Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Releases Windows Server 2003 SP1

Masq666 writes "Microsoft has wrapped up development on the first major update to its Windows Server 2003 operating system and released it for download, The company said that Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 is currently available for download via Microsoft's site and will soon start showing up on new servers. Among the primary benefits of the free update is the inclusion of security enhancements similar to those added to Windows XP with last year's Service Pack 2. News.com.com has more details and commentary."

6 of 371 comments (clear)

  1. I am not a Win S2K3 admin, but by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    OK, I am not a Windows Server 2003 admin, but is it just me, or is it really odd that Microsoft is just now including a firewall?

    --
    If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
  2. Brilliant idea by SilentChris · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In all seriousness, I definitely like the new "PSSU" (Post-Setup Security Updates) feature. Awful name, but it does the following when someone first installs Windows 2003:

    1.) Blocks all incoming traffic.
    2.) Immediately guides the first person who logs on through downloading updates.

    This would be such a terrific blessing for new XP users: block traffic and immediately send them off to the update site. Excellent idea.

  3. Re: Microsoft Releases Windows Server 2003 SP1 by SilentChris · · Score: 5, Interesting

    True, but they have a few excellent ideas in there. I'm a little "meh" about the "security configuration wizard" (personally, if you're using a wizard to configure security you probably shouldn't be admining a server in the first place.

    The PSSU feature, though (as I mentioned in another post), that blocks incoming traffic on first boot and immediately directs the user to download updates is awesome. Why other companies haven't thought about this, I have no idea. I really hope this gets put into the next consumer version of Windows.

  4. Re:Intriguing. by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They lied. 2003 is a very poor execuse for a Desktop/Gaming machine. Not even Microsoft recommends it as such.

    FWIW, Microsoft did manage to consolidate things about the time of XP. The reason why they unconsolidated was to bring many of their security features to the server market so that they wouldn't get trounced on by the competition before Longhorn is released. And to actually say something nice about Microsoft, 2003 *is* more secure. Unfortunately, most of that security is added in a rather stupid way. "You can't run IE because it is insecure. Would you like to make it runnable anyway? (Y/N)" (rolls eyes)

  5. 64 bit XP by buhatkj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    IMHOP, the more interesting tidbit from this article is the info that XP 64-bit should go on sale next month :-) As the proud owner of 2 athlon 64's, that's actually something I would want to know about....

    --
    sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
  6. 329.3 MB Of What? Why The Monolithic Patches? by EXTomar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is quite hefty but then this is what I expect from "Service Packs" especially in one giant chunk.

    "Download time remaining: 22 minutes"

    So now I'm chained to box since I suspect at some point I need to click something on some dialog to complete installation (this is an assumption but past history on other updates tells me I should watch the process to make sure it goes all the way through).

    On the other hand I had to setup sever based off of FC3 yesterday and out of the box it required to download 450MBish of stuff broken into 150+ individual downloads. After installing the gpg keys, I started the update ('yum -y update') and walked away from it. Other systems have something that is just as easy and dare say fool proof.

    I would really like MS to bite off things in smaller chunks. I do recognize the fact that every part of the 329MB download is probably necessary but why not roll out in both a large chunk and small chunks to accomidate different enterprise configurations? I like having options on rollout but I constantly find Windows rollouts very lacking.