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.
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug White [mailto:[EMAIL 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 anywhere near as often.
Second, Most services are default to OFF, which requires a little more
attention
to configuration, but it is easier to leave unused or unneeded services
turned
off.
Third, the interface is XP like and requires less technical expertise to set
up
and maintain,
======================================
Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway!
For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com
Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 and all databases.
ISP rated: http://www.forta.com/cf/isp/isp.cfm?isp_id=772
Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf
======================================
If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Sabir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 3:00 AM
Subject: Windows 2000 or 2003 Server?
| Hi all,
|
| I'm looking at setting up a new CFMX installation and have been given
| the option of Windows 2000 Server , or 2003 Server.
|
| Which would be the safer option?
|
| Not had having a great deal of experience with 2003 I was going to say
| 2000, but are there any significant advantages of 2003?
|
| thanks, bye!
|
| -----------------------
| Ryan Sabir
| Newgency Pty Ltd
| 2a Broughton St
| Paddington 2021
| Sydney, Australia
| Ph (02) 9331 2133
| Fax (02) 9331 5199
| Mobile: 0411 512 454
| http://www.newgency.com/index.cfm?referer=rysig
|
|
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
