Microsoft has set 12 March as the release to manufacture date for the six new versions of its server operating system, paving the way for a shipping date of 29 April. The six versions of Windows Server 2003 due to launch in April will be followed by a seventh, called Windows Small Business Server 2003, due late summer.
Microsoft Sets Windows Server 2003 RTM Date
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
How much does it cost? :o)
how much do you got? `->
The first thing they “protect” is webpages, the first thing they protect those webpages from, is mozilla.
They have been convicted for this exact thing.
They don’t have a grain of respect for the law.
Do you think it’s quite resource-intensive to support all those different versions of Windows 2003?
I wonder why they don’t instead try to release a server specific and a desktop specific version of Windows instead. It would make their lives much easier and be less expensive to maintain.
Obviously there’s a reason why they don’t. It would be cool to know it.
The first thing they “protect” is webpages, the first thing they protect those webpages from, is mozilla.
They have been convicted for this exact thing.
They don’t have a grain of respect for the law.
I’ve noticed the same thing (with Opera in place of Mozilla) and not just in regards to MSN (which Microsoft ended up “fixing”)
Try http://www.starfactor.net/ (a web site developed in ASP.NET) in Opera. What do you get?
Server Error in ‘/Portal’ Application.
Oddly enough, if you identified as MSIE from Opera 6 (i.e. before the “Identify as MSIE” option still sent a User-Agent containing the word “Opera”) the site worked fine with Opera.
The site works fine in virtually any other browser. I’ve met the person who maintains it and I don’t believe he added anything to single out Opera specifically, so I’m wondering if it’s some odd aspect of ASP.NET.
>>Tennant said 70 percent of the development time that went >>into the Windows Server 2003 platform was spent on >>simplifying, tweaking, and improving security. “It is more >>of an evolution than a revolution
Makes me wonder..improving security….sure. But how much
improving is needed if you deliver software that always
contains very very very serious bugs and security holes?
70%? They better made it 85%..It never changes again they tell you its all so nice stable and secure etc..but in the end its old wine in new bottles…no matter how often you change the name it is still a piece of bloated, unstable, unsecure, virus magnet software.
If you need a good server try Linux, Solaris or FreeBSD.
If you need good webservices go to IBM , Oravle or SUn.
Microsoft is a desktop OS not a server OS!
I know many will disagree but that is the beauty of open speech and freedom of speech.
>>The site works fine in virtually any other browser. I’ve met the person who maintains it and I don’t believe he added anything to single out Opera specifically, so I’m wondering if it’s some odd aspect of ASP.NET.
All my ASP.NET stuff works in Opera.
Six different versions? I guess that MS’s idea of “choice”!
“Obviously there’s a reason why they don’t. It would be cool to know it.”
There is. Licensing fees. It’s ALL money. Tweak a little bit of code here, a little there, and charge more.
What was the price difference in NT 4 Workstation Vs. Server? How pathetically easy was it to hack the registry and make Workstation boot up as Server?
Now what’s the price difference on 2k Server, Advanced Server, Enterprise Server, Server for Really Big Companies, Server for Not So Big Companies, etc? Anyone care to guess what the actual coding differences are?
What? Now I have to Read The Manual by a certain date?? Bugger off MS.
i guess they made an error, RTM = RTFM!
RTFM = Real Trouble For Microsoft
i’d be interested in what their plans are…
The RCs of 2003 server have been very promising, with several key enhancements to the underlying operation of components.
The security model has been improved incredibly, and leaving the ‘turning on’ of features to the end administrator is how it should have been from the beginning.
I believe MS are finally beginning to realise most sys admins are clued up folks, rather than cowboys who install an OS and go….
And for the people bitching about the number of versions – there have always been a wide variety of server versions, each with a specific target userbase, each with a specific number of tools and server components to justify the use of different names.
>>>most sys admins are clued up folks
that should read “microsoft admins”, and microsoft maybe convinced…but i’m not. maybe the good microsoft admins are up north or something…they are not here in texas.
>>>And for the people bitching about the number of versions*snip*
it’s about money, lets not pretend it’s anything else.
many companies are still on nt 4.0 domains. i’d be interested in what their plans are…
the easy path should be: Linux/*BSD + Samba…
Sooner or later people are going to wise up that Windows is doing nothing special for them as a server… except costing them tons of money in software fees and running licensing checks on their network and running other spyware. If the Microsoft Xpy-On-You server detects a licensing violation, it classifies you as a criminal and automatically calls the Cybercrime Police.
Unless you are some government and have cut a spyware deal with Microsoft, who in their right mind would sign up for Microsoft’s Xtreme Punishment servers?
Errrr… Heh…
You’ll like this:
Windows is more stable than Linux… Read here -> http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/os/story/0,2000024997,20272277,00….
To invest or not in them…
Go figure…
It was interesting reading the article referenced by BP that the server company making the statement of Windows superiority has less than one percent market share. ZdNet would have had a more credible headline if they had acknowledged that fact before the end of the article. The person at Stratus mentioned Intel hardware as being less expensive because it was not proprietary. I guess he did not see the irony of his statement, using more costly, proprietary software on non-proprietary hardware.
Want to know what is even more ironic? the only thing that is non-proprietary is the CPU, the rest, the motherboard, chipset, fault-tollerance etc etc are all proprietary. It would be like SGI saying their systems are proprietary because you can buy and license MIPS processors.
The site http://www.stratus.com is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) mod_perl/1.21 on HP-UX. FAQ
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.stratus.com
they scream and promote Windows 2000 yet, they don’t want to use it themselves. Conclusion, they want to sell you a Windows 2000 Server so that you also buy their latest gee-wizz service package which costs an arm and a leg, but of course, your average CEO, who is as thick as two short planks and twice as ugly would never read between the lines.
Most CEO’s are like flies, drawn towards flashy, shiny and bright things.