I just know that Win 2003 Server will be taking the place of Windows 2000 Server.
There are a lot of articles about it. Just Google it. And read MSFT's site about it. They have a whole site devoted to it obviously.
From what I understand it is hot. some are switching from Linux servers and other OS's to Windows 2003 Server.
I have an opportunity to get it real cheap so I am going for it. My alternative is Windws 2000 Server or Linux(which I don't know anything about) or to just use an OS as a server which is not really recommended.
So what the heck. I am going for it. I'll let you know what issues I have if any. It is probably way overkill for me but I like overkill. You should see the dream machine I am building to install it on! Hint... it has 8 fans.
John R.
[This message was edited by igotout on August 29, 2003 at 23:07.]
I've installed it for 2 clients so far, and doing a third next week. Simple install, all things considered. NetBeui is totally gone and not supported, so if that's an issue, then you may have problems.
One of the installations was an upgrade, it wouldn't even let me continue the installation till I uninstalled NetBeui and Norton personal firewall. They were using Norton Ghost and an external drive for backups, and Ghost was not supported either, but that was no problem really, as I have my own backup program I wrote in Visual C++ that worked nicely. The QoS packet handeling has been done away with also.
Some good things...The Administrator can easily send console messages to all users through Computer Mangement. That's a nice feature. I do a lot of work through terminal services, and the other nice thing is, any xp machines on the network with remote desktop enabled, I can remotely control right here from home! That's a REAL good thing when you have a user on the network with a problem, and they aren't real computer literate!
All in all, I think it's a pretty decent upgrade. Just be careful of the new "Enhanced Security" stuff! If you install it for the server and clients, all your security is set at the max, which means only websites that you specifically allow will be available. This could be good in a corporate setting I guess, if you want only limited internet access, but if its for a home or home business, I don't think it's a good idea to install it.
OH, I forgot to mention, both installs I have done so far have been on multi-processor systems, one a dual 2.4g xeon system. The Xeon processors are way cool! Multi-threaded so each processor basically breaks down into 2, so a dual system is kinda like having a quad system.
And John, if you go with any *nix os on a server, use free-bsd instead of linux. A lot more secure, and stays truer to SCO than any of the free *nix's I've seen!
Thanks Bluzeman - I am getting Windows Server 2003 so cheap I just can't pass it up, like 75% off for a 5 client license, about as much as I would pay for XP Professional.
Anyway, I hope it works for me in my small business and at my small home network. I hear some of the Microsoft employees use some of these new products at their homes to become familiar with it. That's what I am going to do. I'll have to try to release some of the default security. It is a fresh install on modern equipment so I do not anticipate any issues with install. I just hope they allow me to install it twice on two different machines. I have done that with XP Pro by just calling them and re-registering over the phone.
I like using PC Anywhere for remotly working on computers. I am in the process of establishing a VPN tunnell from router to router. I just want to see what it is like having a VPN connection compared to using software. VPN is supported on these routers. But it seems to still be a pain to get working properly. It is kinda complicated. And when I do make connection, I am not able to access computers or get to the files, even though I have Administrative rights.
PC Anywhere on the other hand is cool. I have been using it for years. It is probably similar to XP's remote software. I feel that PC Anywhere probably has more bells and whistles, like file transfer and multiple connections (ability to connect to and view many different computers at the same time. A lot of fum on multiple monitors) , chat, CTL-ALT-DEL function, and other things.
Having never used remote desktop I can not compare. I know it is a hot item, gaining in popularity.
Does VPN hold any any advantage over PCAnywhere and Remote Desktop?
Well, the obvious advantage of a vpn is the security. I have not played with Microsoft's vpn capabilities, although I have heard that it is not as secure as MS makes it out to be. I HAVE set up a few hardware firewalls called Sonic Wall, that DOES provide very good security via a vpn tunnel. It utilizes triple-des encryption and the algorithm changes like, every 30 seconds or something like that...very good security! But the cost for the hardware might be a little more than your current needs...they aren't cheap!
You are right about PCAnywhere having more bells and whistles than Terminal Services. I don't use the built in remote desktop sharing that comes with XP now, I mean the acutal Terminal Services Client. It seems to be a good bit faster than PCAnywhere. IT's really good for me cause I have a number of clients running MS servers and I can connect to any or all of them at the same time, in different windows. And as I said earlier, once I'm connect to a 2003 server, I can remotely control any xp desktop client on the network.
As far as using a vpn for connecting, you have to decide how secure you need that connection to be. For example, if your working with say, the health care field, and have to meet hipaa standards, then you would certainly be required to have a secure connection. On the other hand, if you just want to remotely control a home computer form the office, or vice-versa, a password-protected PCAnywhere connection should be just fine without the vpn.
BTW, if you or anyone you know has a non-profit business, go to www.techsoup.org and check out thier prices. You can get 2003 server with 25 cals for 55 dollars! And the software comes direct from Microsoft!
I can make my VPN connection and I can see my work (remote) computer in My Network Places. But I when I click on it I am denied access. What would you suppose is the cause of that? I have administrative rights on both ends.
Could the firewall aspect of the router be causing this?
John: In Microsoft's case, history has shown that early-adopters of their software rarely have good experiences with it. That being said, I can't speak too much about W2K3, since I no longer have access to the shovelware CDs Microsoft used to send out to their developer network. The rule of thumb in such cases is, only switch if the new version has a feature that solves a current problem for you. (If it ain't broke, don't fix it.)
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
Port Forwarding?? Not sure what you mean really but this router is supposed to have VPN capability built in:
the Wireless Barricade Plus has a built-in VPN tunnel that supports IPSec and PPTP Client/Server connectivity. This VPN functionality is the perfect solution for remotely accessing a network securely by establishing an authenticated and encrypted tunnel over the Internet. No matter what connection you set up, you can be well assured that your data is being transmitted and exchanged in the most secure manner. This integrated VPN connection is an ideal solution for both individuals who telecommute from home or small offices that need to create a single VPN connection to securely connect remote offices, but do not want the hassle of a confusing server set-up.
Steve---- all C drives on all computes at both ends are shared.
If you can "see" the remote computer from home, then I'm not sure where the problem lies. I didn't ask what os you are using on the remote end, but if it's 2000 or XP pro, do you have a user account set up to access it remotely?
I have a user account, same usere name at each location.
I did not configure a user at the host computer for remote access.
But I thought with VPN you did not need to do that. With my router they instruct you to make settings in the router configuration under VPN with a user name and password at each end. They make no mention of configuring the computer itself to receive remote access.
I read an article that really makes 2003 seem like the greatest thing since sliced bread.
You don't have to completely upgrade from W2K in order to install W2003. You can install it piecemeal if you want, and it is not a destructive install. If you decide that the piece you installed is not right for you, uninstalling it is a breeze.
And the best thing is that the .Net framework is built into W2003, so you don't have to install that.
With 2000, you still have to have a valid user account and permissions to access folders on the machine, even on a local area network.
Here's a suggestion. Create a user account on the 2000 machine, with the username and pw the same as you are using for the router. Then, under computer management, create your file shares to the folders you want to access. Give this user permissions to those folders. Then, try the vpn and see if you can access those folders. It really sounds like a permissions issue, as you said you can see the remote computer when you make the vpn connection.
Steve:
Shadow copy seems to be one of the coolest features of 2003. It basicaly lets you set a "go back" point for individual volumes. Delteted a file by accident? No problem, you can restore it. Overwrote an important file with a different copy? Again, no problem, as you can restore the original from the backup point. Really cool!
Recommended Posts
Righteous Brother
Hi John,
What's the benefits of W2K3 over W2K pro?
RB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
RB, I don't really know.
I just know that Win 2003 Server will be taking the place of Windows 2000 Server.
There are a lot of articles about it. Just Google it. And read MSFT's site about it. They have a whole site devoted to it obviously.
From what I understand it is hot. some are switching from Linux servers and other OS's to Windows 2003 Server.
I have an opportunity to get it real cheap so I am going for it. My alternative is Windws 2000 Server or Linux(which I don't know anything about) or to just use an OS as a server which is not really recommended.
So what the heck. I am going for it. I'll let you know what issues I have if any. It is probably way overkill for me but I like overkill. You should see the dream machine I am building to install it on! Hint... it has 8 fans.
John R.
[This message was edited by igotout on August 29, 2003 at 23:07.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
Zixar?? What about you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluzeman
I've installed it for 2 clients so far, and doing a third next week. Simple install, all things considered. NetBeui is totally gone and not supported, so if that's an issue, then you may have problems.
One of the installations was an upgrade, it wouldn't even let me continue the installation till I uninstalled NetBeui and Norton personal firewall. They were using Norton Ghost and an external drive for backups, and Ghost was not supported either, but that was no problem really, as I have my own backup program I wrote in Visual C++ that worked nicely. The QoS packet handeling has been done away with also.
Some good things...The Administrator can easily send console messages to all users through Computer Mangement. That's a nice feature. I do a lot of work through terminal services, and the other nice thing is, any xp machines on the network with remote desktop enabled, I can remotely control right here from home! That's a REAL good thing when you have a user on the network with a problem, and they aren't real computer literate!
All in all, I think it's a pretty decent upgrade. Just be careful of the new "Enhanced Security" stuff! If you install it for the server and clients, all your security is set at the max, which means only websites that you specifically allow will be available. This could be good in a corporate setting I guess, if you want only limited internet access, but if its for a home or home business, I don't think it's a good idea to install it.
Well, that's my 2 cents worth!
Rick
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluzeman
OH, I forgot to mention, both installs I have done so far have been on multi-processor systems, one a dual 2.4g xeon system. The Xeon processors are way cool! Multi-threaded so each processor basically breaks down into 2, so a dual system is kinda like having a quad system.
And John, if you go with any *nix os on a server, use free-bsd instead of linux. A lot more secure, and stays truer to SCO than any of the free *nix's I've seen!
Rick
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
Thanks Bluzeman - I am getting Windows Server 2003 so cheap I just can't pass it up, like 75% off for a 5 client license, about as much as I would pay for XP Professional.
Anyway, I hope it works for me in my small business and at my small home network. I hear some of the Microsoft employees use some of these new products at their homes to become familiar with it. That's what I am going to do. I'll have to try to release some of the default security. It is a fresh install on modern equipment so I do not anticipate any issues with install. I just hope they allow me to install it twice on two different machines. I have done that with XP Pro by just calling them and re-registering over the phone.
I like using PC Anywhere for remotly working on computers. I am in the process of establishing a VPN tunnell from router to router. I just want to see what it is like having a VPN connection compared to using software. VPN is supported on these routers. But it seems to still be a pain to get working properly. It is kinda complicated. And when I do make connection, I am not able to access computers or get to the files, even though I have Administrative rights.
PC Anywhere on the other hand is cool. I have been using it for years. It is probably similar to XP's remote software. I feel that PC Anywhere probably has more bells and whistles, like file transfer and multiple connections (ability to connect to and view many different computers at the same time. A lot of fum on multiple monitors) , chat, CTL-ALT-DEL function, and other things.
Having never used remote desktop I can not compare. I know it is a hot item, gaining in popularity.
Does VPN hold any any advantage over PCAnywhere and Remote Desktop?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluzeman
Well, the obvious advantage of a vpn is the security. I have not played with Microsoft's vpn capabilities, although I have heard that it is not as secure as MS makes it out to be. I HAVE set up a few hardware firewalls called Sonic Wall, that DOES provide very good security via a vpn tunnel. It utilizes triple-des encryption and the algorithm changes like, every 30 seconds or something like that...very good security! But the cost for the hardware might be a little more than your current needs...they aren't cheap!
You are right about PCAnywhere having more bells and whistles than Terminal Services. I don't use the built in remote desktop sharing that comes with XP now, I mean the acutal Terminal Services Client. It seems to be a good bit faster than PCAnywhere. IT's really good for me cause I have a number of clients running MS servers and I can connect to any or all of them at the same time, in different windows. And as I said earlier, once I'm connect to a 2003 server, I can remotely control any xp desktop client on the network.
As far as using a vpn for connecting, you have to decide how secure you need that connection to be. For example, if your working with say, the health care field, and have to meet hipaa standards, then you would certainly be required to have a secure connection. On the other hand, if you just want to remotely control a home computer form the office, or vice-versa, a password-protected PCAnywhere connection should be just fine without the vpn.
BTW, if you or anyone you know has a non-profit business, go to www.techsoup.org and check out thier prices. You can get 2003 server with 25 cals for 55 dollars! And the software comes direct from Microsoft!
Rick
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
I can make my VPN connection and I can see my work (remote) computer in My Network Places. But I when I click on it I am denied access. What would you suppose is the cause of that? I have administrative rights on both ends.
Could the firewall aspect of the router be causing this?
Thank you for the insight.
John R.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
John: In Microsoft's case, history has shown that early-adopters of their software rarely have good experiences with it. That being said, I can't speak too much about W2K3, since I no longer have access to the shovelware CDs Microsoft used to send out to their developer network. The rule of thumb in such cases is, only switch if the new version has a feature that solves a current problem for you. (If it ain't broke, don't fix it.)
The fool hath said in his heart, "PFAL is the Word of God..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
IgJohn -
You've got to set up your home computer's drives as sharable. In other words, administrative access isn't enough.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluzeman
John:
Sorry about the late reply here...been a busy week already and it's only Tuesday!
What kind of routers are you using? And what kind of port forwarding do you have set up? Or, are you DMZ'ing one machine on both ends?
Rick
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
Here is therouter that is on both ends, and the connection is DSL on both ends.
SMC7004WFW
No computer is in DMZ.
Port Forwarding?? Not sure what you mean really but this router is supposed to have VPN capability built in:
the Wireless Barricade Plus has a built-in VPN tunnel that supports IPSec and PPTP Client/Server connectivity. This VPN functionality is the perfect solution for remotely accessing a network securely by establishing an authenticated and encrypted tunnel over the Internet. No matter what connection you set up, you can be well assured that your data is being transmitted and exchanged in the most secure manner. This integrated VPN connection is an ideal solution for both individuals who telecommute from home or small offices that need to create a single VPN connection to securely connect remote offices, but do not want the hassle of a confusing server set-up.
Steve---- all C drives on all computes at both ends are shared.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluzeman
John:
If you can "see" the remote computer from home, then I'm not sure where the problem lies. I didn't ask what os you are using on the remote end, but if it's 2000 or XP pro, do you have a user account set up to access it remotely?
Rick
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
Remote is Windows 2000, I am at XP Pro at home.
I have a user account, same usere name at each location.
I did not configure a user at the host computer for remote access.
But I thought with VPN you did not need to do that. With my router they instruct you to make settings in the router configuration under VPN with a user name and password at each end. They make no mention of configuring the computer itself to receive remote access.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
A comment about W2003 -
I read an article that really makes 2003 seem like the greatest thing since sliced bread.
You don't have to completely upgrade from W2K in order to install W2003. You can install it piecemeal if you want, and it is not a destructive install. If you decide that the piece you installed is not right for you, uninstalling it is a breeze.
And the best thing is that the .Net framework is built into W2003, so you don't have to install that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bluzeman
John:
With 2000, you still have to have a valid user account and permissions to access folders on the machine, even on a local area network.
Here's a suggestion. Create a user account on the 2000 machine, with the username and pw the same as you are using for the router. Then, under computer management, create your file shares to the folders you want to access. Give this user permissions to those folders. Then, try the vpn and see if you can access those folders. It really sounds like a permissions issue, as you said you can see the remote computer when you make the vpn connection.
Steve:
Shadow copy seems to be one of the coolest features of 2003. It basicaly lets you set a "go back" point for individual volumes. Delteted a file by accident? No problem, you can restore it. Overwrote an important file with a different copy? Again, no problem, as you can restore the original from the backup point. Really cool!
Rick
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.