Microsoft put up a site asking for feedback about Win2k3. All feedback submitted will be sent to the Windows Server Development Team for review and analysis. Your ideas can impact Windows Server in many ways, and might even be incorporated into new Service Packs, Feature Packs etc.
Windows Server Feedback Site Launched
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Its not up , move along nothing important here
Was that a joke? lol
Anyway, the site is up now.
It seems to go up and down for some reason.
…adversited around microsoft.com too. I think it’s good that Microsoft starts listening customers what they want instead of doing stuff that they think customer’s would want.
Anyway they should remove that freaking activation. No one likes it. I needed to reinstall XP because, for some mysterious reason network panel broke down (Icon didn’t do anything, restoring any previous configuration didn’t fix it.. something up with registry I guess)… it was around 01:00 at night, no one answered the phone. So blah, I wasn’t able to use my computer… For revenge I installed Slackware on my laptop too:)
The server is running windows 2000 BTW, I wonder why they havn’t upgraded it to 2003 server?
I’m sorry, but if you are legally using XP, then activation should not be ANY problem what so ever.
Activation is not there for you to like it, it is there to protect against casual copying.
CPUGuy,
It is hard to know what you are thinking there. Are you suggesting that if you have properly activated, then you will have no problem, because you don’t have enough brain cells to understand the problem? That is the most sensible interpretation I can make of your comment, but I have some doubt.
The way Microsoft does activation of operating systems makes them unreliable. A business would have to be foolish to put critical systems on a operating system that needs activation.
Think about this. A business critical system, running 3 years from now has a component failure. This is hypothetically after the release of Longhorn Server(or whatever they call it). The replacement pieces cause activation to be reattempted. There is no reason to think that activation will be possible. Nothing Microsoft has published gives me any confidence that it will be possible.(Note I said confidence, not hope) I have asked Microsoft Engineers about this and they have universally conceded that this is a problem, but all tell me I should not worry because Microsoft will do the right thing. Maybe they will and maybe they won’t. But, why trust your business to the hope that they will? And on a cynical note, they have failed to do the right thing so many times, that even hope can’t get me to trust them on a critical system.
BTW, I can’t get into the feedback site. I suspect it is a site so poorly designed that it needs cookies to display. Naturally, I have the common sense to never accept cookies.
Good day,
I put a new NVIDIA card in my computer and I was required to re-activate my copy.
Though I think that was just a freak occurrence.
For most businesses activation isn’t an issue. The corporate versions obtained through one of MS’ volume licensing programs don’t require activation.
One of the ways MS’ software is pirated is through illegal use of corporate keys (which provides a pretty good argument for why MS should make corporations activate as well — and some may prefer it to audits).
If activation is such a problem for you, you can join MS’ Open Licensing program. It’s pretty easy to do so even for individuals.
hang on – windows is not open source.
if MS want help with their OS then they should pay.
let’s see – maybe an hour for some decently written feedback – current rates that should be minimum of $50.
they have cash piled up so they should use it to improve their product – not have the cheek to ask for free help.
either that or be brave and go open source!
n4cer,
I will check into the Open Licensing. If it is what I think it is, there is no chance I would use it. MS has several programs that require you to put yourself in financial peril. MS describes it as requiring an MS Passport. MS is so aggresive in taking actions to harm their consumers that I have always seen that as a little bit of evidence that MS knows they are a monopoly. No company that had a serious competitor would treat their customers that way. Microsoft themselves acted differently in the early days when they did have competitors.
I have no first hand experience with the piracy you describe. I do not approve of it at all. But, I think you draw an improper concludion. Rather than requiring activation for business, they should drop it for all. Activation is not appropriate for an OS. I have only ever seen one situation where I thought activation was even remotely reasonable. That was for Tax prparation software where there was an explicit promise from the beginning to release code to disable activation after tax season. Unfortunately, they botched it by using an activation system that corrupted some user’s machines. But, that is an implementation complaint, not an objection on principle.
Activation is an issue for me. I doubt I will ever buy an OS that requires activation. I tried the Win 2003 Server for 5 months. It was a pretty uninspiring OS. I could not find any reason to buy it. Linux worked better in every test I could give it.
Good day,
Activation is a problem, you saying it isn’t doesn’t make it so.
My laptop had a component failure and I needed to reinstall windows while I was travelling*. It asked for activation and I couldn’t get MS to activate me, so I was out my most important tool for the trip and had to purchase a new laptop.
Mind you, I didn’t care so much because it wasn’t my money at stake. But if you are going to tell me the only people who have problems with activation are pirates shows you are not well informed enough.
MS would be better of if they fixed the problem with their licenses and prices. Like make a home license where you pay one acceptable price and be able to load windows onto any computer in that house.
*and as a sad side-note, it’s a pain to have to carry around my windows rescue disk because I know that it’s very possible that I might have to reinstall.
You can not carry in a bag a slim CD with the image of Windows and software for your laptop, but you can afford to buy new laptop when old fails….
Well, I wish I were you.:)
because you are not liking to it properly..
https://www.windowsserverfeedback.com/all/ActionController.aspx
should be:
https://www.windowsserverfeedback.com
“hang on – windows is not open source.
if MS want help with their OS then they should pay.”
And in the same vein, BMW + Mercedes should refund you, cause you found it a good idea to have cup holders in future cars, right?! 😉
“I needed to reinstall XP because, for some mysterious reason network panel broke down (Icon didn’t do anything, restoring any previous configuration didn’t fix it.. something up with registry I guess)…”
Yeah, i’ve seen this before, it happens when people delete the .cpl files or mess with the dllcache dir. Don’t try that at home.
Something funny happened lately. I bought an original Windows 2003 server and installed it. After installation when I tried to activate it it said something like “This product key has been activated many times so I can not”. I was like wtf, this a legitimate copy and It treats me like pirate
. Anyway I called microsoft and they activated it in 5 mins, didnt have any problem with the support, btw it was around 2 at night.
Overall, I didnt have much trouble with activating windows but I understand you guys and it can create some unwanted situations.
Come again Dave…..
your post makes no sense.
Wow, almost every post so far has been complete trollbait. Thats just phenominal. Anyways, its nice that Microsoft is continuing their push to further communication with their customers – its something they dearly need. I wish it was more along the lines of a weblog so you could actually create a dialogue (Win2k3 team obviously hasn’t met Scoble yet) with the team which is far more effective for inspiring consumer confidence than a web form.
I hope it produces results as well. win2k3 is probably the best OS Microsoft has ever made. Its fast, extremely stable and secure. At times, a little too secure. It only took them like ten years to listen to people but they finally have and the results are impressive.
When are you open source losers going to realize noone is making you use windows.
I’ll answer that question even though it is being asked by a fool. Many people are forced to use Windows, at work and at school. When a problem like this (re-activation) occurs it can be a real problem for a business or a student, especially when time is an issue and you don’t have another computer readily available.
win2k3 is probably the best OS Microsoft has ever made. Its fast, extremely stable and secure. At times, a little too secure. It only took them like ten years to listen to people but they finally have and the results are impressive.
It’s unfortunate that IE has to be a part of the OS and therefor destroy any security improvements that MS has made to 2003. For all the trouble MS went though to secure 2003, it won’t make a lick of difference with IE installed.
ok….your the fool…..any business who uses windows and has NOT aquired a corporate key that DOES NOT require activation is just stupid.
And at school how are you forced to use windows??? A school computer is maintained by the school and not you so if it crashes or something call the tech people to fix it.
troll on fool.
🙂
The way Microsoft does activation of operating systems makes them unreliable. A business would have to be foolish to put critical systems on a operating system that needs activation.
FYI, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Most companies that “put critical systems” on a box generally have an enterprise or select license that doesn’t require activation.
“It’s unfortunate that IE has to be a part of the OS and therefor destroy any security improvements that MS has made to 2003.”
You are barking the wrong tree, too. It is Windows 2003 SERVER we are talking about. One that is supposed to be administered by qualified person.
Even then, you must go to great lengths to make IE not secure on Win2003. Microsoft restricted IE very much, for people like you who are scared from browser engine embedded into OS.
Please describe default security related IE settings in Windows 2003 Server. I am sure you can’t. You don’t know.
I doubt you ever tried Win2003 or read a book about it. It shows.
I see your answer and it tells me you are used to dealing with only large companies. I help people mostly with small companies where there are less than 10 computers. In one notable case recently, I found a Windows 98 system running with no backups. If the system had failed, the company would have had major problems. Because of some specific software they were running(It would not run on Win2K or newer), I recommended an immediate upgrade to Windows NT 4 and a good backup schedule. The enterprise or select license would be inappropriate for most of the small companies I deal with. Oh, Microsoft might not agree, but these agreements have problems of their own that make them hard to recommend.
In a larger company with existing systems that need to be maintained, companies usually don’t have a choice and have to sign one.
p.s. I notice on several messages, people responded by changing the subject to an at sign followed by the person’s name they were reponding to. I have never noticed that convention before. I’ll try it, but I wonder where it came from. It does not seem particularly useful.
Spoken like a loyal thrall. I am sure Bill would approve of your comments. Reasoned discourse that speaks ill of MS must always be trollbait in your view.
I described a frequent scenario in which Microsoft’s licensing and activation make the product a poor choice. After 5 months of using Win 2003 Server, I can confidently say that there is not much to miss by staying away. Linux is better in most any way. I did not come to Linux because of a strong desire for open source. I came because Microsoft drove me away and I had to find an alternative.
As for IE being in Win 2003 Server, yes that is certainly a weakness. But, it is to be expected. You can remove IE from some MS OSes and improve their reliability in the short term. Unfortunately, IE is required for updates and considering how full of holes a MS OS is, you need to stay on top of updates.
And linux is the end all .. ?
http://www.linuxsecurity.com/advisories/
15 advisories for today alone.. across multiple distro’s; and now with OSX creeping up there with security holes.. one is to wonder …
It just seems that people complain that MS doesn’t listen to their customers (mostly anti MS people) and then when they make an attempt to do so, they get slammed for it..”pay me to make suggestions”.. “cheezy website and I don’t accept cookies” (silly rabbit, sessions are cookies too).
I for one am happy to see that MS is reaching out more publicly for feedback. In the past it just seemed like beta testers and people in their clique were the only ones providing feedback. Well, for all you complainers.. here’s your chance. Tell MS what you want. Stop being thick already.
..is like a mass-unnotified leak on the roof. It IS a leak: some vulnerabilities aren’t even fixed for months. Search for Liu MSIE Vulnerabilities or for the guy with the Russian name (Georgi […]) on your fav. search engine and you know it.
There’s not much discussion necessary on this subject. Action is necessary. Such problems need to be known by the masses, and fixed by Microsoft. Nothing new there, move along.
PS: Servers -generally- aren’t meant to run a GUI browser… why have that mandatory on a server? How am i supposed to use this product to install it on an embedded server system?
“15 advisories for today alone..”
Newsflash: Linux is merely a kernel.
You quote some site, and i see at least Ethereal there 2 times. The last vulnerability is about FreeBSD, and the Linux kernel vulnerability is about 2.2.x and is already partly fixed:
“We formerly believed that the exploitable vulnerability in 2.4.x does not exist in 2.2.x which is still true. However, it turned out that a second (sort of) vulnerability is indeed exploitable in 2.2.x, but not in 2.4.x, with a different exploit, of course.
[…]
For the unstable distribution (sid) these problems have been fixed in version 9.1 of Linux 2.2 kernel images for the sparc architecture.
This problem has been fixed for other architectures already.”
Anyway, my OS using the Linux kernel doesn’t come with Ethereal, PostGreSQL, CVS services enabled or wide open to the rest of the world. I’m also allowed to uninstall these when i’ve installed them, in an easy manner if i may add.
MSIE however doesn’t allow the above. A pity.
And yes, i agree those worms using the RPC vulnerabilities were also partly because of users not installing a proper firewall. Why give people (the whole Internet) the ability to use a service while you do not want any one on the Internet to use that service (counts for majority of users here). Why allow them on the Internet? If user knows one should have access, s/he should learn to read about it, understand the risks, and ie. allow it to only those people who s/he wants to allow such access to.
In theory the solution is that easy: give any LAN assigned IP address access and do not give any non-LAN assigned IP address any access — by default. An example of how Microsoft could improve their default security policy.
“You quote some site, and i see at least Ethereal there 2 times”
Duely noted. But the fact remains that this is ONE day.. Is EVERYONE running the latest kernel? ( I would liken any exploited machines to windows users not patching.).
Look, my point is simple. So long as it is written by human beings, the software will be fallable. I’m trying to get away from this distinction that one is better than the other “because”. It is fact that they all have their faults and they all have their benefits. If you’re happy with (“your”) Linux (Linus? is that you?), then more power to you. To me, it’s a tool. What ever blows your skirt up I guess.
“But the fact remains that this is ONE day..”
..and not about _one_ OS, but _multiple_*, which come with _more_ software allowed to be installed via package management than the latest Microsoft Windows versions. The compare is far from a nuance; actually i find it more of a convenience. When my 3rd party software firewall product contains a vulnerability i do not see Microsoft Windows putting a statement about it online, with a fix.
(* you bet that PostGreSQL vulnerability is / is going to be soon fixed in other Linux distributions as well.)
“Is EVERYONE running the latest kernel?”
Ofcourse not; how many people on this planet have local access on an unpatched Linux 2.2.x/SPARC kernel? Hence, impact: Very LOW.
Hostile websites exploiting MSIE are a much bigger threat for example.
“Look, my point is simple. So long as it is written by human beings, the software will be fallable. I’m trying to get away from this distinction that one is better than the other “because”. It is fact that they all have their faults and they all have their benefits.”
We do not have to argue on that since we agree on that as a rule of fist. When going deeper we’ll probably start disagree. I think many people agree on this one, but when we start to compare individual OSes (as done here!) diversity of opinions will occur.
I made my arguments for improvements in my earlier posts and i find them quite clear. There are more, and i do like the anti-spam and anti-popup features though it is a “bit” late IMO. And regarding anti-spam, i think a server-side solution by ISP’s is a more clean anti-spam implementation.
Text-based configuration files a la GNU/Linux
Emacs-based environment for the terminally oriented.
So, that’ll likely garner a guffaw or twa in ol’ Redmond.
Right in my street. I’d also argue: a *NIX compatible, powerful shell environment, and SSH. So much for heterogenous, easy managable networks…
According to my own computer building expirenece and pc ggamer and pc amgazine and maimum pc youneed to chage at least 3 items of hardware before reactivation is required sometimes more if it is a hot swap item where it is the same physical unit so you must move alot of hardware