> That is total crap as Win2003 is based on WinXP code which
> was based on Win2K code and as such shares many of the same
> vulnerabilities.
>
> Do not consider installing Win2003 to be as "safe" as an
> unpatched Win2K installation.
The "default install" of Windows Server 2003 is much safer in many respects
than the default install of Windows 2000 Server. This is especially true
with the Web Edition.
As for reliability, it seems pretty good so far, and I've been recommending
it for use with our clients for about a month.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202) 797-5496
fax: (202) 797-5444
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
- RE: Windows 2000 or 2003 Server? Craig Dudley
- Windows 2003 editions: Web vs Standard [WAS Re:... Dave Watts
- Windows 2003 editions: Web vs Standard [WAS... John Paul Ashenfelter
- RE: Windows 2000 or 2003 Server? Dave Watts