Anybody checked this OS out or actually has a copy if this OS??
Printable View
Anybody checked this OS out or actually has a copy if this OS??
yeah, I signed up for there beta, so I have a copy, and have it installed and have been playing with it
Yea at work we are a Microsoft partner so we picked up Windows .NET Server 2003 Enterprise Edition (friggin long name) from Redmond. I figured 'what the hell' and took it home and installed. It's like Windows 2000 but with all the features turned off. You can't even add a network printer without turning the service to enable it on, it's disabled by default. The default Windows sounds are turned off as well. The do lock it down as far as the services go. It needs some polishing in certain areas such as graphics cards. It turns your hardware acceleration down to next to nothing so you have to crank it up. XP and 2000 drivers have worked for the hardware it didn't have drivers for. All around think 2000 look with XP features and a ton of more configuration option for servers. But it does have a problem with alot of the Microsoft server based software such as SQL server. I don't run any of those because it's on my personal PC. But, I have run into quirks. Good link if you need help for some problems is - http://home.triad.rr.com/faq/WNS2003%20FAQ.htm. Hope this helps a bit.
I have the full Enterprise Edition running on one of my local intranet servers (it's currently part of a test network since I have been having a number of compatibility problems with my workstations and other servers, not to metion incompatilibility with Exchange Server 2000, which severly hinders my ability it deploy it across my network). I got it with my Universal MSDN subscription (which I just signed up for recently), and I've been very happy with it so far. It's nice to have an OS which has a lot of features locked-down by default. I plan to deploy it across my network once SP1 has been released, and Exchange 2003 has been released and I have thoroughly tested the two.
AJ
I downloaded a copy of a 6 in 1 version. Look around usenet. It gets posted fairly often.
I have heard that It dosn't play nice with others (NT and 2k) can any one verify this?
Yes, from what I hear, AD1.0 and AD2.0 do not play nice together. I will be testing just how bad this condition is within the next week or two.
That is also what I hard, we dont have any space left in our testing lab (hell we haven't fulley oked AD 1.0 yet) so let us know how they interact.
Will do - I will post a complete anaylysis along with all settings, services, etc. We have to do this anyway so I will be more than happy to share the knowledge. Feel free to conduct a second test if you like. That should add additional credibility to my findings.
--TH13
Sonic, download the enterprise ISO from microsoft here
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo.../x09-22207.iso
Hmmmm.....you mean an Network OS that isn't wide open by default? What a Novell.....um, I mean novel concept.Quote:
Originally posted here by avdven
. It's nice to have an OS which has a lot of features locked-down by default.
AJ
:D
Man, I crack myself up sometimes.......
is this a full version?Quote:
Originally posted here by The3ntropy
Sonic, download the enterprise ISO from microsoft here
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo.../x09-22207.iso
i installed Windows 2003 enterprise last night, it seemed like XP but with many advance configuration and easier ( for my self ) and i hope it is better and better .
but hasn't run it on my netwrok , becoz i am not so sure about everything .. so will wait and wait for the right time.
But .. i love the features and additional tools.
man thats funny as hell, nice reply thread_killer :)Quote:
Originally posted here by thread_killer
Hmmmm.....you mean an Network OS that isn't wide open by default? What a Novell.....um, I mean novel concept.
:D
Man, I crack myself up sometimes.......
I was sent an eval copy. I think in came in an issue of Dr. Dobbs. You might be able to get a copy of (Dobbs) with it still.
I've been playing with 2003 server and frankly I'm not impressed. Oh and as far as bieng "secure" out of the box, I have to say poo poo to that notion. As usual, backwards compatability has left the usual sploits behind....*sigh*
Here are some threads that I wrote that deal with my findings:
http://www.antionline.com/showthread...878#post625878
http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=243750
http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=243123
http://www.antionline.com/showthread...670#post627670
http://www.antionline.com/showthread...539#post625539
http://www.antionline.com/showthread...323#post627323
My next target is AD2.0. They must have put the majority of development efforts in AD because they sure as hell didn't anywhere else.
:)
Some of the things I have read about it is that it doesn't support any version of exchange save for the NEW version that hasn't been released as of yet.
Plus older versions on SQL Server will not run on it either, only the current edition will run.
I don't know if this is security related or if its simply a way to force consumers to upgrade.
I like Windows as my desktop , but I say "No Thank You" on M$ Servers and will be sticking with linux/BSD for my serving needs. (Both security wise and expense wise)
--Just my 2cents
Well someone here just got the brainy idea to upgrade from NT4 to 2003 .NET. I like the server but its a challenge to upgrade everything at once. I have don a 2000 migration and ended up reistalling half the client OS's due to DSclient not playing nice with AD.
win98 + win2k AD = :(
I'll be doing a full migration and then building child sites over the wan.
anyway we have a fileserver running win2003 and seems nice
wonder how long till the next 'bleeding edge' tech comes out :)
jdl