Yeah, I know, they have it down to only 4 steps now to remove an icon from your desktop! Good job Microsoft!
I'd make an updated version for you, but I don't want to take the time to reinstall Vista right now. I do it every few months to check on the progress, and have always ended up erasing it again out of frustration. Besides, I wasn't looking for proof, I was looking for an example. How was I to know you'd be in such denial that you wanted "proof"?
It's nice, but why are these necessary to use it as a "workstation"?
2. New User, Auto Logon and Strong Passwords Enforcement: How to create a new user, how to configure a user to logon automatically and how to disable enforcement of a minimum complexity for passwords.
8. Internet Explorer Enhanced Security: Disable Enhanced Security in Internet Explorer.
2. Not sure about the auto logon. New user makes sense, right? Microsoft has gone crazy with some of the password requirements-- I'm fine with complexity, but IIRC the default domain settings on 2003 are something like, "Force users to change their password every 30 days, and don't let them re-use any of their last 14 passwords." And that's stupid.
8. Again, some of the security enhancements on Microsoft's servers are absurd. I can't remember all the details, but recent versions of their servers won't allow you to download anything from the Internet, won't let you install plugins or ActiveX controls (it won't even ask you, it just won't allow it), and even if you manage to download something, Windows won't run it.
Some of my details may be off, but the general idea is there. You can either jump through insane hoops to get things working, or you can disable their security.
Baloney. They've tried to make it a little better in some of the updates, but UAC still pops up when you're trying to change user-level settings, remove shortcuts from your own desktop or start menu, and various other stupid things.
Even those PHBs are "IT pros" (IT Managers, Directors of Technology, CIO/CTO). These guys want transparency too. Hell, I am one of those IT PHBs, so I know something about it.
Bean Counters haven't been able to make software purchasing decisions in any company I've ever worked for. The most I've ever seen them do is work on negotiating a better price after the IT Dept has authorized the purchase, or refusing a purchase outright because it wasn't in the budget. The Bean Counters aren't the "customers" in any significant sense.
I wouldn't have nearly so much objection to all these EULA cases, if the vendor would just disclose to the customer that the product is not really being sold, and that it's some kind of license agreement instead.
I wasn't referring to the issue of whether the software was "sold" or "licensed". I'm saying it's sold as a software upgrade *for macintosh computers*. It isn't sold as a stand-alone OS that can be installed on any PC.
Actually, I wonder if this is really an issue of the EULA. IANAL, but it seems to me that Psystar isn't really the "End User". The bigger issue, it seems to me, is that Psystar copying OSX (by installing it), altering it, and then distributing it without any license to do any of that.
It seems a little more like real/blatant copyright infringement, in that way of looking at it. But I'm not sure what a lawyer would say. (Yeah, I'm an armchair person in this murky world)
What matters is, after you have settled on a spec you want, or found a Dell or HP you want, can you duplicate that for the same price from the Apple product line?
Why is that "what matters"? It seems to me "what matters" has a lot to do with who you're talking to. You're talking about "what matters to you", which probably isn't exactly the same as "what matters to me."
But when you're talking about whether something is a "rip-off", it seems to me you're talking about something more than whether something is "worth the expense".
For example, I think the new electric car from Tesla Motors is a very nice car, but it's also very expensive. For me, it's definitely not worth the expense. However, I wouldn't call it a "rip-off". I don't believe that Tesla Motors is trying to cheat people by selling this car. I don't think they're particularly misrepresenting the quality of the car, nor do I think they're engaging in outrageous mark-ups. It even seems to be the case that the value:cost ratio is pretty high in comparison with other similar products. It's just that at a certain point, the cost is high enough that I don't care anymore about the value.
Similarly, you might not care about the value presented by Apple computers-- either because you find the price absolutely too high, or because you don't need the features that are associated with the "value". In that case, Apple products might not be "worth the price". However, the since the prices of their prices compare well against similarly configured products, I find it hard to agree that they are "ripping people off".
It'd be one thing if they were trying to run "competition" out of the market. Like if they were suing another OEM who made their own OS for obscure reasons, knowing that it would kill that OEM.
But Pystar isn't "competition", it's another company that is (more or less) violating Apple's copyright for their own financial gain. OSX is not a stand-alone software product, and no one has a license to install it on non-Apple hardware. If Apple started going after individual hackers, I'd be more likely to have a problem with it.
They've created fake problems for the consumer public to laugh about in an attempt to sway them from the PC/MS market.
If the problems were fake, why would people laugh about those problems? For example, if they made a commercial about how Windows machines were awful because they didn't have enough programs/peripherals available, people wouldn't laugh along with the commercial. If anything, they'd laugh *at* the commercial because it would be nonsense, and the ad wouldn't work.
Apple has extremely high customer loyalty because they're focussed primarily on the "user experience". When you take a step back and look at how poorly most hardware/software is designed, it's easy to poke fun. Hell, you could poke fun at some of Apple's design choices if you wanted to ("If I wanted roasted nuts, I would have bought some Planters peanuts, not a laptop!" badum-ching!). But you can't reasonably say Apple is "creating fake problems".
Well that was their stated intention, at least. Many people have suspected that they wanted to do more with it, since they were asking for the record of every view of every movie, including usernames and addresses. That seems like a lot of info just to demonstrate that a movie had been viewed many times. Doesn't YouTube publicly display the number of views for each movie anyway?
But personally, I'd sooner be suspicious that this is a ploy to get access to Google's data as market research. If you're a media company looking for sources of data to mine, getting Google's YouTube records is hitting the jackpot.
IT Pros aren't a big chunk at all. Corporations, however, are a rather huge chunk
When the customer is a "corporation", who do you think is evaluating the options and making the purchasing decision? Who do you think is placing the order? Who actually has to deal with the software once it's purchased?
If Redhat or Apple can meet the needs of corporate IT workers better than Microsoft, then Microsoft products won't get purchased anymore. Microsoft has only survived this long due to their success in locking out the competition.
Maybe people on/. haven't run into problems with DRM because they know enough to avoid it? People should be aware of the real-life implications of DRM. It isn't theoretical. It's a problem we'll face in the future as services shut down, and whatever you bought through that service will be lost.
Well, it is marketing in this sense: Microsoft created Windows Media formats because they saw an opening for a media format that would be acceptable to content producers, to consumers, and to everyone in between. They produced Windows Media and sold it as a product that would have strong DRM to meet the needs of music companies, and be well-supported enough to settle consumers' fears about buying DRMed media.
And to that extent, I think it was probably a good move. I don't like DRM, but I don't really blame them for making a DRM product to suit the needs .
Don't get me wrong, marketing isn't all great. One example of Microsoft making a marketing decision that I don't think was so great is the segmentation of Windows into 50 different versions. Even if marketing is fine as a practice, that doesn't mean that your "marketing guys" are all that bright.
But overall, I do feel like Microsoft would be well served to look at what their users need and trying to provide it, rather than thinking of things you think you can provide and then trying to use your leverage to make people buy it.
A big enough chunk to justify the down-sides (to Microsoft, strategically) of doing that? I doubt it; if it was, they'd do it. Microsoft isn't stupid.
Well that's exactly the problem. They're still enough of a monopoly where pleasing their customers still doesn't have to be worth much to them. So any "strategic downside" is enough to put off any improvement.
In any case, you're just guessing what Microsoft's customers want based on what you want and probably some comments on Slashdot
Well I'm basing it on the wants of every network tech, helpdesk tech, IT manager, and Director of IT that I've ever talked to. Admittedly, that's anecdotal, but do you have better?
Anecdotal evidence is still evidence, you know. It's just not the most reliable kind.
Exactly my point. If you try to play Wii boxing by throwing punches, you'll probably lose to someone who knows better, and who knows that flicking your wrists are much more effective. I consider that "a problem".
This new motion sensor may make that "problem" go away, which would be nice.
Anecdotal. IT pros are a big portions of Microsoft's customers, and every IT pro I know wants that sort of openness. If they don't, then they probably aren't very good at their jobs, or else have really easy jobs.
Yeah, I know. I just mean that the only content they put up are some ugly ad pages, and they have no intention of doing anything else with the domain (as far as putting up content).
And yes, it's all big business. But it kind of stinks that the DNS system has been abused in this way. I'm not sure what you do about that-- but anyway, like I said, this is all off-topic. I just think it's kind of sad that when I see the headline, "FSF Helps Launch Autonomo.us To Focus On Freedom In Network Services", my first thought is, "Wow, you mean Autonomo.us wasn't already taken by someone with no intention of using it?"
Yeah-- but I don't think it makes sense to say that Hollywood is "the customer" when I buy a copy of Windows. It's really more a case of Microsoft screwing over one customer with one product line in order to please a strategic partner who's interested in another product line.
Because the main point in the DRM was in order to help Microsoft sell licenses to use Windows Media formats. But even with the Windows Media formats, Hollywood wasn't the customer. Online stores and portable player manufacturers were the customers, and pleasing Hollywood was a way to get the movie/music industry to endorse the file formats. And none of this was really for the purpose of giving customers or consumers a good product.
That's part of the reason it was so hilarious to see Apple negotiate for DRM-free audio. When Microsoft determined that they couldn't grow any more in the OS market (because they had a monopoly), they sold that market out in order to gain traction in another market (licensing media formats). They'd put in a huge investment, and Apple had managed to pull the rug out from under with the first DRM-free track they sold.
This may be a bit off-topic, but my initial response to the headline was, "That's pretty clever, but I'm surprised someone hadn't already registered it." It seems like every word ending with a "us" got bought a while back when people first figured that whole thing out.
So out of curiousity, I went looking to see what was at some of those websites. They're all ad pages-- nothing is at any of them, really. It's a sad state of affairs with DNS that there has been such a land-grab and so many domains are taken by people whose only intention is to put up some filler ad pages in the hopes that someone might happen along.
Eh, anyway, it's nice to see someone got ahold of one and are using it for something.
Well, yeah, it's fine for them to be using old hardware. It seems like it's an embedded system that probably has lots of specific requirements, and they can't afford for there to be a BSOD. So it's only smart to use stuff that has been around for a long time and is known to work without any delays or bugs.
Still, it'd be awesome if you could fly one of these things with a Wiimote while rendering the the outside world with a modern game engine. I bet you're going to ask "What's wrong with the '3D graphics' of real life?" Well, the textures are nice and high-res, but dammit, there aren't enough lens flares.
Since we all THINK RAM companies will try to benefit from this, and Microsoft knows they would be blamed for it, they'll work fairly hard to make sure the system coundn't be abused (by threatening to post RAM use, memory leak, and potential abusive applications online, and actively persuing any expected activity of this kind).
Again, that sounds good in theory-- but are you familiar with Microsoft's business practices? The whole reason they've been trying to keep IE so dominant is for the purpose of selling ad-space in their OS. Those pre-installed bookmarks that come with IE are ad space. They preset their browser to use their own search engine so that they can sell ad space. They put links into folders containing pictures to "order prints online". How do you think the vendors selling prints get their links in there? And all the DRM put into Windows Vista was done amongst complaints because they were partnered with the entertainment industry.
Microsoft's whole business model consists in vendor lock-in, and then leveraging that lock in to sell you products made by them and their strategic partners. Personally, I resent that they're always trying to point me toward specific vendors for 3rd party software/hardware/services. I want to find someone as MS and tell them, "Get this straight. You make my OS. Your job is to make sure that I have a stable software base on which to run my applications and allow them to interface effectively with hardware. That's the extent of our relationship, and who I do business with is none of your concern."
I doubt it. For one thing, it does seem to be a problem with the Wiimote itself. I've seen it in a few instances where moving too fast causes it to misread the motion. But also, if it were to encourage people to "fight effectively" then they failed. Turns out that the best method for Wii boxing is to not throw punches at all, but instead flick your wrists-- but not too fast.
Sounds like a good idea in abstract, but think about it. You want Microsoft to build in something that recommends that a user buy hardware? How long until they have a contract with a specific RAM vendor to recommend their RAM? How long after that will Windows me recommending more RAM every day, even when you have plenty?
Ads don't belong in an OS, and therefore purchase recommendations don't either. It's too easy for the latter to become the former.
They need to start thinking Windows needs not be a one size fits all approach.
Funny, I have more of a problem with the way in which Microsoft refuses to use a one-size-fits-all approach. How many different versions of Vista are there? How many of Windows 2003 Server? And it all feels like a scam to me, like they're hoping you'll buy the cheap version, realize that it's lacking some minor but important feature, and then be forced to upgrade to the Super-Ultimate version that's expensive because it has tons of features, most of which you'll never use.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I know, they have it down to only 4 steps now to remove an icon from your desktop! Good job Microsoft!
I'd make an updated version for you, but I don't want to take the time to reinstall Vista right now. I do it every few months to check on the progress, and have always ended up erasing it again out of frustration. Besides, I wasn't looking for proof, I was looking for an example. How was I to know you'd be in such denial that you wanted "proof"?
It's nice, but why are these necessary to use it as a "workstation"?
2. New User, Auto Logon and Strong Passwords Enforcement: How to create a new user, how to configure a user to logon automatically and how to disable enforcement of a minimum complexity for passwords.
8. Internet Explorer Enhanced Security: Disable Enhanced Security in Internet Explorer.
2. Not sure about the auto logon. New user makes sense, right? Microsoft has gone crazy with some of the password requirements-- I'm fine with complexity, but IIRC the default domain settings on 2003 are something like, "Force users to change their password every 30 days, and don't let them re-use any of their last 14 passwords." And that's stupid.
8. Again, some of the security enhancements on Microsoft's servers are absurd. I can't remember all the details, but recent versions of their servers won't allow you to download anything from the Internet, won't let you install plugins or ActiveX controls (it won't even ask you, it just won't allow it), and even if you manage to download something, Windows won't run it.
Some of my details may be off, but the general idea is there. You can either jump through insane hoops to get things working, or you can disable their security.
Baloney. They've tried to make it a little better in some of the updates, but UAC still pops up when you're trying to change user-level settings, remove shortcuts from your own desktop or start menu, and various other stupid things.
Even those PHBs are "IT pros" (IT Managers, Directors of Technology, CIO/CTO). These guys want transparency too. Hell, I am one of those IT PHBs, so I know something about it.
Bean Counters haven't been able to make software purchasing decisions in any company I've ever worked for. The most I've ever seen them do is work on negotiating a better price after the IT Dept has authorized the purchase, or refusing a purchase outright because it wasn't in the budget. The Bean Counters aren't the "customers" in any significant sense.
But it is sold as though it is.
I wouldn't have nearly so much objection to all these EULA cases, if the vendor would just disclose to the customer that the product is not really being sold, and that it's some kind of license agreement instead.
I wasn't referring to the issue of whether the software was "sold" or "licensed". I'm saying it's sold as a software upgrade *for macintosh computers*. It isn't sold as a stand-alone OS that can be installed on any PC.
Actually, I wonder if this is really an issue of the EULA. IANAL, but it seems to me that Psystar isn't really the "End User". The bigger issue, it seems to me, is that Psystar copying OSX (by installing it), altering it, and then distributing it without any license to do any of that.
It seems a little more like real/blatant copyright infringement, in that way of looking at it. But I'm not sure what a lawyer would say. (Yeah, I'm an armchair person in this murky world)
What matters is, after you have settled on a spec you want, or found a Dell or HP you want, can you duplicate that for the same price from the Apple product line?
Why is that "what matters"? It seems to me "what matters" has a lot to do with who you're talking to. You're talking about "what matters to you", which probably isn't exactly the same as "what matters to me."
But when you're talking about whether something is a "rip-off", it seems to me you're talking about something more than whether something is "worth the expense".
For example, I think the new electric car from Tesla Motors is a very nice car, but it's also very expensive. For me, it's definitely not worth the expense. However, I wouldn't call it a "rip-off". I don't believe that Tesla Motors is trying to cheat people by selling this car. I don't think they're particularly misrepresenting the quality of the car, nor do I think they're engaging in outrageous mark-ups. It even seems to be the case that the value:cost ratio is pretty high in comparison with other similar products. It's just that at a certain point, the cost is high enough that I don't care anymore about the value.
Similarly, you might not care about the value presented by Apple computers-- either because you find the price absolutely too high, or because you don't need the features that are associated with the "value". In that case, Apple products might not be "worth the price". However, the since the prices of their prices compare well against similarly configured products, I find it hard to agree that they are "ripping people off".
It'd be one thing if they were trying to run "competition" out of the market. Like if they were suing another OEM who made their own OS for obscure reasons, knowing that it would kill that OEM.
But Pystar isn't "competition", it's another company that is (more or less) violating Apple's copyright for their own financial gain. OSX is not a stand-alone software product, and no one has a license to install it on non-Apple hardware. If Apple started going after individual hackers, I'd be more likely to have a problem with it.
They've created fake problems for the consumer public to laugh about in an attempt to sway them from the PC/MS market.
If the problems were fake, why would people laugh about those problems? For example, if they made a commercial about how Windows machines were awful because they didn't have enough programs/peripherals available, people wouldn't laugh along with the commercial. If anything, they'd laugh *at* the commercial because it would be nonsense, and the ad wouldn't work.
But make an ad about how overzealous UAC is in Vista, and you'll get a chuckle out of people. It's funny because it's true.
Apple has extremely high customer loyalty because they're focussed primarily on the "user experience". When you take a step back and look at how poorly most hardware/software is designed, it's easy to poke fun. Hell, you could poke fun at some of Apple's design choices if you wanted to ("If I wanted roasted nuts, I would have bought some Planters peanuts, not a laptop!" badum-ching!). But you can't reasonably say Apple is "creating fake problems".
Well that was their stated intention, at least. Many people have suspected that they wanted to do more with it, since they were asking for the record of every view of every movie, including usernames and addresses. That seems like a lot of info just to demonstrate that a movie had been viewed many times. Doesn't YouTube publicly display the number of views for each movie anyway?
But personally, I'd sooner be suspicious that this is a ploy to get access to Google's data as market research. If you're a media company looking for sources of data to mine, getting Google's YouTube records is hitting the jackpot.
The question there is, will that help wit this problem, or will it just bring about another land-grab?
IT Pros aren't a big chunk at all. Corporations, however, are a rather huge chunk
When the customer is a "corporation", who do you think is evaluating the options and making the purchasing decision? Who do you think is placing the order? Who actually has to deal with the software once it's purchased?
If Redhat or Apple can meet the needs of corporate IT workers better than Microsoft, then Microsoft products won't get purchased anymore. Microsoft has only survived this long due to their success in locking out the competition.
Maybe people on /. haven't run into problems with DRM because they know enough to avoid it? People should be aware of the real-life implications of DRM. It isn't theoretical. It's a problem we'll face in the future as services shut down, and whatever you bought through that service will be lost.
Well, it is marketing in this sense: Microsoft created Windows Media formats because they saw an opening for a media format that would be acceptable to content producers, to consumers, and to everyone in between. They produced Windows Media and sold it as a product that would have strong DRM to meet the needs of music companies, and be well-supported enough to settle consumers' fears about buying DRMed media.
And to that extent, I think it was probably a good move. I don't like DRM, but I don't really blame them for making a DRM product to suit the needs .
Don't get me wrong, marketing isn't all great. One example of Microsoft making a marketing decision that I don't think was so great is the segmentation of Windows into 50 different versions. Even if marketing is fine as a practice, that doesn't mean that your "marketing guys" are all that bright.
But overall, I do feel like Microsoft would be well served to look at what their users need and trying to provide it, rather than thinking of things you think you can provide and then trying to use your leverage to make people buy it.
A big enough chunk to justify the down-sides (to Microsoft, strategically) of doing that? I doubt it; if it was, they'd do it. Microsoft isn't stupid.
Well that's exactly the problem. They're still enough of a monopoly where pleasing their customers still doesn't have to be worth much to them. So any "strategic downside" is enough to put off any improvement.
In any case, you're just guessing what Microsoft's customers want based on what you want and probably some comments on Slashdot
Well I'm basing it on the wants of every network tech, helpdesk tech, IT manager, and Director of IT that I've ever talked to. Admittedly, that's anecdotal, but do you have better?
Anecdotal evidence is still evidence, you know. It's just not the most reliable kind.
Exactly my point. If you try to play Wii boxing by throwing punches, you'll probably lose to someone who knows better, and who knows that flicking your wrists are much more effective. I consider that "a problem".
This new motion sensor may make that "problem" go away, which would be nice.
Anecdotal. IT pros are a big portions of Microsoft's customers, and every IT pro I know wants that sort of openness. If they don't, then they probably aren't very good at their jobs, or else have really easy jobs.
Yeah, I know. I just mean that the only content they put up are some ugly ad pages, and they have no intention of doing anything else with the domain (as far as putting up content).
And yes, it's all big business. But it kind of stinks that the DNS system has been abused in this way. I'm not sure what you do about that-- but anyway, like I said, this is all off-topic. I just think it's kind of sad that when I see the headline, "FSF Helps Launch Autonomo.us To Focus On Freedom In Network Services", my first thought is, "Wow, you mean Autonomo.us wasn't already taken by someone with no intention of using it?"
Yeah-- but I don't think it makes sense to say that Hollywood is "the customer" when I buy a copy of Windows. It's really more a case of Microsoft screwing over one customer with one product line in order to please a strategic partner who's interested in another product line.
Because the main point in the DRM was in order to help Microsoft sell licenses to use Windows Media formats. But even with the Windows Media formats, Hollywood wasn't the customer. Online stores and portable player manufacturers were the customers, and pleasing Hollywood was a way to get the movie/music industry to endorse the file formats. And none of this was really for the purpose of giving customers or consumers a good product.
That's part of the reason it was so hilarious to see Apple negotiate for DRM-free audio. When Microsoft determined that they couldn't grow any more in the OS market (because they had a monopoly), they sold that market out in order to gain traction in another market (licensing media formats). They'd put in a huge investment, and Apple had managed to pull the rug out from under with the first DRM-free track they sold.
But I apologize, all of this is off-topic.
This may be a bit off-topic, but my initial response to the headline was, "That's pretty clever, but I'm surprised someone hadn't already registered it." It seems like every word ending with a "us" got bought a while back when people first figured that whole thing out.
So out of curiousity, I went looking to see what was at some of those websites. They're all ad pages-- nothing is at any of them, really. It's a sad state of affairs with DNS that there has been such a land-grab and so many domains are taken by people whose only intention is to put up some filler ad pages in the hopes that someone might happen along.
Eh, anyway, it's nice to see someone got ahold of one and are using it for something.
Well, yeah, it's fine for them to be using old hardware. It seems like it's an embedded system that probably has lots of specific requirements, and they can't afford for there to be a BSOD. So it's only smart to use stuff that has been around for a long time and is known to work without any delays or bugs.
Still, it'd be awesome if you could fly one of these things with a Wiimote while rendering the the outside world with a modern game engine. I bet you're going to ask "What's wrong with the '3D graphics' of real life?" Well, the textures are nice and high-res, but dammit, there aren't enough lens flares.
Since we all THINK RAM companies will try to benefit from this, and Microsoft knows they would be blamed for it, they'll work fairly hard to make sure the system coundn't be abused (by threatening to post RAM use, memory leak, and potential abusive applications online, and actively persuing any expected activity of this kind).
Again, that sounds good in theory-- but are you familiar with Microsoft's business practices? The whole reason they've been trying to keep IE so dominant is for the purpose of selling ad-space in their OS. Those pre-installed bookmarks that come with IE are ad space. They preset their browser to use their own search engine so that they can sell ad space. They put links into folders containing pictures to "order prints online". How do you think the vendors selling prints get their links in there? And all the DRM put into Windows Vista was done amongst complaints because they were partnered with the entertainment industry.
Microsoft's whole business model consists in vendor lock-in, and then leveraging that lock in to sell you products made by them and their strategic partners. Personally, I resent that they're always trying to point me toward specific vendors for 3rd party software/hardware/services. I want to find someone as MS and tell them, "Get this straight. You make my OS. Your job is to make sure that I have a stable software base on which to run my applications and allow them to interface effectively with hardware. That's the extent of our relationship, and who I do business with is none of your concern."
I doubt it. For one thing, it does seem to be a problem with the Wiimote itself. I've seen it in a few instances where moving too fast causes it to misread the motion. But also, if it were to encourage people to "fight effectively" then they failed. Turns out that the best method for Wii boxing is to not throw punches at all, but instead flick your wrists-- but not too fast.
It should recomend TO the user to add more RAM
Sounds like a good idea in abstract, but think about it. You want Microsoft to build in something that recommends that a user buy hardware? How long until they have a contract with a specific RAM vendor to recommend their RAM? How long after that will Windows me recommending more RAM every day, even when you have plenty?
Ads don't belong in an OS, and therefore purchase recommendations don't either. It's too easy for the latter to become the former.
They need to start thinking Windows needs not be a one size fits all approach.
Funny, I have more of a problem with the way in which Microsoft refuses to use a one-size-fits-all approach. How many different versions of Vista are there? How many of Windows 2003 Server? And it all feels like a scam to me, like they're hoping you'll buy the cheap version, realize that it's lacking some minor but important feature, and then be forced to upgrade to the Super-Ultimate version that's expensive because it has tons of features, most of which you'll never use.