"Doug White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 or 2003 Server?
> I am using Win 2003 Enterprise, and the system info says it is IIS 6.0
>
> ===
> Actually Win 2003 is IIS 5.2 and XP is IIS 6.x
>
> Don't ask me why. I just happen to have a Win 2003 server
> right here and a cfdump reveals IIS 5.2 :-)
There's something odd going on there, then, since Windows Server 2003
definitely comes with IIS 6. It's quite a bit different from the vers
ot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 or 2003 Server?
| Actually Win 2003 is IIS 5.2 and XP is IIS 6.x
|
| Don't ask me why. I just happen to have a Win 2003 server right here and a
| cfdump reveals IIS 5.2 :-)
|
| Also... as far as
appier.
-Novak
- Original Message -
From: "Doug White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 2:19 AM
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 or 2003 Server?
> You are incorrect.
> Win2k supports IIS 5.0 and Win 2003 is IIS
w Fusfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 9:50 AM
Subject: RE: Windows 2003 editions: Web vs Standard [WAS Re: Windows 2000 or
2003 Server?]
| We are using Windows Server 2003 Web Edition with ColdFusion MX 6.1
| stan
ton or getting
ready to.
Regards,
John Paul Ashenfelter
CTO/Transitionpoint
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Dave Watts
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 9:03 AM
Subject: RE: Windows 2000 or 2003 Server?
> That is total crap as Win2003 is based
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 10:02 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Windows 2003 editions: Web vs Standard [WAS Re: Windows
2000 or 2003 Server?]
The bulk of the reasons that the "default" install is safer is
that it turns off a lot of unnecessary services/etc. If you standard
fi
Ah ha! This explains a problem I've been hitting my head over. Thanks!
There are a number of subtle, yet significant differences between IIS 5
and 6 that I keep learning about and have made this Windows upgrade
challenging. All in all, though, I like the "lock everything down by
default" ph
Original Message -
From: Dave Watts
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 9:03 AM
Subject: RE: Windows 2000 or 2003 Server?
> 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
> vu
> 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
oup myself -
but the product is pretty sweet. I don't think that you'll go wrong by
adopting it early.
Jim Davis
-Original Message-
From: Doug White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 4:35 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 or 2003 Server?
As
satisfied with my service, my job isn't done!
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Tilbrook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 3:45 AM
Subject: RE: Windows 2000 or 2003 Server?
| That is total crap as
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 2 October 2003 6:35 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 or 2003 Server?
As one who is running servers in both configurations, I strongly recommend
the
Win 2003 server.
First, it does not have the vulnerabilities that are found in Win2k, and do
not
require patching any
Personally I'd wait for SP1 before even thinking about it. However, if
I had some wiggle room (meaning huge client wasn't going to kill me if
the server had a few hiccups), and upgrading to 2003 in 6 months or so
didn't look likely...it might be worth it to bite the bullet now
rather than be stuck
As one who is running servers in both configurations, I strongly recommend the
Win 2003 server.
First, it does not have the vulnerabilities that are found in Win2k, and do not
require patching anywhere near as often.
Second, Most services are default to OFF, which requires a little more attention
t
Had the same choice last week and went for 2003, MX doesn't have any
isues installing on either.
We went for 2003 as it's supposedly more stable/secure and is likley to
be supported longer.
Craig.
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Sabir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 02 October 2003 0
t Everland III
Dixon Ticonderoga
Web Developer Extraordinaire
-Original Message-
From: Jeffrey Polaski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 7:29 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Windows 2000 image serving
Well, I think the problem is from all those images. It's a lot for a bro
We are using a Raid 5.
Robert Everland III
Dixon Ticonderoga
Web Developer Extraordinaire
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 6:51 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Windows 2000 image serving
Image serving is completely I/O dependent
n [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 3:48 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Windows 2000 image serving
It's not the server speed at all. It's the speed of the client computer as
far as I can tell. The table you have assembling the images is quite
complicated, and the images
Image serving is completely I/O dependent. What type of disk subsystem
are you using?
-Matt
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Everland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 3:34 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: OT: Windows 2000 image serving
>
> I have a windows 2000 ser
It's not the server speed at all. It's the speed of the client computer as
far as I can tell. The table you have assembling the images is quite
complicated, and the images won't render until the table is completely
layed-out. Hence, you have the browser working overtime.
Check the processor le
> anyone installed this yet, any horror stories?
It's fine on my laptop, for what that's worth. I wouldn't expect any serious
problems with this, since it simply contains a bunch of individual patches
that have been out for a while.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voic
Nope, all fine!
__
Get Your Own Dedicated Windows 2000 Server
PIII 800 / 256 MB RAM / 40 GB HD / 20 GB MO/XFER
Instant Activation · $99/Month · Free Setup
http://www.pennyhost.com/redirect.cfm?adcode=coldfusionb
FAQ: http:/
I've installed it. One test and 3 production servers. All ok.
-Original Message-
From: Zac Spitzer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:07 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Windows 2000 Security Rollup Package 1
anyone installed this yet, any horror stories?
zac
__
ideas?
- Original Message -
From: "Conrad Classen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 11:54 PM
Subject: RE: Windows 2000 fatal shutdown?
> Replace the Adaptec Controller. From what you are saying it
&
Replace the Adaptec Controller. From what you are saying it
Seems it may have a problem.
Conrad
-Original Message-
From: BILLY CRAVENS [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 31 October 2001 11:28
To: CF-Talk
Subject: OT: Windows 2000 fatal shutdown?
Sorry for the off-topic post, but I know
: Friday, June 01, 2001 7:12 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 NLB
Store session info in a database instead of in CF memory.
Robert
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, J
client variables can be stored in a database, not sessions.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 7:12 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 NLB
Store session info in a database instead of in CF memory.
Robert
Store session info in a database instead of in CF memory.
Robert
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 9:57 AM
Subject: RE: Windows 2000 NLB
> To anyone that care
To anyone that cares I have found that using a Layer 3 switch requires some extra
fiddling with nlb. I have substitued the switch for a 100m hub and and runs perfectly.
Here is a question though. Regardless of if you use nlb, cc or a hardware solution.
What do you guys do if the server that
NLB is free and worth every penny.
In your configuration, all traffic is still coming into the first machine
and then half of that is sent to the other. So one has twice as many
connections as the second. Where is the real benefit?
You are much better off using ClusterCATS with or without a hardw
that effect the functionality
of certain tags.
If your time and lack of newer features is worth the money you might
save, might as well give it a try.
-Original Message-
From: Jim McAtee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: January 31, 2001 14:12
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Pr
> Thanks. Afraid I'd much rather install any Windows OS clean
> rather than upgrading, which is another set of headaches. For
> a new server, of course, it's also twice as fast. I wonder
> what it would take to get CF 4.0.1 to install directly into
> Win2k.
It'll install directly in Win2K wit
al Message -
From: "Zachary Bedell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 11:45 AM
Subject: RE: Windows 2000 Professional and CF Server 4.0.1
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> 4.0.1 works gr
8 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Professional and CF Server 4.0.1
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Aidan Whitehall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31,
- Original Message -
From: "Aidan Whitehall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 7:09 AM
Subject: RE: Windows 2000 Professional and CF Server 4.0.1
> > Allaire does not support anything less tha
> Allaire does not support anything less than cf4.5 on a WIN2K box.
OK, thanks.
--
Aidan Whitehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Netshopper UK Ltd
Advanced Web Solutions & Services
http://www.netshopperuk.com/
Telephone +44 (01744) 648650
Fax +44 (01744) 648651
~~~
Allaire does not support anything less than cf4.5 on a WIN2K box.
Regards,
Howie
- Original Message -
From: "Aidan Whitehall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 7:20 AM
Subject: Windows 2000 Professional and CF Server 4.0.1
> We're
Why FAT?
Dave Adams
CFUG Ottawa
- Original Message -
From: Aidan Whitehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 7:20 AM
Subject: Windows 2000 Professional and CF Server 4.0.1
> We're having problems installing CF Server 4.0.1 onto a Windo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sarcasm aside, there's too many to have in one list. First stop, try
Microsoft Knowledge Base Search:
http://search.support.microsoft.com/kb/c.asp
You can usually find any and all errors there.
Aaron Johnson, MCSE, MCP+I
Allaire Certified ColdFusi
PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 04 October 2000 02:43
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Windows 2000??
> Are we talking about the server or professional version of
> Windows 2000, I have bee
> Are we talking about the server or professional version of
> Windows 2000, I have been running the Professional version
> since beta testers were allowed to get their hands on it.
> And I agree its much more stable than its predecessor ever
> was. However I have problems with Windows 2000 Ad
Gee. What a surprise ;-)
At 08:27 AM 10/3/00 -0400, you wrote:
>The only difference I have noticed (running win2k on IBM Thinkpad A20m,
>P3 700 MHz) is that my applications run really slow in Netscape 4.x
>while lightening fast in IE 5.
--
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--1A63A52CF65E0882AEA90760
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The only difference I have noticed (running win2k on IBM Thinkpad A20m,
P3 700 MHz) is that my applications run really slow in Netscape 4.
eeded:-)
regards
Andrew Scott
ANZ eCommerce Centre
* Ph 9273 0693
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Mark W. Breneman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 03 October 2000 08:57
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Windows 2000??
For me W2k was THE FIX for Cf studio (On win 98). I have no
anced Server version of Windows 2000
regards
Andrew Scott
ANZ eCommerce Centre
* Ph 9273 0693
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Marcus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 03 October 2000 06:22
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Windows 2000??
I'm using 2000, and I love it.
For me W2k was THE FIX for Cf studio (On win 98). I have not run into
anyone that has the studio resource "hog" (40+% resources) problem with W2K.
Maybe I will find a few people here that have problems.
It "Rocks" for a M$ product.
I reboot once a week.
Mark W. Breneman
-Cold Fusion Developer
Windows 2000 Professional is a great development environment. I would
recommend moving up from 98 if you can spare the time to reinstall
applications etc.
Because there are still a few tools and utilities that won't work with it,
and you won't know what they are in most cases until it is too late
I'm using 2000, and I love it. Much more stable then anything else I've
used. Studio still blows up, by Win2K just staggers a bit, then continues
on. So far, it's been 2 months without a reboot :)
Marcus
> How many of you are using Windows 2000 on your pc? I am getting really
> tired of win98 p
I've had no problems with it yet.
I love the new interface too.
Cold Fusion is running fine.
-Russ
--
Russell Jones
Webmaster
ImproveNow.com
Phone: 207.236.0146
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: "HappyToad.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 12:44:1
I use Win2k Pro for my development machine and couldn't be happier.
Ken
- Original Message -
From: HappyToad.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 12:44 PM
Subject: Windows 2000??
> How many of you are using Windows 2000 on your pc? I
I'm using a Dell laptop with Win2k pro, works great, stuff actually works.
Biggest benefit besides IIS actually working all the time is that
the hibernate mode always works. You put it into hibernate, takes about
15 seconds. When you want to use it again it starts up in about 15 seconds.
Highly
I use win2K Server on my laptop and desktop and haven't had any problems
yet. I like that fact of not having to reboot everytime I make a change to
my network settings.
Kevin Schmidt
Internet Services Director
PWB Integrated Marketing and Communications
Office: 734.995.5000
Mobile: 734.649.4843
Change now! That is, if you have lots of memory (256K?) My last reboot: 2
weeks ago... CF studio is a charm, except for the Alt+Tab bug.
-Original Message-
From: HappyToad.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 9:44 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Windows 2000??
Ho
WIN2K kicks righteous butt :-)
Seriously, though - it is stable as heck and great for a development
environment (it even runs games :-)
Regards,
Howie
- Original Message -
From: "HappyToad.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 12:44 P
I've been running Win2K Professional on my laptop and it hasn't crashed
once. The apps may hang but the OS stays up.
-Original Message-
From: HappyToad.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 12:44 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Windows 2000??
How many of you are using Wi
win2K is more stable than 98, that's for sure. Personally, I still like NT
more, even if it doesn't support USB and all that other fun stuff. I
recommend W2K if it's a choice between that and 98, though.
~Simon
-Original Message-
From: HappyToad.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Mond
> Does anyone know how to set up symbolic links for downloads
> with Cold Fusion on an IIS 5/Windows 2000 server? I need to
> be able to offer selected files for downloads, but do not want
> to point the user to the actual file.
>
> Windows 2K is supposed to support symbolic links.
It does suppo
This really isn't a problem. Don't have AD on servers with lots of IP
addresses. MS recommends AD on separate machines in large enterprises anyway
and I agree with that. So this seems to be a non-issue unless there is a
different problem.
- Steve Pierce
-Original Message-
From: Mike A
59 matches
Mail list logo
