IT Employment

that's what i primarily use win2003 server for.
right now, my server is in my back room, probably will go into a colo facility soon and offer web pubslishing points, it's running Valis Radio right now, http://radio.valiskeogh.com/ValisRadio (only have 256k up at home, so if too many connect, you'll get buffering problems)

use windows media encoder to encode or push the broadcast to the server, where clients can connect to it to view

valis
www.valiskeogh.com

Nothing...

Yep, I don't use W2K3 for Nothing as I find it a monolithic
piece of software that consumes tons of resources, is
expensive, insecure and inefficient. For what I need, I can
do the same thing using Linux/*BSD boxes and 1/10th of
the resources.

For example, why would anyone to dedicate a full-blown
machine to running W2K3 server as a router, when there
are other solutions which are more cost-effective and
secure, like OpenBSD or a hardware/appliance firewall? I
find it totally nonsense when someone even thinks of
using W2K3 as a router, even when knowing it's full of
security holes, it has millions of lines of useless code
(Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer, Outlook
Express, Windows Messenger, .... should I go on?).

All in all, W2K3 server may be good for running general
purpouse services, like SAP/R3, streaming media, SQL
Server, Proyect Server, etc. but why in the **** would
someone want to run dedicated, specific, specialized
infrastructure services on such an insecure, inefficient
operating system?

The world is going crazy...

I agree. It's a huge piece of software, overly complicated and just not that good. Way too many things being done by a bloated piece of software. I'd much rather use a firewall/router that I can plug in and configure in minutes. Just give me file and print services.

I used Linux before ... mainly to avoid spending the big bucks on a mail server running Exchange, it was worst, Linux had some many security holes and almost no control then to stop viruses to be delivered to users desktop, I got rid of it and used Windows 2000 Enterprise's active directory with Exchange server, My boss learned the lesson the hard way, and after that the company was more willing to spend money in technology that actually will work.

Regards

Right now I am in the middle of a migration from NT4.0 to 2k3. This is what MS was stating the purpose of 2k3 was for those at NT4.0 to skip over 2000. Neither is a piece of cake since it requires AD and a new forest for setting up the new server as a domain controller, something which is not in NT4.0. I am running the NT4.0 server as the domain controller for the time being until the company goes away for the christmas holiday and then take out the NT4.0 server. The two biggest problems I have run into is the password restrictions and having a mixed environment of 98, 2000, and XP workstations. Each acts differently to a change in domain controller, worse being the 2k and XP machines as it creates new desktops and you have to migrate all the files and settings from the old to the new desktop. If anyone has any suggestions on this one, I would appreciate it.

I haven't had a change to try it yet but! I went to a MS hands on lab where it deminstrated that you can tell the account to use a profile that is already in use on the machine and it will use that one as opposed to creating a new one. If you want more info email me directly and I will try to find the instructions.

I would be interested in how to do this so uses don't have 2 accounts, one for laptop at work and one for laptop when they take it on the road.

Bill

I am trying to migrate from NT domain to a Win2K3 AD domain. I managed to get the trust relationship working and migrating accounts are not an issue. The only thing is that I would like to keep the user profile in the desktop. I don't wish to go through 200+ users to recreate the shortcut for them. Kindly advise. Thanks