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
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
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
: 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 anywhere near
are not 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 Win2003 is based on WinXP code which was based
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 one who is running servers in both configurations, I strongly
recommend the
Win 2003
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
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
vulnerabilities.
Do not consider installing Win2003 to be as safe
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 philosophy
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
firewall/DMZ
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 on WinXP code which
was based on Win2K code and as such shares many
[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
| standard; similar setup to you in that it is a 1U
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 6.0
There are patched vulnerabilities in IIS 5.0 which
: 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 Win2003 is concerned.I've had CFMX 6.1
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 version
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
==
Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway!
For hosting solutions http
16 matches
Mail list logo
