so I choose not to run all the security updates, but I laugh when I fire up up2date.

damned if you do... (3, Insightful)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025724)

... and damned if you don't.

Flame Microsoft (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11025743)

You guys flame them for not caring about security, then they take an proactive stance on security which causes a few inconviences and then you bitch about that.

Catch-22 (5, Insightful)

rackhamh (217889) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025748)

So a bunch of people wrote applications that take advantage of lax security in Windows server environments.

Now Microsoft is saying they won't be so lax anymore, so the applications need to change.

Microsoft is basically damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don't. If they don't patch the flaws, they're bad for providing an unsecured environment. If they do patch the flaws, they're bad for breaking existing applications.

I for one fail to see how this is a bad thing... OSes evolve, and applications have to keep up. That's why manufacturers provide separate drivers and software versions for different OS versions, isn't it?

Re:Catch-22 (4, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025796)

Take a look at the list on the MS website of apps that are broken by SP2.

Microsoft have more applications on there than any other single vendor.

Re:Catch-22 (1)

colman77 (689696) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026026)

More programs run on Microsoft OS'es than any other single vendor's.

Re:Catch-22 (2, Insightful)

rackhamh (217889) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026038)

Well, duh. Can you name a vendor that produces more individual software packages for the Microsoft platform than Microsoft itself?

Noth Catch-22 but CASH-22 (0, Troll)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026068)

Upgrades == money.

Once people are happy with what they have (and most people **are** happy with Microslop), then they are not motivated to buy more. I know a few people who still use Win95 because it is enough. I still use Win98 for the kids games (but with no internet access).

So how do you force people to buy the new stuff? Break the old stuff.

Re:Catch-22 (1)

Monkelectric (546685) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025820)

Microsoft is basically damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don't

No, theyre damned because they didn't do it right in the first place.

Re:Catch-22 (2, Insightful)

erhudy (751890) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025907)

It's not a bad thing at all, and I just observed the exact same thing privately. Microsoft is finally doing what they should be doing, yet all the Linux zealots here and elsewhere still see fit to excoriate them. Blame Microsoft for having prioritized features over security for far too long, fine. Don't blame them for trying to fix it.

Re:Catch-22 (0, Offtopic)

PickyH3D (680158) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025949)

Damned if I post a reply stating how much I love your post because I cannot post mod points if I happen to get any after this reply. Damned if I do not because I have none and the less I post, the less I get.

Long story short, I love your post.

Running Win Server 2k3 as a Workstation (5, Interesting)

mr.henry (618818) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025754)

Love Windows 2000 and don't want to bother with XP? You can always run Windows Server 2003 as a workstation with this guide. [msfn.org]

Re:Running Win Server 2k3 as a Workstation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11025879)

Why? What does this gain you?

Re:Running Win Server 2k3 as a Workstation (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11025902)

Better heap manager. Locked-down with minimal services by default. You have to work to make it a pig like XP. IIS6. Sharepoint services. DFS. Shadow copy. Anything that you can run on XP runs on 2003, including gaming.

Re:Running Win Server 2k3 as a Workstation (1)

ForestGrump (644805) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025923)

2k3 server will be like w2k, but is locked down by default- giving you a more secure install than a straight w2k.

Not that I would know anything though, I run XP Pro at work (with sp1 b/c sp2 breaks excel) and xp home with sp2 at home.

Grump.

Re:Running Win Server 2k3 as a Workstation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11026019)

(with sp1 b/c sp2 breaks excel)

Yah, okay. It's SP2, because MS never bothered to test Office with it. Sure.

Re:Running Win Server 2k3 as a Workstation (1)

ForestGrump (644805) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026101)

i dunno, its what i heard through the corporate grapevine. don't install xp2. so i haven't done so yet. Do I want to try sp2 and find out what chaos it actually causes? no.

Re:Running Win Server 2k3 as a Workstation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11026189)

corporate FUD, more like

Re:Running Win Server 2k3 as a Workstation (1)

Shippy (123643) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025914)

What's the point if on the second page, you tell them to make an administrator user? Win2k3 has amazing security enhancements and that step effectively drops them on the floor.

Re:Running Win Server 2k3 as a Workstation (4, Informative)

Foolhardy (664051) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025999)

Er, you know that XP is closer to 2003 than 2000 is. Server 2003 is based on XP; they took the XP code base, re-added the 2000 server stuff and made some updates.
2000 is NT 5.0
XP is NT 5.1
2003 is NT 5.2

Re:Running Win Server 2k3 as a Workstation (1)

Vlad_Drak (20809) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026083)

Its not _quite_ that easy, but close.. that is a good guide though. I've been running Win2k3 as a workstation since before Beta 1. You'll have to use Orca to hack certain MSI installers that refuse to install because of version checks. THUG 2, Doom 3, several others need it. Usually you can just set AppCompat to run as WinXP, but sometimes that doesn't help.

Windows 2000 = Windows 5.0, Windows XP = Windows 5.1, Windows 2003 = Windows 5.2.

Re:Running Win Server 2k3 as a Workstation (1, Troll)

nordicfrost (118437) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026095)

Talk about crazy... My GF's best friend has a PC running Windows Server 2003, as her home computer. Her main applications are... ...MSN Messenger and Internet Explorer. Mind you, this was when WS2k3 was still in beta.

All this is running quite unhappily on a Pentium II, 266 with 64 MBs of RAM. When I saw this snail / turtle-like behemoth of a computer I was baffled that it ran a 2003 install with absolutely everything installed and turned on! Except for anything resembling a firewall.

I asked her where she had gotten this computes, as it was clearly set up for dealing out some MS SQL data, although I'm not too familiar with it so I didn't look into the files on the filled-to-the-brim hard-drive.

It turns out, her brother's GF is a market droid at Microsoft here. She had given a computer that was in private use by some developer or something and meant that (actual quote): "2003 is just so much better, just look: it's three years more advanced."

I swear to Buddha, that's an actual quote as told to me by my GF's friend.

How the hell can Microsoft push ANY product, let alone the crap they force-feed down people's throats? I knew that their programmers had their panties in a bunch or were oblivious to obvious problems. But their salespeople too?

This was a woman that had won the seller of the year award or some crap. Clearly, she doesn't have a clue to what she did, or have any facts for back up her decision. If I had met a clueless salesperson like her I would have kicked her out after ten minutes in my office. If she had not noticed the Macs around by then or what they were, she clearly has no business there. (Except maybe for selling Office for Mac, a very good product, but she was in the OS division)

Service Pack vs Version (4, Interesting)

ferreth (182847) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025757)

Is it just me or are others pissed off that M$ has taken the term "Service Pack" and stretched it way beyond it's intended meaning?

A Service Pack should fix bugs, provide MINOR enhancements, and performance tweaks. Anything more is a version change.

Hell, I would be perfectly happy to see the term "Service Pack" disapear entirely to be replaced by 0.01 releases and 0.1 for bigger changes, like most of the rest of the world does. At least that terminology has meaning to me.

Here's the poop... (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025865)

A Service Pack should fix bugs, provide MINOR enhancements, and performance tweaks. Anything more is a version change.

This is more or less an indication that the initial release was premature and is what the *nix community might call a "Release Candidate", or even a beta that has few enough (!) bugs to be marginally usable.

Re:Service Pack vs Version (1, Insightful)

rd_syringe (793064) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025932)

I don't know, but it annoys me to, in the year 2004, still see the term "M$" being thrown around like it's 1998 when it was witty and cool and anti-establishment. Just because you have some arbitrary definition of what a Service Pack "should" do doesn't make you right. I think you're bitching just to find something to bitch about. This is a good thing, and you'd be bitching if they didn't do this.

Re:Service Pack vs Version (4, Insightful)

Schnapple (262314) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026031)

Would you prefer to have Windows Server 2004 or 2005 come out and be charged for this?

Re:Service Pack vs Version (1)

rackhamh (217889) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026069)

Somebody mod parent up, please.

Complaining about free "service packs" (or whatever you want to call them) is like complaining about a free engine upgrade.

Re:Service Pack vs Version (3, Insightful)

E-Rock (84950) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026096)

Exactly, Apple releases a new version that fixes the things they half-assed in the prior version of X and they expect you to pay $129.

Re:Service Pack vs Version (2, Funny)

mottie (807927) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026032)

Microsoft already does this, they just mask it from the stupid "end user"

Winver will show you exactly what version you are running, and what the build number is.

Let me get this straight.. you're pissed off because they threw "extra" into the service pack instead of releasing a new version and charging you for it? I think your wallet is too fat, and is affecting the bloodflow to your brain..

Re:Service Pack vs Version (1)

RupW (515653) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026063)

Is it just me or are others pissed off that M$ has taken the term "Service Pack" and stretched it way beyond it's intended meaning?

They pioneered this years ago, way back with NT4 SP3. That was basically NT 4.5.

But *it was a free upgrade*. That's the distintion here: new version number, you pay for it.

Re:Service Pack vs Version (1)

RupW (515653) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026112)

NT4 SP3

Uh, on second thoughts I mean SP4 don't I? Bah.

A cheaper solution... (4, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025771)

...would be to just firewall every Windows machine behind a Linux box or BSD box and use port forwarding or some other restrictive routing scheme. Even if the hardware to isolate a gigabit's worth of bandwidth ran $1,000, it'd probably still save the company money compared to the man hours required to fix custom software, test it, and install it.

Re:A cheaper solution... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11025917)

That'll work until someone brings in an infected laptop from the field, and then the virus/worm will spread throughout the network. Unless you're talking about firewalling each computer individually ??

Microsoft Pre-judged? (4, Insightful)

Staplerh (806722) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025772)

I know I still have not installed SP2 because of the problems it causes with SQL Server, I can't wait to see what kind of havoc it causes on the servers...

This is a little predjudicial. You may have some historical examples to draw upon, but we should cut Microsoft some slack. If they didn't release this, people would complain, and when they do, people complain. If Microsoft is willing to admit that the "the improvements are important enough that applications should be changed to accommodate them", then perhaps they are right. It's doubtful that Microsoft is going to cause this much of a hassle unless it was for a good reason - ultimately, it would be easier for them to forgo this. Perhaps it is initial flaws, but how could they get it all right on the very first release?

I know I sound like some sort of Microsoft 'fanboy', but I'm just trying to present a devil's advocate view against the Slashdot bias against Microsoft.

Re:Microsoft Pre-judged? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11025989)

This is a little predjudicial. You may have some historical examples to draw upon, but we should cut Microsoft some slack. If they didn't release this, people would complain, and when they do, people complain. If Microsoft is willing to admit that the "the improvements are important enough that applications should be changed to accommodate them", then perhaps they are right. It's doubtful that Microsoft is going to cause this much of a hassle unless it was for a good reason - ultimately, it would be easier for them to forgo this. Perhaps it is initial flaws, but how could they get it all right on the very first release?

I think Microsoft is trying to do the right thing. There may be some hurdles, but in the end everyone will be better off. These changes are necessary and creates a better foundation for the coming OS releases to build on. Microsoft is hardly changing stuff just to piss people off.

It's ironic that Microsoft is slammed for making security a higher priority than functionality - often by the same people that have called for that change in priorities for years.

I know I sound like some sort of Microsoft 'fanboy', but I'm just trying to present a devil's advocate view against the Slashdot bias against Microsoft.

To me you sound reasonable. But I guess we both sound like "fanboys" to most other /. readers. :)

M

It's not pre-judging, given their history. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11026103)

You may have some historical examples to draw upon, but we should cut Microsoft some slack

Of course. Just because a software company has released service packs that have broken several of their operating systems in the past, we should in no way suggest that there may be problems with their newest offering. How silly.

a devil's advocate view against the Slashdot bias

Lemme see here:

"I know I still have not installed SP2 because of the problems it causes with SQL Server..."

Seems like a perfectly legit reason for not installing SP2. The problem is clearly and factually stated: it mucks up SQL server.

"...I can't wait to see what kind of havoc it causes on the servers"

Is this to what you take offense? See my opening paragraph.

Does this mean (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025781)

that windows server 2003 will actually be able to use up to date hardware?

Will I finally be able to plug my DVD writer into my PDC and back up the AD tree?

Didn't think so. That's it, I'm going back to Debian.

Re:Does this mean (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025890)

Ya I know. Its so hard to have a system thats used to back things up.

Re:Does this mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11025912)

I've been on the beta for both 2003 and this service pack, and have been using a Sony DRU700A with no problem. Don't forget that 2003 is 5.1, XP is 5. Same core OS, same drivers, same services (for the most part). If you can't use a device in 2003, chances are you can't use it in XP (bluetooth is an exception, however most vendors have their own stacks so it doesn't matter anyways). If you can't use it in XP, you probably can't use it in Debian either.

-> Try to find me a consumer DVD burner (one that you could pick up at BestBuy) that works in Debian and not XP/2003, and write back...

Linux has it's advantages, hardware support is not one of them ;)

Re:Does this mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11025992)

V2i protector has been doing this for a year. It's also now known as Symantec Livestate backup. It works wonders...

http://sea.symantec.com/content/product.cfm?prod uc tid=24

So yes, you could write the livestate file to a dvd if you choose to do so.

Windows Firewall (4, Insightful)

Ghostgate (800445) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025783)

TFA says they have added the same Windows Firewall as XPSP2. However, this is one issue that I can't see being NEARLY as big of a deal as it was for XP. XP has a much bigger percentage of novice users, many of whom had never even heard of a firewall until SP2. Win 2003 is, in general, used by people who would be aware of how to deal with such things and how to troubleshoot any problems that might occur.

Re:Windows Firewall (1)

utuk99 (656026) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026185)

I am not a Microsoft fan, but I support a lot of windows boxes. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the firewall in XP SP2. It pretty much takes care of itself on the average users box. If they are doing anything that requires custom firewall config, they should be able to figure it out.

Slashdot - Trying to have it both ways.... (0)

isolation (15058) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025805)

I wish Microsoft would change they way they manage the company. I also wish they would put all of Windows under the GPL. Neither of these things will happen but once again I am forced to defend something Microsoft is doing.

For years people bitched about Microsoft security which was in fact due to the lack of wanting to break with backwards compatiblity. Now after many years Microsoft is starting to slowly break things to be more secure and they get nothing but shit from people here.

Changes in applications are worth it (1)

rd_syringe (793064) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025821)

Any changes that require applications to work around them are worth it in the name of security. Security in Windows is something most Slashdotters have been wanting for years. It's also no different than the kinds of changes that have been made in Open Source when the kernel changes things around in the name of improvement (for instance, udev). Fault Microsoft for not getting it right in the first place, but don't fault them for fixing it despite pressure from apps vendors who I'm sure would be more than happy for Microsoft to twiddle its thumbs and do nothing so the vendors don't have to update their applications.

havoc not good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11025834)

Ya know, havoc on any servers is not a good thing, regardless of how useless the OS they are running is.

Windows Firewall defaults to off (1)

Jacco de Leeuw (4646) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025855)

In the docs they write that a server should be able to accept unsollicited connections so the new Windows Firewall defaults to off, unlike the one in XP SP2.

Hm. I'm not sure about that.

The most useful thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11025868)

...sounds like the feature that will enforce that vpn clients are fully patched before allowing them to tunnel into your nice clean network. The new firewall stuff is superflous for 2003 (most users don't need a little red shield icon to tell them whats up). The NX stuff is cool. All-in-all, I'd call 2003 MS's first good effort.

Sql Server and SP2? (1)

ad0gg (594412) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025911)

I know I still have not installed SP2 because of the problems it causes with SQL Server

And your running Sql server on XP? Only developers edition runs on XP. And it isn't meant to do production stuff.

Re:Sql Server and SP2? (2, Interesting)

figleaf (672550) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026034)

Don't you realize this is Slashdot.
He had to make an idiotic comment like that to get his story in.

Anyways SQL Server runs fine on XP.

Re:Sql Server and SP2? (3, Informative)

njan (606186) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026110)

Some (enterprise-grade) applications require the use of SQL Server Desktop Engine (the anti-virus vendor Sophos, for one, use this - Veritas would be an example of another).

In many instances, this doesn't react well with software on Windows server builds (again, as examples, SQL Server proper and Terminal Services both are broken by and break these two products in particular).

Especially in the ranks of middle-sized organisations which don't feel like splashing out hundreds of dollars (or more) for copies of windows server simply to run veritas and sophos, there are plenty of organisations which run 'server' software and SQL desktop engine / SQL Server on workstation builds of windows.

Re:Sql Server and SP2? (1)

Aphrika (756248) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026178)

For others - and the story poster - there's some very useful information about how XP SP2 affects SQL Server here [microsoft.com] .

To write something as stupid as "I know I still have not installed SP2 because of the problems it causes with SQL Server, I can't wait to see what kind of havoc it causes on the servers..." is just down to ignorance, incompetence and probably a lack of understanding about both products. Yes it might sound harsh, but to write something as daft as that in a story for nothing more than an anti-MS dig deserves a slap.

About SP2 (2, Interesting)

chaffed (672859) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025933)

Interesting comment by the author about SP2. It made me think about my upgrade practices. On my Win2k servers I wait nearly 6 months before I upgrade or apply any patches. I just need to know all the bugs are out before I put it into production.

However on my linux server I love installing the latest stable builds. Maybe that is because the software tends to be of better quality?... Possibly masochism... maybe... Then again I do run Win2k server.

Re:About SP2 (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026040)

Maybe the W2K server(s) are production, and the Linux server_ is a toy? Personally, I don't install a single thing that I don't need to, including service packs. If there's a specific problem or security issue that I'm aware of, then fine. Otherwise, I don't touch 'em. Life has worked like that for old school Unix admins for 20+ years. Why does everybody feel the sudden need to update their core OS software on almost a daily basis now? I don't get it. It's like switching out the compressor in your refrigerator, because the manufacturer came out with a new one. If it ain't broke...

6 months between updates? (1, Offtopic)

the_truk_stop (448393) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026198)

I wait nearly 6 months before I upgrade or apply any patches

Interesting. On an unrelated note, did you know that the Slammer virus that crippled the internet [wired.com] exploited a flaw for which a patch had been available for nearly 6 months [windowsitpro.com] ?


Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic [mithuro.com] Flamebait [mithuro.com] Troll [mithuro.com] Redundant [mithuro.com]
Positive: Insightful [mithuro.com] Interesting [mithuro.com] Informative [mithuro.com] Funny [mithuro.com]

Get a free LCD monitor! [freeflatscreens.com]

god.. (2, Interesting)

opweirdisntit (780341) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025981)

Is it just me or are others pissed off that M$ has taken the term "Service Pack" and stretched it way beyond it's intended meaning? A Service Pack should fix bugs, provide MINOR enhancements, and performance tweaks. Anything more is a version change. Hell, I would be perfectly happy to see the term "Service Pack" disapear entirely to be replaced by 0.01 releases and 0.1 for bigger changes, like most of the rest of the world does. At least that terminology has meaning to me.
THE QUESTION IS ...why do YOU care so much. Im sure you wont die. Im sure it wont destroy the linux community and im sure the general public doesnt care.

Windows 2003 popularity? (2, Insightful)

DogDude (805747) | more than 9 years ago | (#11025986)

Are that many people even using Windows Server 2003? Other than the .NET Framework that can also be bolted onto W2K, I don't know what the advantages are to running Win 2003. W2K both Pro and Server are very, very stable for us, and as far as I can tell, we have zero incentive to upgrade (if it's even a real upgrade). I personally don't know of a single person or company running Server 2003 for the same reason. W2K works just fine.

Re:Windows 2003 popularity? (1)

Ogrez (546269) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026028)

Volume shadow copy restore... Web services edition..

2 reasons for you.

Re:Windows 2003 popularity? (3, Informative)

ad0gg (594412) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026104)

If your running asp.net under win2k it runs as an ISAPI process. With server2003 its runs natively in IIS, makes it a little bit more robust. Also like the security settings, especially being able to control TCP/IP down to the port level. Not sure if this also on win2k, if it is, it must be buried.

Re:Windows 2003 popularity? (2, Interesting)

RupW (515653) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026147)

A few more reasons:

  • IIS 6.0: performance and compartmentalisation for security / stability
  • Remote desktop improvements: full colour, can debug across a remote desktop connection
  • Nice tweaks like network usage and remote desktop management on task manager
  • You need it to run Exchange 2003. Which is great. The web interface alone is worth the upgrade.

Re:Windows 2003 popularity? (2, Insightful)

XopherMV (575514) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026151)

Sounds like your company hasn't moved to Win2003, so your knowledge is limited.

Most companies I know don't like to be on the bleeding edge and don't want to switch until the first service pack is released. Once SP1 comes out, you can bet a lot more companies will look at Win2003 seriously.

Re:Windows 2003 popularity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11026171)

Other than the fact that Exchange 2003 won't run on Windows 2000...

We upgraded to 2003 last year across the board and it's been nothing but solid. A lot of broken stuff was fixed in 2003 when it comes to the AD itself. Not to mention Exchange 2003 will not run on Windows 2000.

We also have 3 2TB file servers. 2003 made a noticeable improvement in performance, for us at least. Obviously if your network or servers are not up to par you won't see an improvement. But for the faster hardware 2003 really takes advantage of it.

XP SP2 and SQL Server Problems? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11026035)

What, you mean how UDP and TCP/IP connections are turned off by default?

Turn them back on if you need them and install SQL Server SP3a as advised [microsoft.com] beforehand.

I think you'll find this fixes all SQL Server on SP2 'problems' as I have found on 6 development machines for the last 7 or so months. It's not like there's a void of information out there on the subject. MS products suffer from so many problems that they do actually have a decent amount of information online about them. A problem affecting SQL Server and SP2 like the vague one you mention is bound to have been so common as to have been fixed.

In MS Offices at the moment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11026086)

Anyone want to ask any questions that I can put to them and get back to you with?

Serious ones please... I'm only here for a couple of days and have good access to place questions right now.

Re:In MS Offices at the moment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11026188)

No one cares.

Change is Good (1)

richardtallent (309050) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026094)

My favorite quote from the article is, 'The company argues that the improvements are important enough that applications should be changed to accommodate them.'

1. You've never had to fiddle with code, edit make files, and recompile libraries, drivers, or applications for a new major kernel revision? Whatever.

2. The addition of NOOP-capable processor support is a Good Thing(tm) (except, potentially, for DRM research and fair-use overrides). Any application broken by enforcement of such a basic premise of good programming deserved to be broken, and its developers should be soundly thrashed by a wet noodle.

3. I have Windows XP SP2, which implements the same basic changes, and have not had any apps go south on me because of these changes. I'm no fan of the software firewall (better to turn of the *&$*# insecure listening daemons, not leave them running and add another layer of potential vulnerability, and I won't get into the snake oil beliefs people have about firewalls in general), but it does actually work and is a breeze to configure.

4. As others have said, I really wish they would add more device support (i.e., make the server product basically a souped-up version of XP Pro) so I could use it on my main machine at home.

5. I manage a Win2k3 web server at work and am tickled pink by the performance, maintainability, etc., especially w/r/t IIS. Comparisons to NT or even later SPs of 2k don't hold water. I'm not saying Linux/FreeBSD/etc. aren't worthy competitors, but I spend about 1/20th of the time administrating my Win2k3 box as I did my FreeBSD and Linux boxen a few years ago.

6. Most of the companies who will be affected by these changes adversely are probably the sort that are still stuck in NT or 2kSP3 (with Windows 98 or IE5/6 on the client) due to crappy custom applications.

Re:Change is Good (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11026183)

You've never had to fiddle with code, edit make files, and recompile libraries, drivers, or applications for a new major kernel revision?

Never. Libc has sometimes had minor compatibility problems, let alone things like Gnome, but kernel binary compatibility has always been dependable in my experience.

How typically /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11026105)

You won't install SP2 but you'll be more than happy to sit there moaning about security holes Microsoft won't patch... if you're running XP without SP2 then you deserve what you get.

sorry, but what's the point of the computer? (4, Insightful)

jxyama (821091) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026130)

>'The company argues that the improvements are important enough that applications should be changed to accommodate them.'

so, does the PC exist to run the OS or the application? i thought the point of PC and the OS was to run the application that's useful. why does running of the application, which actually accomlishes something, must be compromise to enable the OS to run better?

i'm not arguing that OS is an important/integral part of using a PC to accomplish a task. but i feel that their philosophy is backwards. even if it's the truth, they shouldn't say it. PCs do not exist to run the OS. PCs exist to run the applications. no one cares about a PC that can run the OS perfectly if it can't run useful apps.

Time travel corrupts builds! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11026134)

I know I still have not installed SP2 because of the problems it causes with SQL Server

Well duh, the code got corrupted in the time machine you used to get the Windows Server 2003 SP2.

Re:Time travel corrupts builds! (1)

RupW (515653) | more than 9 years ago | (#11026179)

Well duh, the code got corrupted in the time machine you used to get the Windows Server 2003 SP2.

He means XP SP2. (As you probably knew.)

FWIW, the XP SP2 release candidates broke SQLXML 3 which broke our web application but we've have *no problems* with SQL server on the final SP2 code.

linux comparision (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11026145)

isnt it funny how almost everytime a linux package is updated, gentoo users have to recompile everything against the new package and dont complain; but when MS does it its a huge problem
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?