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 running on
Win2003 for a couple months now and couldn't be happier.
-Novak
----- Original 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 are not needed in
Win2003 as
> the release is a redesign.
> For instance the ISAPI filter URLScan is not needed on Win 2003.
>
> This is not to say that one should not keep up with patches as they are
made
> available.
>
> CFMX 6.1 install on Win2003 is straight forward and relatively easy when
> compared to the CFMX 6.0 install on Win2k and appears to be more stable.
>
> IIS6.0 is faster than IIS 5.0
>
>
> ======================================
> 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: "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 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.
> |
> | -----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]
