Before Red Sky CF MX didn't recognise 2003 IIS properly and failed. So you had to fiddle around at the backend a bit.
That was all. Nothing major. I have a number of commercial websites running MX under 2003 and am having no issues with it. > -----Original Message----- > From: Lucas Sherwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 31 October 2003 12:05 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [ cf-dev ] New servers , use 2003 or 2000 > > > i must admit that it is a prudent standpoint to not trust any product till > at last some water has gone under the bridge... > > but i am interested to hear why you say that this is a problem with > ColdFusion MX? > water has passed under the bridge. > > L. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 10:59 AM > Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] New servers , use 2003 or 2000 > > > > I don't suspect you will have any issues per say.....I just > don't trust MM > > products from a security standpoint as first editions........ > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 31 October 2003 10:48 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] New servers , use 2003 or 2000 > > > > Well, > > As of Red Sky Macromedia caters for 2003. > > > > I'm also looking at the box as an excercise in skill development, having > had > > a unix box before hand. > > > > Unfortunately I am sooo snowed under with work, that getting > anywhere near > > the box and messing around has been almost impossible. > > > > I honestly haven't had any issues with my one lonely box. > > > > Adam > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX) > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 31 October 2003 10:35 > > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > > Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] New servers , use 2003 or 2000 > > > > > > > > > LOL :-) the Grolsch (?) advert where everythings "not ready yet"! > > > > > > We are a 99.9% Microsoft house and we are rolling out Windows > > > 2003 / Windows > > > XP (and beyond) across our global network - something like 37,000 > > > machines...... We did not go for Windows 2003 as, we know that with > > > all Microsoft products its got at least 2-3 Service Packs awaiting it > > > - with one > > > already in the making. Obviously our case is extreme as we have so > > > many nodes to cater for etc... > > > > > > Macromedia did not support 2003 out of the box as far as I know....and > > > in that instance, Neo was never really tested against it - so it's a > > > case of why upgrade when I know its been tested on 2K... > > > > > > If I need to upgrade when SP1 comes out.....then all the better ;-) > > > > > > Besides.....if you are not likely to use any of the Windows 2003 > > > features other then IIS then why bother? > > > > > > Just because its new doesn't mean its better.....think of how many > > > people still use NT!! > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Adam Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 31 October 2003 10:12 > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] New servers , use 2003 or 2000 > > > > > > I know this is being pedantic, but which advertisement? > > > > > > I had to make a decision on this a couple of months ago, and decided > > > that > > > win2003 was a better future proof option. > > > > > > I have had no issues with the machine. Quite solid really. > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX) > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: 31 October 2003 09:28 > > > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > > > Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] New servers , use 2003 or 2000 > > > > > > > > > > > > I really do disagree.. As the advertisement states...."it's > not ready > > > > yet"..... Seriously give it at least one service packs...to go > > > > for it due > > > > to the lock down features (which can be actioned manually in > > > > 2000) is not a > > > > reason to upgrade. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Adam Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: 30 October 2003 23:35 > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] New servers , use 2003 or 2000 > > > > > > > > Go with 2003. > > > > > > > > Starts off all locked down and you open up the services you need. > > > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX) > > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Sent: 30 October 2003 14:49 > > > > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > > > > Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] New servers , use 2003 or 2000 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally I would stick with Windows 2000 as Windows 2003 is > > > > > still a tad flakey with CF....too many workarounds....give it at > > > > > least one more Service Pack methinks......and for Native 2003 > > > > > support out of the box regarding MM. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Justin MacCarthy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Sent: 30 October 2003 14:53 > > > > > To: Cfuk > > > > > Subject: [ cf-dev ] New servers , use 2003 or 2000 > > > > > > > > > > I haven't used Win 2003 yet, is it ready for prime time, with > > > > > CFMX6.1 or should we install win 2000 on a new server? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Justin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > ** Archive: > > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > For human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > ** Archive: > > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > For human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ** Archive: > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ** Archive: > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For > > > human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- > > > ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For > > > human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For > human > > help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- > > ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > -- > ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
