Just installed 2003 standard server. All I can say is its extremely fast and way easier to manage than any other windows server. I love network load balancing!

I'm liking the web management interface, what's interesting to note though is that it does not use .NET, it's all old school ASP.

What's with the pricing? I had NT, paid full price, bought 2000 server, paid full price, bought 2000 workstation, paid full price, now I have to pay $1000 bucks for a 2003 upgrade? Did I miss something?

Yea you did miss something...the fact that you don't HAVE to upgrade. I never understand all the complaints whenever someone releases a new product..."damn I HAVE to pay all this money now to get a new version?!". Why don't you complain to car manufacturers for releaseing a new car every single year? You didn't get every years model of your car did you??

I want to upgrade. Is that enough reason for you? and I feel $900 plus dollars is too much for an upgrade.

Oh yeah, what does a car have to do do with upgrading my Server network?

Well if you want to upgrade, then pay the money, MS didn't have 5000 programmers working for 5 years on a product that they will just give a way, just because you bought another product they released 3 years ago.

It's called an analogy buddy...think they teach you that in 6th grade, when you get there you'll understand. Nissan won't give you a discount if you want to upgrade your 2000 model to a 2003 model...you'll be paying full price for that upgrade, why should you not pay full price for a new software version? Actually you can trade the car in and get some money for your old car....but you can sell your copy of windows 2000 on ebay too.

No it's not an analogy and stop comparing cars, toasters, TVs, stereos, to computer software upgrades. I've been upgrading software professionally and personally for 20 years and when you upgrade, you pay less than half the price of a full version. The Windows Server 2000 upgrade, 3 years ago was about $500-600 for 5 licenses and now it went up $900.00. That's a $400.00 increase for Microsoft.

lol....like I said, you don't HAVE to upgarde, if you disagree with pricing, don't upgrade.

What's wrong with comparing cars with software? Nissan's 2003 year model is $5k more then their 2000 model was...you gonna complain about that to Nissan? Don't buy the car.

Thanks

This is my last post on this discussion, because it's going nowhere and you have no idea or experience of upgrading computer software.

I still don't understand, What does buying a new car have anything to do with paying alot of money for a software upgrade, that I personally "need" and which is my business to purchase, when all software manufacturs, including Microsoft in the past, don't charge a premium to upgrade their software.

It is clear that you're simply not going to understand that Microsoft can charge whatever they like for an upgrade, regardless of whether you like it or not. If you don't, then don't upgrade. The car analogy is actually a very apt one, but you simply refuse to see it because you're focused on your particular complaint.

Look, My first post only says that Microsoft has raised their prices. It suprised me that it went up about $400.00 more. My experience in upgrading software has been, the cost is much less than buying a full version. If Microsoft wants to charge more, fine. No choice. I personally think it's too pricey. That's it. Please read it again.

In no way does did my remark have anything to do with whether to upgrade or not. That's my decision and nobody elses.

The car analogy does not work because car dealers accept trade-ins, as well as allow you to sell your car.

You can sell your copy of windows 2000 server on ebay....

A trade in is nothing but a credit for owning a previous make of their car, much like an upgrade is in software. Unlike cars though, you get the upgrade price and get to keep the previous version.

Hmm, then why can I trade a ford in at a chevy dealership?

I don't understand your complaint...are you complaining that MS won't buy their old software back from you, or are you complaining that the retailers won't buy it back from you?

Ford won't take back you car...but a care dealer will buy it from you. you can sell your copy of windows 2000 server on ebay, or any auction site...or you can find a dealer that buys used software back (although I don't know of any, anymore). So...what is your complaint, exactly???

Come down to earth, and you'll understand what the guy was trying to say. That's all I've got to say.

LOL...wow what a solid argument, no way I can argue with you now, you win....MS sucks, why don't you sue them on the count of charging money for the product they created?

Thanks

I don't recall saying "I hate Microsoft", funny how the Windows zealots always make that play though when you don't agree with their opinions. If I hated Microsoft would I have stated that I hated Microsoft, not that a car analogy does not work when talking about software.

Another tough argument...you're on a roll there buddy. All these facts and theories you're throwing at me are getting me real stumped.

Why do I feel like I'm talking to a potato?

I'd wager that it's just the best you can do.

If you have Licensing 6.0 or Open Subscription License, you pay a yearly fee for the server, and are free to upgrade to whatever version you want.

Well Ativo, I believe our civil argument is dead, until next time. These whiney name callers really upset me sometimes....

Man, some of you guys are ignorant. Ok, sell your stuff on ebay? Common...WPA is gonna circumvent that if you plan on staying legit. As far as the analogy goes, that car will still get me from point a to point b 50 years from now. Why? Cause there will still be a ****ing road, that's why. MS forces "innovation" (or their "ideas" that they have stolen or bought) and implements them incrimentally thus forcing you to upgrade one way or another over time anyway. And WPA is an alterior means to make sure you can't sell your software.

And no, I am Not bashing Microsoft. Their business practices, while questionable, are brilliant. I just find it funny there are so many Microsoft wh***s left in this world.

The "security" settings in IE now do not allow access to websites unless you add them. What's interesting is that some sites complete ANYWAY even though IE said they were blocked.

You need to read the dialog box that pops up when you access a web site a little more carefully. It does not say that the site is blocked. It says that certain content *may* be blocked. I would recommend a little perusal of the help file for further information.

"Content from the Web site listed below is being blocked by the Internet Explorer Enhanced Security Configuration

http://www.betanews.com

(check) Continue to prompt when Web site content is blocked"

Do you need screenshots? I suggest that YOU read the documentation.

Thankfully, you can turn this security off if need be. It's in the Add/Remove Programs for Windows Setup as well.

True, but it makes me wonder how it managed to get past their QA team. ;-)

Or far better, just add the site to the trusted zones (it asks you if you wish to add the site to the trusted zone in the warning message box), so all other sites remain blocked. Im sure most uses dont visit more than 10 to 15 sites regularly anyway so adding that number to the trusted zone while leaving the security settings in place would be relatively quick and painless while leaving the security there for first visits to new sites in the future.

Its a bit of a QA issue, although once the page has loaded im sure most users will be able to figure out it actually means "SOME content has been blocked".

Hmm, don't you think it would say "some content" and not point at an entire web address? It's wrong, just admit it.

it says "content" it means "SOME content". Yes its wrong, thats basicly what I already said in my previous post though! :op

Because it's the correct behavior.

No, it isn't. The correct behavior would be to display instead a page that said the content was blocked. You really should install the OS before making comments like that.

RTFM:

"Web pages may not display in Internet Explorer as expected and applications that require the browser may not work correctly because scripts, Microsoft ActiveX controls, the Microsoft virtual machine (Microsoft VM) for HTML content, and file downloads have been disabled."

Does the BetaNews site contain scripts? Yes. Thus, IE's Enhanced Security is working exactly as advertised. Nothing slipped past QA.

http://support.microsoft...?scid=kb;en-us;815141#4

It says nothing about displaying the content anyway when one presses the close button.

No, it doesn't. When a particular piece of content is blocked, it is neither displayed nor executed, neither before nor after you click Close.

When you browse to betanews.com, you see one warning message for each tag that was blocked. The remainder of the page still displays because it does not classify as 'block-worthy content'.

each tag -> each script tag

(I guess BetaNews strips out any words surrounded in angle brackets, instead of converting them to < and >...)

(Err...! That was meant to be & l t ; and & g t ;, without the spaces... Anyway...)

No, I see one message, when I click close it shows the page in it's entirety. The same effect happens when hitting a site as simple as www.google.com. That is not what the dialog box implys.

You are seeing the page in its entirety EXCEPT for the contents of the tags. The scripts BetaNews uses are ad-related, so to the untrained eye it APPEARS that nothing is being blocked.

As for google.com, it contains tags too.

Damn, did it again.
tags -> script tags

That's what I'm saying. The dialog box implies that the entire site is blocked.

"Content from the Web site listed below is being blocked by the Internet Explorer Enhanced Security Configuration"

It doesn't say all content there...it just says content....which generally implies some content. But yea...they should really say SOME content, it'll make it more understandable. Content can mean either all or some depending on how you read into it. All this ruckus over the word "some"...it's really not that big a deal.

he's only makin a big deal out of it because he hates being proven wrong - even when he knows he is. He's always been like this, ignore him, he gets over it eventually!

I'm not wrong ;-)