wbhigdon
join:2003-10-29
Bessemer, AL | SP2 but what about W2K
Well I have 80 or 90 WXP boxes. They'll get
SP2. However W2K is still a supported product.
What about my 30 or 40 W2K Boxes???
It's not like we're asking for new features
just security updates.. Sheesh. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| said by wbhigdon  :
What about my 30 or 40 W2K Boxes???
Looks like you gotta go purchase 30 or 40 WinXP licenses  |
|
wbhigdon
join:2003-10-29
Bessemer, AL
| said by pnh102 :
said by wbhigdon :
What about my 30 or 40 W2K Boxes???
Looks like you gotta go purchase 30 or 40 WinXP licenses
Well in the mean time... I guess i'll turn us into a
FireFox Shop.. IE is so easy to manage via AD. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to pnh102
While I don't like the fact that you may need to upgrade a working solution, you probably should consider upgrading to XP. Nothing lasts forever and most manufactures only provide free fixes for a reasonable period of time. My organization still has a few 98 and NT workstations. We realize that they need to go since the hardware is ready to die even if the OS is still providing an adequate solution.
Regarding the IE alternatives, this is nothing more than the press hyping alternatives. Everyone loves an underdog but the sad truth is that when the alternatives gain press coverage, it only supports Microsoft's claims that competition is tough and courts aren't needed to fertilize innovation.
So -- if you want to use a different browser, go right ahead but you're doing exactly what Microsoft needs to maintain their dominance. You create the illusion of competition in a market that Microsoft ruthlessly dominates. |
|
wbhigdon
join:2003-10-29
Bessemer, AL
| said by rradina :
While I don't like the fact that you may need to upgrade a working solution, you probably should consider upgrading to XP. Nothing lasts forever and most manufactures only provide free fixes for a reasonable period of time. My organization still has a few 98 and NT workstations. We realize that they need to go since the hardware is ready to die even if the OS is still providing an adequate solution.
Yes but W2K is still a supported current solution on
M'Soft roadmap. W98/NT is not supported. Not providing
patches for a product that isnt at End of Life according
to M'soft's roadmap is just plain wrong.
said by rradina :
Regarding the IE alternatives, this is nothing more than the press hyping alternatives.
Perhaps the press hypes things. However CERT's advisery
has merit. If IE has flaws that M'soft will not fix
it seems another browser would be in order...
said by rradina :
Everyone loves an underdog but the sad truth is that when the alternatives gain press coverage, it only supports Microsoft's claims that competition is tough and courts aren't needed to fertilize innovation.
So -- if you want to use a different browser, go right ahead but you're doing exactly what Microsoft needs to maintain their dominance. You create the illusion of competition in a market that Microsoft ruthlessly dominates.
Above and beyond my concern... If CERT is fussing about
IE then my concern is my network. The whole monopoly
debate doesnt enter into that. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to rradina
Thats true with MS claiming they have competition. If other ppl use other products that MS has then MS will always stay the way it is.
But not many people understand that. Especially with AOL. AOL operates the "out side world" in IE while keeping its "world" in their own format. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | reply to wbhigdon
Nobody but MS knows how long that W2K will be supported. They can up and release a statement that says it will only be supported for the next 2 months and then thats the end of it. So why not just update and get it over with? |
|
wbhigdon
join:2003-10-29
Bessemer, AL
| said by hottboiinnc :
Nobody but MS knows how long that W2K will be supported. They can up and release a statement that says it will only be supported for the next 2 months and then thats the end of it. So why not just update and get it over with?
»support.microsoft.com/default.as···;LifeWin
They have promised publicly to support customers till 6/30/2005 with mainstream support. IT depts plan upgrades
and purchase around such things... What is planned and
should happen is M'soft issues fixes as promised and I get
to hold off upgrading till next year to coincide with
the scheduled machine refresh. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | They may promise but don't mean they will. and as far as them planning upgrades don't hold your breath. They're more worried about SP2 and Longhorn not W2K. |
|
8744675
join:2000-10-10
Decatur, GA
| reply to rradina
When Microsoft either offers a Windows install with NO internet browser tied to the core OS, or offers a choice of what browser to use (IE or 3rd party) during installation, then we will have a competetive market place. And that doesn't mean installing IE and just hiding the icons and disabling a few DLL's like they do now with IE and Media Player, it means NO component of either is present or tied to Windows. We run several networked production servers and workstations at work that do nothing but run batch jobs for our electronic print & mail service. If they go down, we don't have a job. They have no need for Internet Explorer, Media Player or any other of the junk they have built in that can't be completely removed or disabled, yet there have been times when a machine would not boot or run properly because a DLL used by IE or Media player got corrupted and won't load.
Microsoft has shot themselves in the foot by embedding such a high security risk application like IE to an OS that is used in millions of mission critical environments every day. I'm sure their early utopian vision was having every PC connected online to share information and use the latest software by selling annual web service subscriptions for Office Suite and other applications using a client-server model.
It would be a win, win situation for Microsoft since web apps would would reduce software piracy, save the cost of producing, packaging and marketing their boxed versions, reduce their support costs by only having to support only the current web version of each product. In addition, it would eliminate those users who never upgrade their applications for years unless it's forced upon them, which helps guarantee Microsoft a steady annual revenue stream.
What Microsoft failed to see is that the Internet would turn into the cesspool that it is today, and their OS has dropped anchor right smack in the middle of it! Now their solution model is to patch, patch, patch and keep building bigger fences around the OS to keep the undesirables out. It's time for Microsoft to give up on their outdated utopian vision of having everyone 'connected'. It's human nature that if you build a fence to protect something, someone is going to assume there's something of value behind it and try to get through it. If there's no fence, there's no perception of anything of value, and no more incentive for someone to try. Microsoft needs to stop building fences and instead remove the non-essential bloat that provides the means for unauthorized access to a computer. |
|
wbhigdon
join:2003-10-29
Bessemer, AL
| reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc :
They may promise but don't mean they will. and as far as them planning upgrades don't hold your breath. They're more worried about SP2 and Longhorn not W2K.
They're so worried about it to leave unpatched
vulnerabilities and a cert warning...
W2K is still a supported product. If you think
Cert's browser recommendations caused a newsflash
could you imagine a Cert recommendation to not use
M'Soft OSes???
They'll plug the holes in W2K. They'll plug em in
XP. They just will not be quick about either. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | They surely won't be in a hurrt to patch Win 2K XP is the new baby of the MS Windows family. |
|
wbhigdon
join:2003-10-29
Bessemer, AL
| said by hottboiinnc :
They surely won't be in a hurrt to patch Win 2K XP is the new baby of the MS Windows family.
Heck they havent even patched XP. They have OEMs
still distributing it ie IBM. They arent going
to upset them. |
|
Deathsadvoca
join:2003-08-20
South Lyon, MI
clubs:
| reply to 8744675
" And that doesn't mean installing IE and just hiding the icons and disabling a few DLL's like they do now with IE and Media Player, it means NO component of either is present or tied to Windows."
Why should Microsoft be forced to change there Entire OS because someone doesent like any of IE's or media players componits in there operating system? Its not like Microsoft has just suddenly tied these to the OS. they have been a part of the os since 95. the simple awnser is if you dont want IE or MP on your computer at all move to linux or Mac. |
|
antwanp
Beyond FM, Beyond AM, XM Satellite Radio
Premium
join:2002-05-14
Cedar Hill, TX
clubs: | Finally, someone with some sense!
-Antwan L. |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| reply to Deathsadvoca
It is also part of the reason for the Antitrust suit against Microsoft. Because they do not offer a level playing field to 3rd party software developers. That is the main reason why some programs don't seem to work as well as MS programs. Microsoft make sure that they do not.
puritan |
|
Samwoo
join:2002-02-15
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
| reply to 8744675
How exactly is ie connected to windows?
From my point of view disabling a few dlls means getting rid of internet explorer. because simply put it. ie really is only a few dlls.
windows has the nt core which runs explorer and a bunch of other services and
as far as i can see internet explorer is simply a few graphics and a dll attached to explorer to provide html reading and internet connection.
so what do you mean by getting rid of internet explorer?
do you also want to get rid of explorer?
in that case just run windows in command prompt only mode i guess. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
| reply to 8744675
The last time I installed something on our AIX box, the instructions were in HTML format. I could have installed Netscape and read them via X-terminal but I didn't bother since my PC had a browser. However, in a pure Unix environment, I'd have to be doing just that.
The browser is ubiquitous. Microsoft is not wrong for including it in the base OS. I'm sure tomorrow we might say the same about a media player. Microsoft's mistake is making them tightly coupled so it's difficult or impossible to separate from the OS. I feel that we only have our wonderful DOJ to blame for this. (NOTE: I'm not saying their case was without merit but the outcome certainly didn't help the consumer. It was merely another tobacco trial where the states received boat loads of money at a time when their budgets were a disaster.) Microsoft embarked on this path to ensure that these services were impossible to separate and therefore could not easily be unbundled. It wasn't because that design was best. It was because this design protected them from the courts. Right now I don't think this is true of media services but if worldwide courts keep hammering the point, you'll soon need the media player for explorer to work properly because MS will animate the folders and require some sort of MPEG decompression algorithm from the "media services subsystem".
We also have critical services running on Windows. File & Print, Exchange, imaging, Intranet (even though it's BEA WebLogic), extranet, Internet proxy, etc. The last time we had a problem was blaster and that's because we failed to apply known patches. That was our wake-up call. We now patch almost as soon as they are released.
Other than sloppy programming, the problem with Microsoft is it's just like the U.S. and the extreme Muslim terrorists. The U.S. is hated because of its success and the freedom that we represent. Therefore we (as Microsoft) are a target. Not just by script kiddies, hacks and digital terrorists, but from our own government. Politicians see a big pile of cash and they want to figure out a way to exploit it, not in service to the public, but for their own gains.
Just look at what happens to Wal-Mart these days when they want to grow into a new location? Even though they will save the community money by providing the same products coupled with a superior service at a far cheaper price, towns now vote to place maximum sizes (square footage) on any business -- ensuring that Wal-Mart cannot build there. What the hell has gone with our government when crap like this happens? Do you think it's all people getting things like this passed? No. It's a core group of retailers singing a pity song. Then the entire community pays for it.
Bottom line: Microsoft isn't going to patch W2K to the level of XP because it's a legacy product. I know that's not what anyone wants to hear but it's a no-win situation for MS. If they were to update W2K with an "SP2-like" update, people would be bitch up a storm in the opposite direction. Daily complaints of "Microsoft broke my computer" would emanate from the masses. Why? XP SP2 will likely cause a lot of support headaches because it will make various insecure connections the exception instead of the norm. Regardless of planning, it's going to break things until everyone figures out what holes need to be drilled. |
|
