The software giant’s latest operating system saves data to tape using a slightly different format than earlier versions of Windows, a Microsoft representative said Thursday. While older tapes can be read by Windows Server 2003, the opposite isn’t true for the new OS. A patch will be finished soon.
Backup Flaw Found in Windows 2003 Server
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
49 Comments
2003-05-23 11:53 am
2003-05-23 12:21 pm
2003-05-23 12:59 pm
2003-05-23 1:01 pm
2003-05-23 1:16 pm
2003-05-23 1:47 pm
2003-05-23 2:00 pm
2003-05-23 2:10 pm
2003-05-23 2:31 pm
2003-05-23 2:59 pm
Anonymous
Kris:
I hate to tell you this, but Bill Gates’ salery is only like $250,000 a year… he doesn’t make his money off of working for MS… 
Tell me, how do you know what is under the hood of Windows? Have you ever seen the source code?
Heck, have you ever used Win2k3?
Didn’t think so.
2003-05-23 4:08 pm
2003-05-23 4:10 pm
2003-05-23 4:33 pm
2003-05-23 4:39 pm
2003-05-23 5:43 pm
2003-05-23 6:03 pm
2003-05-23 8:47 pm
2003-05-23 9:03 pm
at least it’s not a security hole ;-).
W2K3: read older NT/W2K tapes = YES
NT4/W2K: read new W2K3 tapes = NO
Effects only the cheesy built in backup app, so only cheap-asses need to worry.
And when the list grows really long and Microsoft puts out a service pack which also manages to add new bug-ridden features and make stuff that used to work stop working… and of course the service pack cannot be uninstalled or selectively uninstalled.
We will still have Microsoft worshippers saying that “we need closed source from a software monopoly, dammit!”.
Why pay so much money for a operating system that lacks quality?
Ok, I’m hardly a Windows advocate (in fact, just the opposite), but – come on. This isn’t exactly the kind of flaw you throw an OS in the trash for. I’m surprised it’s even being reported. I wouldn’t install WinAnything on my machine if you payed me, but really — if you have to resort to this kind of nit-picky-ness in order to criticize a product, why do you even bother? It’s pure trolling.
This attitude makes me laugh. Have you ever seen Red Hat’s errata list? There’s a new flawed package nearly every day.
I’m not defending Microsoft, I’m just saying, the comments in this thread are typical of people who want to hate Microsoft. First off, it’s not a big deal unless you have a mixed environment. Secondly, it’s not a security risk. Thirdly, there’s a patch in the works (note: patch, not fix).
This is only notable as it’s the first issue with Server 2003.
1) I’ve been modded down, however, I certainly don’t take it personally. If you were an adult you’d look back and realise what you wrote was in the “heat of the moment”. All of us have done that.
2) I am surprised this wasn’t caught during the beta testing as I would have expected atleast a reasonable number of people testing Windows 2003 in a mixed environment.
3) Most tape drives I know come with VERY good builtin tape back up software, especially the likes of Seagate and Onstream. The only time I could see when one would want to use the builtin back up tool is when the bundled backup software doesn’t work with the operating system they’re using.
Is it necessary for you to do this in every windows thread? Believe me, we know you’d rather have sex with a porqupine than use windows. Its clear already. You can stop it now.
Ast least they have identifed a problem, and are in the process of fixing it. But why oh why would u want to read tapes created by Windows 2003 Server in a W2K server or even a NT Server is a bit weird, although I think if the 2003 server install went smothly, you would not need to access tapes in an older system.
I’ve only been reading the discussions here for a short while but its very old already.
Its almost like some people in the world need to criticise other OSes just to make themselves feel better in their own mind that they HAVE actually made a good decision that wasn’t totally influenced by frenzied ideology. “This is it!” they think to themselves, “you see, I DID make the right decision to use this OS!”
I had forgotten to post in your review about 2003 server. Someone had told me that it did not come with IE. I don’t know if they based this on quickly looking at the start menu or not, but I don’t have a trial copy to verify it.
then you don’t have a worry …
Adam’s comment comparing RH’s errate to MS’s, is right on the mark. You don’t want to hear about it and that’s your problem.
BOTTOM line is, all consumer OSes have bugs and problems and they suck in more than one ways, deal with it. If you want 100% bug-free software, you better talk to NASA or to the military to send you a copy of their OSes.
It comes with IE version 6.0.3790.0
I have not seen NASA code, but I doubt it’s 100% bug free, but I get your point(I’m just messing with ya).
“Adam’s comment comparing RH’s errate to MS’s, is right on the mark. You don’t want to hear about it and that’s your problem.”
On the contrary, I’d love to hear about it. I can’t wait for the next article about Red Hat, so that we can bash it as well
I agree that the comparison was accurate, I just disagreed upon the appropriateness of the comparison in the given context. Again, I didn’t think this flaw was a big deal either.
The comment that OS’s “suck in more than one ways” is also accurate, but it really sounds depressing when said like that!
Unlike some folks at MS, RH and other OS professionals actively invite people to suggest improvements and to point out bugs. That why there are new bugs every day. Microsoft uses a marketing model that very often puts profit ahead of quality. Think: Business works this way! Linux is not a business it is an open source OS made by volunteers. Microsoft is just fine and so is Red Hat
Richard: And guess how these companies make proffit? Oh, that’s right, by satisfying their customers… well gee, who would have thought that?
Microsoft runs a big system for suggesting improvements or new features for anything on their product line… I guess you just never bothered to look, what a suprise.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb%3ben-us%3…
Isn’t NTBackup a waste of time and effort for the true enterprise type stuff? Like backing up all your servers onto 1 or 2 tapes? And also useless for rapid disaster recovery (thinking like BackupExec IDR Agent)…
Adam’s comment comparing RH’s errate to MS’s, is right on the mark. You don’t want to hear about it and that’s your problem.
No it was not, RedHat is open-source/free software so bugs a faster found, made public and easier repaired. Microsoft Software is closed software, you never know how many bugs/holes it containes.Besides that Microsoft has a very long history of shortcming, very serious bugs, lying, cheating and holding back information. Windows in general is a product that always contains very very seroius bugs and security issues no matter how often you change the name, box or marketing campaign.
OpenBSD, Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 7 years! (and thats because its fee and open software!) Windows NEVER will get there NEVER!
If you don’t want to hear about it and that’s your problem.
Yes, for enterprise it is a waste of time, however, it is there for small businesses who don’t require the super-duper high end features that a seperate backup tool will provide.
A piece of software WITH A BUG ??? That’s definitelly a first. Hey, let’s kill the front, we have the scoop of the century….
I don’t think you can make any comparison between number of bugs in Red Hat Linux and Windows. Such a comparison is far too subjective and inaccurate. For one, Red Hat includes far more in their distribution than the base Windows release (…flogging dead horse, nothing to see here, etc.)
I am a Linux advocate myself, but I would also agree that such a small bug as this is nothing to be crying “damn Microsoft to hell!” about all over again.
… stupid idiots…
Please show be that stupid guy who restores under 2000/XP things what backuped under 2003!
How about restore backups from linux under 2003?! Huge problem i think!
)) This is bug in 2003 (or Linux?)!
god forbid they improve the backup program! just like a brand new document from any brand new software will not be read from older versions. This is not a bug, it’s a feature. At least they are working on a patch, which more than likely is for server 2000 not 2003.
At least this is what I hope is the case. Backups are important, just like filesystems. Redhat 6 would not be able to read a reiserFS partition without a patch.
now stop bitching and wait for a real bug, security hole or whatever, you geeks will not convince anyone on here that MS are evil since most people reading this already use linux anyway! If it really annoys you that much that MS are successful put your effort into some useablility apps for linux instead of bitching on here all day every day. Maybe a system wide context sensitive help system. or even a help file that doesn’t say “todo: write help file”
Not really, I’d say Amoral, their sole concern is making sure that there income is always greater than their expendasure…
But this leads to serious problems when faced with OS faults, basically, they’re not fixed untill a big customer or big media forum breaks the news. Just how many MSN accounts have been infiltrated as a result of their wait till the last minute fix ideal…
I must admit that of all of the first big problems that their OS’s have had since 95 came out, this has got to be the smallest so far. Just why would someone want to read a tape written by 2003 in 2kpro or XPpro anyway??? Pretty pathetic on the grand scale of M$ screw ups, even on the top ten this year list this doesn’t get a lookin
Of all the legitimate claims the Linux crowd could make against M$, why pick this one? It just hurts there own cause as far as I can see.
Oh and I use M$ deliberately, I don’t care if its not seen as “cool”. I personally see it as a protest to their way of doing “buissness”, but there you go.
Is micro$oft an evil empire?
Don’t worry, everyone else stopped reading right there.
Coocoo Puffs Wrote:
Don’t worry, everyone else stopped reading right there.
Whatever….
I note that you couldn’t attack the post in any constructive way, never mind. I’m sure you’ll think of something someday.
Maybe you missed the point. No one is going to take you seriously. Just as if you had said Microsoft is a ca-ca head, or a doodey face. It doesn’t instill confidence.
I have one for you, apply the hisec template. Now apply the basic template. Yeah, reinstall. Worked on 2K, why not 2K3?
The same thing exists with DLT 4000 which was replaced with DLT 7000 mechanisms
DLT 7000 can read DLT4000, but not the other way around. Did anyone say that DLT7000 was flawed?
LOL! Lets compare W2K’s errata to RedHat 8 or 9’s and paint an honest picture. There are over 100 “fixes” in SP2 alone.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=