> M$ is getting a better handle on security would you agree? Do you consider > this important for your own equipment as well as your clients?
Not "better", because "better than what? Their own crappy (in)security issues from the past? As I see it their security problems are "less bad" than in the past, but poorly implemented from what I have experienced with Vista. I do feel security is important, and with the remaining security issues, or aggravating impediments with the UAC interface popping into action at nearly every turn until turned off, their implementation of "better/less bad security" shows what it really is - M$ security is just another bolt-on effort as opposed to a core feature designed within the underpinnings of a secure OS. > I see that Server 2008 is getting ready to replace all those 2003 servers. > Do you think that that is a good move or should you stick with 2000 because > it's still good? I really liked Server 2000, but since I do have MSDN I moved to 2003 Server one machine at a time. I thought it went well, until I recommended Server 2003 to a client last year. They have a 128k connection between 3 locations. I knew my VFP app would work well over a LAN at 100mps, but felt the 128k connections would be better served using Windows Terminal Server. I priced their new Dell Server and Server 2003 OS with the needed CALs (User CALs), and rolled out the app. Short story, I do not plan to move to Server 2008 with clients who only need a File Server. I will use 2008 myself on one machine just to become familiar with it, maybe. Here is why... It turns out M$, which had provided Terminal Service at no additional charge with NT4 and Server 2000, had a little change up their sleeve with Server 2003. I was allowed to set up Terminal Services (as I had done on my own Server 2003 system to test TS previously), and it worked great when I lit it up over an Internet VPN, and across their 128k connection. Somehow or another I later came across some info re: their new Server 2003 TS license policy. I would get TS for 6 months after its initial implementation, but after that it would die until I purchased their new TS CALs, essentially doubling the CAL cost of their Server 2003 OS. I feel M$ is certainly entitled to charge what they wish for their OS and CALs. But since it was not made clear to me at the time I was setting up the TS that additional CALs were needed (even on my own 2003 Servers when I was testing TS, I never saw any warning or advisory pop up.), I feel the 6 month "free use" was nothing more than a little trap that would get End Users using and dependent on TS, then cut them off until they paid an extortion fee for the additional TS CALs. I scrambled to find some older XP Pro licenses purchased in a timeframe that allowed me to get a few No Charge TS CALs (that program expired last year), but it was not enough to cover what I anticipate their needs to be. So it was ME who had to put aside the money for additional TS CALs to handle any future TS needs of my client (since I did not know of the TS CAL fees I did not quote them, and I try to be at least fair with my client, not ambush them after the fact like I feel MS did in this case). So, it was at that moment I decided any future File Servers I would quote would be based on Linux, period. No more silly-assed CAL fees. If I need to push data across a thin-net connection I will migrate to PostgreSQL and send little data squirts with VFP parameterized Remote Views (until I migrate entirely away from VFP "some day"). If I must use a M$ Server OS with TS, I will try to put Server 2000 in (it is still available from various vendors), and get the free TS. M$ stung me hard this one time, and managed to buy my bad-will. It will cost them future Server OS and/or TS CAL license fees from my clients. Gil -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Stephen Russell Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [NF] Windows XP OR Windows Vista ??? On Jan 17, 2008 7:14 AM, Helio W. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Vista? You're going to regret this. > > I told the same thing to a guy last year and now he's switching to XP > Professional. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- I know that there is a reluctance to move forward with this group. Messages like these drip with FUD for all the wrong reasons. M$ is getting a better handle on security would you agree? Do you consider this important for your your own equipment as well as your clients? I am waiting on getting a new laptop, I already have the purchased OS for it. < OK I won the dvd at a .NET group :) > I see that Server 2008 is getting ready to replace all those 2003 servers. Do you think that that is a good move or should you stick with 2000 because it's still good? -- Stephen Russell Sr. Production Systems Programmer Mimeo.com Memphis TN 901.246-0159 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
