http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://ev1servers.com

till 2003..

I had no idea, talk about cutting corners

Haha, I'm sure there must be a reason why!

older script wirtten for older technology. its not uncommon. for example, i used to work for a HP reseller at Austin, TX. they only deal/sell/buy/trade older HP parts/system.

why? because once a company sink in million for their company, setup, secure, and function just the way they want it. they don't want the problem that come with newer technology/migration. why break something if it still work. so...my old employer make a killing by selling/trade older HP parts. if customer's machine break down and all they need just a HP certified hard disk (even tho it's Western Digital that they can pick up on ebay for less but not certfied by HP) they will buy it from my old employer simply because that's all they need.

so...maybe some one invest a lot into that platform and work just fine for them thus no need to upgrade/migrate unless some major shitstorm hit.

you'll be amaze by how long technology can live. newer technology may acutally cause problem for company who already invest million in older technology.

forgot to mention one more thing that is great about older technology. older technology is more mature and have more doc. about its problem than newer technology. what if the new server come across a problem that no one, not even the vendor themselves have come across.

i gues, that's why mainframe is still around.

And actually, it states NT4/Windows 98. These are two totally different operating systems.

NT4 isn't all that bad. If it has been tweaked enough and is secure, why upgrade? If the hardware is up-to-date and in good working order, it will simply cost more money to upgrade all the systems.

Eventually it will get to a point (as in this case) where an upgrade is unavoidable. However, people are too quick to upgrade. Why do you always need the newest and latest. Personally, I'd rather wait for a year to see what kind of bugs new technology has before entrusting clients' business to it.

ev1servers, isn't that old of a company. was my thought. It just seemed strange to see a major player using win98 for a web server thats all.

I agree with waiting as we still use win2k for most of our servers

They weren't using Windows 98. They were using NT4.

Does IIS work on win98???

They must have been on NT4 - thats a no brainer!

It's obvious they were using NT 4 and I'd hesitate posting such things in your place Kiamori since in case of bad luck you might get a letter from an EV1 layer to cease slandering them.

mlovick, IIS does run on Win98, but not as a service but like any other desktop app, meaning you have to be logged in as the user for whom it was configured and manually start IIS and then leave the computer on. You can't even lock the console.

If I rememer correctly Win98 used to ship with it's own in-built webserver. I couldn't be sure though as the version I used was an OEM version which came with a HP machine.

Win98 gave me more bluescreens than any other OS. I certainly wouldn't trust it as a webserver.

I must agree though I do stick with an older version normally until new versions have been hacked to hell by hackers and M$ have fixed it.

Only last month I finally installed XP with SP2 on another partition. I don't use it much though as I prefer WinMe which in my opinion was the best of the 9x series as it was basically the patched version of 98 with all patches applied (thus saving you installing patches and getting blue screens for the honour).

WinMe also address the scandisk problem better than 98 - in 98 if you crashed and rebooted Scandisk would give you that infuriating message saying "always select shutdown from the start menu". M$ seems to have taken notice that people were getting annoyed with this and addressed the problem with WinME.

I gotta say that of all systems I've used Me is my favourite. I know a lot of people will slag it off, but think about it. It's more secure than a new installation of 98, It runs on pretty much the same lower spec hardware as 98 and it is modern enough to still run a lot of software and not crash so frequently. I admit I do still get blue screens with Me but not as many as with 98SE.

My machine has 128MB SDRAM with 16MB of that tied to the onboard graphics which really leaves me with 112MB SDRAM. While this isn't brilliant, ME still runs on it quite nicely. XP is ok, but it's slower than ME. XP has a nicer interface but it's slower due to lack of available memory.

ME seems to have the advantage over some systems which is why I will always keep a ME partition.

I might start using XP when I get a hardware overhaul. My motherbard doesn't recognise my DVD burner on alternate reboots, MY webcam Halts the system when I try to access the camera memory, Monitor is receiving interference/flickering sometimes, 2nd HD gives errors saying it may be about to die -scandisk, keyboard knackered, Onboard network card comes alive randomly so windows suddenly asks me for drivers ETC ETC. By the time I upgrade all hardware I'll practically have 2 computers. Somehow I don't see XP running happily for long - ME? runs smoother than anything else on this box of scrap.

-Turboz

There is a huge difference between a desktop operating system like Win98, WinME, WinXP and server operating platforms such as NT4, Win2000 and Win2003.

Originally posted by Yash-JH
There is a huge difference between a desktop operating system like Win98, WinME, WinXP and server operating platforms such as NT4, Win2000 and Win2003.

I'd say that the difference between Windows Server 2003 and any Unix/Linux OS is many times bigger than between Windows 2003 Server and Windows 95. Sure the so-called NT codebase has quite a couple of improvements over the laughstock that even Microsoft's developers have publicly called "toy OS", but even the most advanced Windows version is still 2-3 decades behind the competition, surely not in looks and gadget support (though even there it's rather badly beaten by Mac OS X which is Unix-based), but extremely so in basic principles, functionality, reliability and security.

Right.

Such baseless conclusions not supported by facts is something I do not like at all.

We run many Windows servers and one thing I can say for sure is we get excellent reliability and security from these servers. We have never once had a windows server compromised due to a flaw in the Windows OS.

I would not trag the poor winXP into poor OS.

The XP is very solid for a end-user is close to win2000 (server) stable than to a win98.

Yash-JH, before you talk about "baseless conclusions" I'd like to point out that while what I say is my subjective personal opinion/experience, I've got 7+ years of experience in different facets of the IT business, having worked with probably way more operation systems than most: besides Windows 95/98 and NT4/2000 Workstation, Windows XP Professional, Windows NT4/2000/2003 Server and a couple of Linux distros I did work with MS DOS, Windows 3.1 and Mac OS 8/9/X as well (and I mean actively using, I've been doing DTP back on a 286 computer in DOS 4/5 with WordPerfect). My experience with some other operating systems like FreeBSD, Sun Solaris and BeOS are of a rather fleeting acquintance so I prefer not to count them when it's about real-world experience (though BeOS is one of the two operation systems whose install procedure I liked most - the other was Corel Linux). Much of work in these years revolved around tech support and system and client administration but also included publishing both for print and web, in the course of which I was working with dozens of products over the years from a long list of software manufacturers. And in all these years, my basic opinion formed slowly and got stronger and stronger until since about 2003 I've been saying it aloud: in every single area where Microsoft offers a product, while it's not necessarily inferior to any and all competition, there is ALWAYS at least one competing product that's so much better that there is no "quality argument" to using the Microsoft product. I actually found that in most cases people have been using it either because it came preinstalled on their computers or because everybody else used it too and that's the only thing they knew about (best example is Microsoft Office, which is even in the current 2003 version in many ways inferior to mid-90s competing products that died out in the meantime, having more features and better usability but inferior marketing that shied back from publishing outright lies all the time).

I've digressed somewhat, sorry... coming back to the "baseless conclusions", the last couple of years I've been working at a bank's IT dept and we've been using highest-quality IBM servers worth a couple of millions, running Windows NT4/2000/2003 Server. At the same time, privately I've been managing a bunch of no name servers worth a couple of thousands at most, running RedHat Linux 7/8/9 and Fedora. And the amount of probs in the Windows server world is several magnitudes higher than in the Linux world, at least in my experience. Not to mention administering a multi-user multi-computer environment in Windows is a nightmare because the OS was never designed with either in mind. Everything in this direction is still a slap of paint upon the old crumbling wall, causing troubles and breakdowns all the time.

These are the facts I'm basing my statements upon. They might be wrong but I would think they aren't baseless.

Gotta give it to RambOrc he does have a point with the paint job on a crumbling wall theory!

M$ Winblows is what I call a "Bodge Job"

Sadly Linux isn't exactly the easiest of systems to get to know.

-Turboz

As far as consumer desktop OSes go, Linux is not the true answer to Windows - Mac OS X is.

p.s. can you recall when and where you heard the word "Winblows" for the first time?

Originally posted by Turboz

M$ Winblows is what I call a "Bodge Job"



You mean botched?

Also, I disagree. I have been using Windows XP since its release and have had no problems. In addition, I have deployed it in many offices without any problems. I don't think I had any issues with Windows 2000 either. ME is certaintley another story and simply put, that was the worst OS ever.

I've been using, administering and supporting Windows NT 4 Workstation, Windows 2000 Workstation and Windows XP Professional for years in an enterprise environment and I have to say that every one of them is full of unpatched bugs, security holes and unreproducable random errors. Same goes to Office 2000/XP/2003 and extremely so for IE 6. When I hear people claiming they are running a larger number of Windows/Office computers and have no problems with it, I simply can't think of any other explanation but the typical IT guy attitude of "the user is dumb and who cares about his problems". Our users are accostumed to a knowledgeable and CARING support and so they don't hesitate reporting problems most IT guys would simply ignore or say "user error". Need I say more?

Originally posted by RambOrc
. And the amount of probs in the Windows server world is several magnitudes higher than in the Linux world, at least in my experience. Not to mention administering a multi-user multi-computer environment in Windows is a nightmare because the OS was never designed with either in mind.

Please elaborate on these issues. We have trained and qualified Windows MCSE techs that do a wonderful job on our windows servers.

Our Windows 2000 and Win2003 servers maintain excellent uptime and the sort of setup we have really pushes these servers to the max.

Microsoft tech support is pretty good as well for those who have dealt with them. They analyze log files for you and follow up on issues as well.

Linux is inherently a more stable design than Windows. But the latest server editions, especially Windows 2003 match any linux/unix server in stability and security if properly managed.

I have never had a windows server compromised due to a security flaw in the windows OS or in IIS. We spend much more time locking down a RedHat Linux machine compared to a Windows 2003 machine which is locked down out of the box.

Sorry but I can't talk about those issues because it is a bank. You'll have to take my word for their existence.

Yes, Windows 2003 Server is locked up out of the box - but it is locked down in such an extreme way that it's in my eyes more a marketing ploy and a last desperate gamble to release an OS that isn't taken apart by security specialists at once. It is locked down so far that you have to manually enable things so that it can function at all. Any Linux would be 200% secure against network hacks if you'd shut down all services, set up a firewall that blocks each and every port, remove all user accounts and set up root with a 128 characters long random password containing all the required types of characters. As far as I care, some of the security enhancements in Windows 2003 Server go into the same category as the Outlook patch after ILOVEYOU, which didn't fix anything at all, simply disallowed to open about 30 common file extensions, thus not so much increasing security but putting obstacles into the work of people.

RambOrc, from what you are saying, I seriously doubt your background on this issue or whether you have any knowledge on the Windows 2000 or 2003 operating systems, or what's meant to "lock-down" a system.

Windows2000/IIS5, the latest service pack is a very stable hosting platform and quite secure in my experience. We've never had a compromise due to the OS or web server. Win2003/IIS6 is locked down in many ways compared to Win2000. For example, IIS6 has a filter that now discards malformed requests. Although the possibility of finding any sort of bug in IIS that can be exploited for an overun is remote, the filter by eliminating anything that isn't normal further prevents possible exploitation. All services are not enabled by default which is a good thing. Turn on whatever you need to use. Go through the Win2003 security manual if you want to know more.

Linux, especially RedHat linux doesn't have the best security record either. There have been security vulnerabilities found in its kernel from time to time and during 2002-2003, more security exploits were found in RedHat Linux compared to Win2000.

Originally posted by RambOrc
.... having worked with probably way more operation systems than most: besides Windows 95/98 and NT4/2000 Workstation, Windows XP Professional, Windows NT4/2000/2003 Server and a couple of Linux distros I did work with MS DOS, Windows 3.1 and Mac OS 8/9/X as well (and I mean actively using, I've been doing DTP back on a 286 computer in DOS 4/5 with WordPerfect). My experience with some other operating systems like FreeBSD, Sun Solaris and BeOS are of a rather fleeting acquintance so I prefer not to count them when it's about real-world experience (though BeOS is one of the two operation systems whose install procedure I liked most - the other was Corel Linux).

It seems you've never worked with the server OS that, in my opinion, is the most stable and most secure one: NOVELL

Especially the newer versions, Novell Netware 6 and higher, are really great server OS, but not as popular as Linux and Windows. Novell Netware - my favourite server operating system :cool:

Originally posted by Josh Stein
You mean botched?

Also, I disagree. I have been using Windows XP since its release and have had no problems. In addition, I have deployed it in many offices without any problems. I don't think I had any issues with Windows 2000 either. ME is certaintley another story and simply put, that was the worst OS ever.

No I mean Bodge Job. Please accept what I write. Americans and British have different ways of saying things. I'm not going to change my way just to suit another country.

I'm not slating XP I'm just saying I didn't initially trust it. I now have it installed on a seperate partition.

If you also read my post properly I said that it's very slow on my pc due to my hardware (mainly my low 112MB memory).

I never slated 2000.

I take it you only skim read my post and didn't read it in depth?

If Me is the worst OS ever, then how is it that I had to re-install 98SE every month and I've had Me running for over 2 years at a time? - With no problems at all. Sure ME might not be suitable for office networking etc, but for the average home user it does a fine job.

-Turboz

Originally posted by RambOrc
As far as consumer desktop OSes go, Linux is not the true answer to Windows - Mac OS X is.

p.s. can you recall when and where you heard the word "Winblows" for the first time?

Sure it was actually on a flash game where you had to stop Bill installing Winblows by splatting Bill on the screen with his winblows installation!

Why? :)

-Turboz

Originally posted by yangxi
It seems you've never worked with the server OS that, in my opinion, is the most stable and most secure one: NOVELL

Especially the newer versions, Novell Netware 6 and higher, are really great server OS, but not as popular as Linux and Windows. Novell Netware - my favourite server operating system :cool:

Novell is a dying technology. it was great in its glory day but almost no one still use or plan to buy it. companies are either moving toward linux or Windows.

No, I've never tried Novell Netware nor a long list of other OSes which is a pity but I never got the chance to do it. ;) Anyway, Novell itself seems to jump on the Linux bandwagon, having bought SuSe.

As for Winblows, I'm curious because when I first "invented" it in 1999 or so, I never heard it before and sure it's possible others have thought of the same word, but in my case I've actually had a reason to call it this way which is explained at http://orc.orcishweb.com/cf/monopoly/best_products.html

Originally posted by RambOrc
No, I've never tried Novell Netware nor a long list of other OSes which is a pity but I never got the chance to do it. ;) Anyway, Novell itself seems to jump on the Linux bandwagon, having bought SuSe.

As for Winblows, I'm curious because when I first "invented" it in 1999 or so, I never heard it before and sure it's possible others have thought of the same word, but in my case I've actually had a reason to call it this way which is explained at http://orc.orcishweb.com/cf/monopoly/best_products.html

Lol
Nice site :)

-Turboz

Originally posted by RambOrc
No, I've never tried Novell Netware nor a long list of other OSes which is a pity but I never got the chance to do it. ;) Anyway, Novell itself seems to jump on the Linux bandwagon, having bought SuSe.

As for Winblows, I'm curious because when I first "invented" it in 1999 or so, I never heard it before and sure it's possible others have thought of the same word, but in my case I've actually had a reason to call it this way which is explained at http://orc.orcishweb.com/cf/monopoly/best_products.html

Come on? When you invented it? Sheesh. Symantically there are few differences when it comes to security between the latest patches of windows vs. linux. Note I say linux and not Unix. The biggest differentiator are the admins.

Given two admins of the same skill who truly want to secure their servers. Linux or Windows, both will be able to.

I have consulted for Wells Fargo Finacial Services and can state that they even in fact have a VERY large number of both Solaris/Tru64 and Windows servers.

Keep in mind that the Windows team has access to Microsoft source code and has in fact found numerous security issues and submitted fixes back. The thing is that only very large institutions like this have access to the code.

I will say on RambOrc's behalf that the Windows server team pretty much locks the windows servers down to a point that they really aren't very Microsoft like, :D.

I'm just saying security is about your administrator's and your policy not necesarily the OS's.

What's so impossible about it? Someone invents each of these buzzwords at one time, they don't just come into existence without human interaction. What I know is that when I first started using this word nobody else used it and with time more and more people started using it too (and I've been quite well-known in some online circles back in the late 90s). I'm not saying it was me who put this word into the web, but one never knows. If you ever stumble upon the word "overcock (TM)" that one is even more probably from me.

why don't you register them as domains or something when you think of them.. you have any clue how much traffic domains like that get?

Originally posted by jt2377
Novell is a dying technology. it was great in its glory day but almost no one still use or plan to buy it. companies are either moving toward linux or Windows.

Novell Netware 4 and 5 were not a great success, but with Netware 6 and the integration of Linux through the acquisition of Suse, I would not write them off.

Yangxi :)
I like NOVELL

Originally posted by Kiamori
why don't you register them as domains or something when you think of them.. you have any clue how much traffic domains like that get?

No way I'd want to register a domain that gets me in trouble with M$ lawyers... they're coming down on domains that even just sound a bit like the name of an M$ product and start a lawsuit about anything. They've got all those billions of bucks they suckered out of people to do this with, all the money I have is what I honestly earned.