Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft

Windows 2003 Going Gold 651

Posted by michael from the service-pack-1-already-prepared dept.
chill writes "According to CNet's News.com, 'Microsoft is expected to announce on Friday that Windows Server 2003 has completed testing and has been certified final, or gold, code.' With 35% of their server customers still using NT 4 -- the NT 4 that is so broke it can't be fixed -- Microsoft is hoping for quick adoption."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows 2003 Going Gold More

Windows 2003 Going Gold

Comments Filter:

  • 2003...in 2003? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JTinMSP ( 136923 ) <bigbearjt@gmail.com> on Friday March 28, 2003 @09:50AM (#5614822) Homepage
    Too bad it'll be SP 1 or 2 in 2004 that'll leave it usable and somewhat secure. I actually prefer 2000. The XP interface and how it handles some things really left me cold.

    • Re:2003...in 2003? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by shamilton ( 619422 )
      From the screenshots I've seen, 2003 doesn't use the Luna decorations. I guess they may just be turned off.

    • Re:2003...in 2003? (Score:4, Informative)

      by fudgefactor7 ( 581449 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @09:51AM (#5614828)
      You can turn off the Luna interface and make XP look just like 2000.
    • Windows 2003 Server doesn't support the XP interface at all. It looks like 2000 and you cannot make it look like Windows XP. A lot of the "eye candy" is left out; it has no place in a server GUI.
      • Windows 2003 Server doesn't support the XP interface at all. It looks like 2000 and you cannot make it look like Windows XP. A lot of the "eye candy" is left out; it has no place in a server GUI.
        That is incorrect. The Themes service is disabled by default on 2003 Server. I do this on my workstations too (I prefer the standard skin - or lack thereof, and wish to recover the resources it uses). You can (or could, when I tested it) enable the service and apply themes. This is useful in terminal server environments.
    • You know the interface is gonna suck when you click on file search and a fucking cartoon dog comes on the screen ....
  • I for one think microsoft is right in thinking the NT 4 crowd is perfect for quick adoption.

  • It's an excellent strategy. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MarvinMouse ( 323641 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @09:53AM (#5614837) Homepage Journal
    All Microsoft has to do to force people to purchase upgrades is include a fatal flaw in each of their released systems. Then, with their new found buy of a VM company, they can offer a new system (at a price) that is secure, but runs all the programs from the old system.

    You are then left with a choice, stay with an unsecure system which will never be patched (unless independent sources patch the flaw,) or buy a new system at an inflated price, that will do exactly the same thing your old system did, but not have the fatal security flaw.

    Really, it's quite an ingenious business plan, because they aren't forcing you to do anything, just making sure they get paid for all these patches they've been releasing for free.

    I would not be surprised to start seeing them stop patching all their older OSes, and seeing their new OSes all include legacy VM support so you can run the old programs without the security bugs.

    Then you are left to a choice, buy more software from Microsoft (so you can run securely), use OS software with respective VMs (and take the risk that all of your software won't work), or keep using your unsecure OS.

    Unfortunately, for most businesses only one of those 3 options is viable.
    • Then you are left to a choice, buy more software from Microsoft (so you can run securely), use OS software with respective VMs (and take the risk that all of your software won't work), or keep using your unsecure OS.

      Yes, and judging by the number of Nimda and Code Red probes we're still seeing most of them go with option number #3, at least until replace their hardware and upgrade by default. Fortunately, a growing number of companies have seen the light and are in fact going with option #4: Say "screw

      • Windows 2000 Advanced was far better than all the previous NTs, and from what I have seen, Windows 2003 server runs amazingly quick and light. There seem to be significant performance advantages to the upgrade. And by the way, there were many facilities that never ever got code red or Nimda. because microsoft had a patch out almost immediately and if you were intelligent, you downloaded it and applied it. If there were have as many hackers trying to hack linux as there are people trying to hack windows, I
        • No arguments from me there, I'm in a mixed shop although we generally prefer Linux/Solaris, especially at the high end of server selection. If going the Microsoft route, Windows 2000 is by far and away the best version of Windows shipping for servers, and I'd have to go with XP for the desktop (with styles on or off).

          As to the patching/flaws thing, my point was that some people only upgrade (and to an only slightly lesser extent, patch) their OS when they upgrade their hardware. That's certainly true fo

    • Re:It's an excellent strategy. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Psiren ( 6145 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @10:07AM (#5614945)
      A rather cynical view if I may so, but not unsual for /.

      or buy a new system at an inflated price, that will do exactly the same thing your old system did,

      That's hardly true now is it? There are likely to be a lot of things in 2003 that people want to use that were not in ealier versions of the OS. I know for example that our Windows guy wants the ability to rename Domains, something that isn't present in any previous version, but will be in 2003. You can argue of course that some of these feature should have been in earlier versions, but thats another matter altogether.

      For the record, I'm a Linux admin, and use Windows as little as possible. But FUD is still FUD, no matter which side of the debate it originates.

      • Re:It's an excellent strategy. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by garcia ( 6573 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @11:54AM (#5615808)
        You are leaving out the major point...

        MS *refuses* to fix a serious bug in NT4. They did this on purpose. They want you to upgrade and spend the money. This is a GOOD business model for them, not for the consumer.

        They are FORCING their users to shell out the money.

        I equate this to Ford finding a problem with an older car that causes it to crash. It refuses to fix the problem and wants you to buy a new car.

        Sorry, that's wrong.

    • Brillant...and you found other crackpots to buy it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by somethingwicked ( 260651 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @10:15AM (#5615001)
      Your argument is quite logical based on your assumption/accusation. But, really, that's where the problem lies:

      All Microsoft has to do to force people to purchase upgrades is include a fatal flaw in each of their released systems

      Fine, call them idiots everytime a new security issue is found. Instead, you are insinuating that they PURPOSELY include holes PREMEDITATED before the release of the product under the ASSUMPTION that it will not be found until AFTER they release the latest greatest product.

      their new OSes all include legacy VM support so you can run the old programs without the security bugs.

      From your POV, this is support for your twisted accusation. Actually, it is a very customer friendly action. You can use what you have for now instead of insisting that you have to use "Mission Critical App your Business Would Fail Without.LATEST VERSION designed ONLY for Latest Windows (TM)"

      Not a big deal that you can try to make this lousy argument. What is sad is that you found people to mod your post "Insightful" and "Interesting" while my post will soon be modded "Flamebait" and "Troll" becuase it is unpopular not to see ultimate evil in every action by M$

    • Re:It's an excellent strategy. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by davemabe ( 105354 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @10:19AM (#5615031) Homepage
      Maybe Microsoft should release the source code to products that they no longer support so that users can fix the unfixable flaws.
      • Maybe Microsoft should release the source code to products that they no longer support so that users can fix the unfixable flaws.

        They can't do that because then people would be able to figure out how much NT4 code is still in the main Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 development trunk. There is probably a lot more NT code there than people realise. You know, if it ain't broke ...

        Microsoft's customers wouldn't think too highly of that given the upgrades they've been 'forced' to buy. It would be a PR disaster.
    • Not that ingenious! They are squeezing too hard! Our company is actually reviewing (seriously reviewing, like in the process of acting...) using Linux for several services. MS is just plain too expensive, and their incessant need to lock everyone in (and all competition out) is basically scaring us away as well. They've gone too far and they are going farther...and quite simply, we're not going to take it anymore!

      I'm sure we'll continue to use MS products in the future, but only where they are the best

  • Certified Final @ Micro$oft Means (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 28, 2003 @09:54AM (#5614848)
    beta everywhere else.

  • Early Adapters (Score:5, Funny)

    by Txiasaeia ( 581598 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @09:55AM (#5614851)
    I'm sure that MS will have no problems with early adapters; they'll be coming out of the woodworks to pick up a copy of Windows 2003, I'm su...

    Oh, wait, you mean *legal* copies? Nevermind.

  • NT4 upgrade path (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @09:56AM (#5614863)
    I wonder how much of that 35% is using NT for file and print services or a web server?


    Instead of incurring the massive expense of replacing the equipment that currently runs NT 4 plus the licences of running Windows 2003, perhaps they should just move over to Linux. Maybe there is scope for an advertising campaign from Red Hat or others that says as much.


    Better yet, perhaps someone should offer an NT 'migration kit' which attempts to replicate the NT services and settings in Linux.

    • Re:NT4 upgrade path (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @10:10AM (#5614964) Homepage
      Or how about the fact that if your NT 4.0 servers are inside the corperate forewall LEAVE THEM RUNNING. sorry but Nt4.0 makes a good Fileserver/SQL platform on good hardware. W2K other than the changes in the domain model offer's nothing to 90% of the server users outther eexcept a way to make the companies wallet lighter. and W2k3 is no better. we are just now finalizing the change to W2K on the desktops, XP is still prohibited on the network and we are one of the largest companies in the USA..

      granted after the last merger the IT dept is now full of Microsoft Cheerleaders, but cince upper management is in the "SPEND LESS" mode getting linux in the door is still very easy. IT says no, I simply get a member of uppers sales management to approve it and they override the silly IT police.

      The key to working with corperate IT is to use the leverage of the upper management to keep the IT department in line and doing their job of maintaining and increasing services for the company and the employees while using innovative and low cost solutions...

      If you can do a linux project that will cost very little, WORK and can be maintained, I dont care what IT policy says, the upper management will let you do it.

      This is my little secret, and it works great if you learn Corperate-speak and always talk in money to sales management.... Example.. "Switching to linux for this task will save us $$$$ on the next 4 quarters cash flow, which will get us closer to meeting budget."

      • This is my little secret, and it works great if you learn Corperate-speak and always talk in money to sales management...

        No truer word was said. I've just switched all the systems in an ISP to Linux from Windows. Getting the go-ahead was as simple as saying "We can leave it all in place. You will need to spend £x thousand on licences. Or, we can blow it away and replace it with Linux, which will mean you don't need to upgrade the servers as soon and will cost you far less."

        It took all of five m

      • Re:NT4 upgrade path (Score:2, Insightful)

        by uityup ( 660183 )
        "Or how about the fact that if your NT 4.0 servers are inside the corperate forewall LEAVE THEM RUNNING." Sure, this might work if the company trusts all their employees and never pisses any of them off. Don't forget that a massive number of attacks are internal.
      • No facts get a +5: only on /. I won't even waste my time going into the myriad the differences between the mentioned OS's but I have to say that NT4 is (IMHO) an OS that should not be used for anything remotely mission critical. I personally stayed away from Windows as much as possible on the server until Win2K came out. And even then it took a lot of convincing (and Service Packs) before I made the switch. W2K is a very different OS than NT4. Furthermore, if you've read much of anything on Win2003, yo
    • In our office we will never seriously consider Linux as a replacement for Windows file servers simply because the security on the file system is too basic. We need it to support access control lists! We do, however, use Linux for firewalling, email serving, http proxy, etc.

      • XFS (Score:4, Informative)

        by dmaxwell ( 43234 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @10:48AM (#5615273)
        XFS offers acls and has been out for a few years now. The upcoming Reiser4 will support them and if I'm not mistaken the 2.5 series kernels will contain a common framework for acls so that one can switch between acl supporting filesystems with minimal breakage.

  • Good timing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by glh ( 14273 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @09:56AM (#5614868) Homepage Journal
    Wow, good timing! I just wonder how many network admins will get ticked off that MS didn't fix NT so they're going to try out something else for a change (ie, enter Linux). Most companies aren't willing to jump to a new server OS for mission critical applications, which is most likely WHY anyone would still have NT running. Very few people are comfortable running version 1.0 server software, which is essentially what this is.

    I think it is a bit irresponsible for them to NOT support NT, and I just don't by the "too complex" architecture bit. Honestly, I think they don't want to fix it- it's time to move customers to the next version. They could come out with a really heavy service pack, but that probably doesn't make much business sense. It's likely they have a good grip on how many people are running NT still-- perhaps losing those customers are probably cheaper than doing another service pack? In addition, the only companies that REALLY need to be concerned are those that can't block the appropriate port with a firewall since that is a temporary fix.
    • I would say the odds, of a non-technical company, such as the automotive industry, to switch over to linux are probably the same odds you have at winning the lottery. Major corporations that don't know computers, don't take risks with a piece of software that is almost completely impossible to get support for.

      • I would say the odds, of a non-technical company, such as the automotive industry, to switch over to linux are probably the same odds you have at winning the lottery. Major corporations that don't know computers, don't take risks with a piece of software that is almost completely impossible to get support for.

        There's definitely truth to that but I don't know that the odds are that slim :) A lot of it also depends on the kind of software they run on there (such as MRP), which chances are probably won't ru

      • Re:Good timing (Score:2, Insightful)

        by SteakJerky.com ( 621665 )
        Even non-technical companies (of a decent size like your example of the automotive industry) have IT departments. They are the ones supporting the applications and systems, so it's not as unlikely as hitting the lottery, IMHO.

  • Gold? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Linux-based-robots ( 660980 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @09:56AM (#5614869) Journal
    I think Windows is going towards another element: Palladium

    Hehehehehe
  • It would probably help everyone if there were a legal standard of "reasonable security" that if you didn't meet that, you don't receive any sort of immediate assistance from law enforcement. I know many dumbasses that run Mandrake or Win2k server and have no clue or desire (respectively usually, or sometimes both) to update them. If they get hit because they didn't take reasonable measures, then their case should be put on the back of the backburner at the PD.

    • Re:Legal musings about security (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "If they get hit because they didn't take reasonable measures, then their case should be put on the back of the backburner at the PD."

      Interesting theory.

      Perhaps if you get assaulted in the street, and have been too lazy not to take the time to get a third degree black belt in a 'certified' martial art, then the police should put your assault on the back burner as well.

  • Its the beginning of the end for MS (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TerryAtWork ( 598364 ) <research@aceretail.com> on Friday March 28, 2003 @09:57AM (#5614874)
    Now that Palladium is going to lock me into Windows, I'm switching to OpenBSD with some GUI on it.

    And I've been a windows guy forever...

    When even guys like me leave, that's it.

    Mind you, this'll take some years yet...

  • let's consider age (Score:5, Insightful)

    by John_Renne ( 176151 ) <zooi@@@gniffelnieuws...net> on Friday March 28, 2003 @09:59AM (#5614885) Homepage
    I see a lot of sarcasm (not only here) on the subject of NT4 not being fixed. Let's not forget the OS was introduced in 96. I'm not sure about the rest of you but I'm not running a linux-distro that's 7 years old.

    • Re:let's consider age (Score:2, Insightful)

      by pbur ( 88030 )
      But what I think you are missing here is that even if I was running a Linux distro from a few years ago that the kernel from that time is still being supported, as well as most of the packages (which of course I might have to upgrade individually ). I have all my upgrade paths before me, all for free. And I really think the important thing in that sentance is "free". To get to the "supported" platform from MS, you have to pay their fees. And they get to decide when your obsolete.

    • Re:let's consider age (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Christianfreak ( 100697 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @10:10AM (#5614967) Homepage Journal
      But MS promised its customers that it would support NT until either this summer or early next year (I think there was some confusion about that). Its not about age its about what MS says they are going to do. Its nothing new that MS breaks promises but it is amazing to me that so many companies and individuals blatently pander to them even after this kind of crap.

    • Re:let's consider age (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @10:22AM (#5615054) Homepage
      Let's not forget the OS was introduced in 96. I'm not sure about the rest of you but I'm not running a linux-distro that's 7 years old.
       nor do you have any responsibility of running software and hardware that generates 1.2 million dollars worth of income every day in my location alone. Nt4.0 is it, Hell many of the systems still run NT 3.51 but will be upgraded to NT 4.0 here within the next 12 months. If downtime can be measures in thousands of dollars a minute lost then you do not change your OS.

      Sorry, but I know for a fact that for many more years that these critical systems that are making the money here will run Windows NT 4.0 and the vendor that these systems are from will still support them.

      If you dont know about relying on the older OS's for mission critical tasks then you really are not in any Information technology fields.

      only the foolish rush in and change things without a very strong reason.

      • And please, tell us all how dismayed you are that MS didn't make a patch for your NT4 boxes?

        You say you don't care at all because you weren't foolish enough to leave port 135 open to the world (I hope)?

        People are up in arms because MS decided not to patch this issue. Yes, it is closed source, and that limits your options (even though you could develop a filter for the port that would act as a patch). The thing is this:

        The extent of this security hole is that someone could cause a DOS on the machine thr
  • Today, Microsoft has released a new patch for their Windows.net 2003 Server line, fixing major security flaws.

  • A Security Enhancement? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gnomeza ( 649598 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @10:01AM (#5614907) Homepage
    From the article: Upcoming updates include: ...Windows Rights Management Services (RMS), a security enhancement;

    For whom, exactly, would this be a "Security enhancement"?

    • Not for RMS [stallman.org], that's for sure :-)
    • RMS as a update to Windows? That sounds very scary, either when RMS is Stallman, or RMS is Rights Managements Services.
    • Well the RMS system actually implements the IFilibuster interface so hackers attempting buffer overflows will receive a long string returned about why it's GNU/Linux and not just Linux. When a hacker attempts a local exploit, it will refuse to run the exploit until they can verify that all of the exploit was created using free software. When the Chinese software-copy-mafia attempt to mass produce cd's using it, The EULA will refer them to the suffering of Tibet and force them to sign a petition before conti

  • this time its not the PRODUCT that can't be fixed: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AtomicX ( 616545 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @10:04AM (#5614924)
    this time, its not Windows which can't be fixed, its the license. Nobody is going to upgrade to WS 2003 unless they have to. WinNT 4.0 is slow and insecure, agreed, but it does the job and has been fairly extensively debugged (after 6 or so Service Packs). This is even more incentive for people to use Linux, the transition is cheaper, and although the cost per techie is higher, the TCO is arguably lower. When will MS ever realise that the product isn't the problem?

  • I still use NT 4... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ghack ( 454608 )
    I still use NT 4, so does my university. Hell, they only upgraded some of their machines from linux 1.x about a year ago.

    Three years from now a sizable portion of the windows server marketbase will still be using windows nt. NT SP6 is a solid product: if it works, why upgrade? Sure it might have security issues, but if you think new MS OS'es dont you're insane.

  • I do x86 server support, and although the vast majority of calls we get are for windows 2000, many many people still run NT servers indeed. And a large part of those w2k calls are actually servers moving from NT to w2k just now.

    Considering how quickly worms like Code Red/Nimda etc spread, I'm not convinced the majority of Windows servers admins do take the time to patch their systems, and I'm not convinced the current "we won't patch NT" stance will really change things. People who run NT and are concerned

  • ...yeah... Comedy Gold!

  • Top 10 Reasons to get Windows 2003 (Score:5, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @10:17AM (#5615025)
    10. If Bill Gates gets more money, he can afford a borg implant for his left eye, too.

    9. Linux? Never heard of it.

    8. It satisfies the overwhelming slashdot community demand for Palladium, secure
    computing, and better enforcement of the DMCA.

    7. SAVE OVER $300 ON V1AGRA (oops. my spam filter failed and one slipped into the list)

    6. w3 3l33t d00dz must have 1t 2 run directx for Quakedoom 6.

    5. IN SOVIET RUSSIA, 2003 WINDOWS YOU!

    4. Hey, they've got a monopoly reputation to maintain. Why not help them?

    3. Oh boy! Another EULA to ignore!

    2. Microsoft says this one's going to be really really good! Why should
    I not believe them?

    1. It moves us ever closer to Windows 2078, in which all the security holes
    will be fixed once and for all.

  • Man o Man (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @10:18AM (#5615026) Homepage Journal
    Ok, while Microsoft can certaintly afford to support their old OSs like NT4, and they probably should considering a lot of people use them. It's hard to blame them for not doing so. I mean, it's like people have this obsession with uptime. It wont destroy your company if you turn all the servers off for maybe an hour while you upgrade to 2k or now 2k3, or linux even.

    I see it like this.

    company: My computer is insecure, patch it.

    MS: Your using an OS from years and years ago. Get a new one.

    company: no.

    is the same as

    company: My house is insecure, upgrade the locks on my doors.

    locksmith: You're using locks from the victorian era. There is no way to "upgrade" that. You just have to get modern locks, you know, ones that work. We've learned a lot about locks since then, and the ones we make now are actually useful.

    company: no.

    While there are tons of issues like having to pay MS for licenses, etc. etc. But when it all comes down to it its a matter of a company that can't stand to have their system down for a little bit of time. Sure, there are indeed some mission critical things that shouldn't go down, but its not like people will die. And if someone breaks in you'll lose a lot more than that little downtime would cost you. The only computers that can never go down are in a hospital, and even then only if they are keeping people alive. And those shouldn't be running Windows.

    • Re:Man o Man (Score:2, Insightful)

      by trikberg ( 621893 )
      Your analogy limps. It should go something like this:

      You: my locks are insecure, please upgrade them.

      Locksmith: Sorry, your house is built so that you cannot change the locks. You must bulldoze the entire house and rebuild it with a new version, which includes better locks.

      You: =(

    • Re:Man o Man (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Hiro Antagonist ( 310179 )
      Your analogy is so false that even a Republican wouldn't believe it.

      "Replacing the locks." would be a patch. You get to keep your house, not have to move (much) furniture out of the way of the locksmiths, etc.

      "Moving into a new home." is a lot closer to what Microsoft is asking for. See, if you want to gain all the security benefits of those new locks, then you've got to move all of your furniture into a new house, which you get to build from the ground up. Not exactly a simple process.

    • Re:Man o Man (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Johnny Mnemonic ( 176043 )

      More like the locksmith answering: get a new house. Oh, but this time, you can't buy one; you have to rent. And, there's cameras everywhere to determine if you're using your rental the way that the landlords think you should; if you have a disagreement, you're evicted.

      Maybe this is trollbait, but oh well. What's karma for anyway?

  • Bitching about NT4 not being patched... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by skrowl ( 100307 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @10:18AM (#5615029) Homepage
    Is like saying you want patches for your 1.3.x Linux kernel branch (which was released around the same time as NT 4). Think Linus would care if there were a flaw found in 1.3.75? DOUBTFUL.
    • Especially considering the 1.3 releases were development code not meant for use by non kernel developers. I'm sure Microsoft doesn't give patches to customers using early alpha/beta releases of their software... :P
    • No, it's not the same:

      Upgrade to 1.3.x linux kernel costs 0$ and can be expected to run on the same hardware. There are no restrictions on when / how / where the upgrade can be made.

      Upgrade to NT4 will cost more than 0$, and can not be expected to run on the same hardware.

      In addition, each client using services provided by said upgraded NT box will also have to pony up more than 0$ for a CAL.

      Lastly, the new MS licensing allows Redmond to 'shut off' the operating system at some time in the future if

    • Re:Bitching about NT4 not being patched... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jens ( 85040 ) <jens-slashdot.spamfreemail@de> on Friday March 28, 2003 @11:32AM (#5615608) Homepage
      Think Linus would care if there were a flaw found in 1.3.75? DOUBTFUL.

      Actually, there's a maintainer for every (stable) version of the kernel. 1.3.x is not stable. But 2.2, 2.0, 1.2, 1.0, including even the 0.0x series, have a maintainer. And those maintainers do fix bugs if they are found. Embedded systems and special machines still use 1.2 or 2.0 nowadays. Recently a couple bugs was even fixed in v0.01.

      Yeah, most of them do it for the kicks, or because they/their businesses need it. Your point was?


  • A betting pool has started on how long after Gold is released it will turn into Lead (How long until the first major security hole will be found)

    An anonymous wager has been placed for 5 minutes..

  • MS Can't supply a fix for NT4 (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Actually, Microsoft can't fix NT4. They lost the source or the build files or something. From " MS03-010 [microsoft.com]:

    During the development of Windows 2000, significant enhancements were made to the underlying architecture of RPC. In some areas these changes involved making fundamental changes to the way the RPC server software was built. The Windows NT 4.0 architecture is much less robust than the more recent Windows 2000 architecture, Due to these fundamental differences between Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 and its

  • It was pushed from second half of 2001, to early 2002, to second half 2002, and finally will be launched in April. With that kind of delays well it could include Duke Nukem Forever.

    I think that Microsoft should change the way they name releases... instead of say, i.e. "it goes Gold", say "it condensated" (from the vapor it was all those years, I mean)... saying that "it goes Solid" in the same way of thinking would be misleading, there is nothing solid in a new released Windows until there is a big amoun

  • exploits waiting (Score:2, Funny)

    by Tom ( 822 )
    In other news, the first exploits for the new windows version are still behind schedule. "We still need a bit of final QA and tests on some obscure hardware" said l33t h4x0r, one of the many 14-year olds waiting eagerly for windows 2003. "I mean, the old one was funny for a while", l33t said, "but after a couple years it got boring finding the essentially same bugs again and again and again."
  • Anyone have a measurement of how many versions of windows have gone gold compred to duke nuke 'em?

    Sounds like we have a new measurement for age once duke nuke 'em does come out.

    "Yeah, our software went gold in half a nuke"

  • Windows 2003 Server is due to release on April 24 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AdamBa ( 64128 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @11:10AM (#5615424) Homepage
    At least, this is true according to the giant banners with that date hung all over Microsoft's main campus, plus the digital sign near Building 26 that is counting down the days until it ships. It's for 2 other products besides Server, which I forget (Visual Studio and SQL, maybe?).

    - adam

  • Upgrading (Score:5, Informative)

    by Desult ( 592617 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @11:15AM (#5615463) Homepage
    The simple fact is that upgrading from NT4 is waaaaaaaay too hazardous to try. This seems like a joke, but it's not. My workplace upgraded from NT4 Terminal Server and some version of Citrix to Win2K and a newer version of Citrix, and it took us weeks and a ton of downtime to come even close to finished, because of conflicts with applications that had worked fine under NT4 TS, but now were crashing/running into permission blocks/etc under the new config. Not to mention the issues we had with upgrading profiles, and everything else. This is literally why our webserver is still NT4 SP6a, and our SQL server is MS SQL 7 on NT4. We're too afraid of the possible downtime associated with the upgrades of these absolutely critical boxes. True, the security risks could be just as bad, but when in doubt, my boss wants the status quo. My boss would love to go to a Unix, because it's free... but we've dumped an insane amount of money into licenses. So that's also impossible at this point. Good strangehold MS has, now that I think about it. =) -Greg

    • Re:Upgrading (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Malc ( 1751 )
      You're very confident, aren't you? Shouldn't you be thinking about the downtime if one of your NT4 boxes gets exploited? That'll be even more costly. Personally, I would budget for costs of upgrading on separate hardware and make the move in a controlled manner, not when forced to by the next worm.

  • NT4 uptime record?! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mrm677 ( 456727 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @11:15AM (#5615464)
    I've got a Dell server running NT4 with an uptime of over 500 days. The nice thing about such an old OS is that it doesn't get updated every 2-6 months! And because I'm behind a firewall, I don't need to worry about the recent vulnerability.

    If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

  • I can't imagine... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tarsi210 ( 70325 ) <nathan@nathan[ ]lle.com ['pra' in gap]> on Friday March 28, 2003 @11:28AM (#5615567) Homepage Journal
    I can't imagine that this will take off very fast. Here's my thinking on this one:
    • If you are a normal user, you could give a crap. No upgrade.
    • If you are a developer, you might upgrade if you can afford it/justify it/take the time to stress it out. But I can't see much development moving to 2003 anytime soon, other than just testing on it.
    • Most companies are in a bind, they've just figured out how to work 2K or XP upgades into their budgets/plans. 2003 is NOT going to be appealing for awhile.
    • If they've already upgraded to 2K, they're not going anywhere. 2K's been solid for me, and it seems like the rest of the world generally agrees. (YMMV) At least we know of a lot of the problems with 2K and (if you've kept up with it) the patches are applied. No surprises. 2003? It's like opening a present from your grandmother. You have no idea what's inside, but you're pretty sure you're not going to like it.
    • If you are using NT, you are either a) an NT zealot/whore and you wouldn't switch if God himself upgraded, b)you have so many scars from NT that you now feel obligated to your tormentor *crack!* Yes, Mistress!, or c) you are on NT for a reason...you have a 56 day uptime, the box sits in the corner under the donut rack, and has survived 3 major floods. You can't justify getting rid of it.
    So. Microsoft releases yet another product to mediocre reviews and sluggish market response. Next.

  • This is supposed to be an upgrade? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @11:35AM (#5615638)
    Microsoft is expected to announce on Friday that Windows Server 2003 has completed testing and has been certified final, or gold, code.

    Final code? Does that mean this one can't be
    fixed, either?

    With 35% of their server customers still using NT 4

    At least the NT4 users know what bugs they are dealing with. With 2003 you have the joy of discovering a whole new set of bugs. And having to pay for the privilege too.

    One man's upgrade in another man's pain in the ass. That's not a bug, that's a feature. Etc.

    Paugh.

Slashdot Top Deals

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Close