My biggest concern with using a Server OS is the problems I have had installing some software that is not "licensed" for server-based operating systems. Like anti-virus, some developer tools, etc...
Of course you also have the reverse problem with installing server-based tools on a workstation OS, like SQLServer Professional or Enterprise. The difference is there are usually developer versions of the enterprise tools that will work on your workstation OS.
Hey Phillip,
Over my last 13 years of development there have only been 2 applications that I had been unable to install on server versions of Windows. Like you said, one was an anti-virus tool from a specific manufacturer, so I just went to a different manufacture, case solved. The other was some video conferencing software that I rarely used, but guess what? It works on Windows Server 2008, whereas I couldn't even install it before.
As for developer tools, if they don't install on a server, then you should not be installing them. Developers should be developing on the platform(s) that they intend their applications to run on. And on top of that, I do not believe in using a million 3rd party tools in applications that I develop. In the past I had used quite a few, but trying to manage all of them becomes impossible as time moves forward.
Take it easy,Bill
You've always been a troublemaker... :-) Thanks for the link anyway! I guess I was so struck by Mojave before it seemed so un-Microsoft.
Hey Dave, you know me well. I had some great teachers and mentors in my past, and I did some entertainment work in the early 90s. Because of that, I am always thinking, "What are they NOT saying?" When it comes to advertising the most important words are those that are not said.
Tonight was the first night that I had seen a Mojave commercial. It and all the videos on the web site are heavily edited to remove anything that does not reflect nicely on Vista. The sad thing is that if they had hired a professional ad company to do this, it wouldn't be as obvious.
I write a ton of vbscripts to help with system administration.
Up until just today no problems now DEP will not allow any VB Scripts to run. Even after I change the settings to "Turn on DEP for essential Windows programs and services only". Originally I tried to allow wscript.exe to be allowed, but this problem is explicitly denied and can't be allowed.
I feel completely handicapped without the ability to run my scripts.
Hey Markus, are you sure that it is the DEP that is preventing your VB scripts from running? It may be the UAC or even IE that is preventing them from running. The companies that I've done business for don't allow VB Scripts to be run due to their virus potential. If you can, the best options would be to either convert them to Windows PowerShell scripts, or write a .NET application to do the work.
Funny thing was I sold my copy of vista x64 business oem on ebay b/c as a university student I can get server 2008 for free from MS's dream spark thing. Can also get server 2003 if i want to put that on another machine
Tweaking Server 2008 to operate as a workstation on my thinkpad was so easy given the utility available at win2008workstation.com
This machine sure if fast and stable. I turned off various services and this gave it a speed up.
Haven't really had much trouble with anything, would like to get Bluetooth going though
Very smooth to adapt it to workstation OS
i was searching for ready made templates to enhance the way of working and save time.
thanks this post save my couple of hours.
I just converted and it certainly is speedy. One neat thing I noticed was how little RAM it uses, especially for open apps. I rarely go over 1 gig of memory used, even with a browser, office, email, explorer, and chat windows opened. My Vista partition BOOTS UP with over 900 megs of memory already allocated versus roughly 550 with 2K8.
interesting post. see this tutorialfeed.blogspot.com
THANK YOU!!!
I just saw this post and have to say right now ATT is the worst. I am going through the same thing right now. I was just on the phone with ATT for about an hour. They could never explain why the POTS lines couldn't work with the UVERSE nor ever told us we could not have the pots line while having the UVERSE. The phone lines we have are ATT but one we have a line for a business line and the second is our home phone that is hooked up through the Home Security system, which is not compatible with the Voip system. The person would not connect me to a manager and never got the right answer. Still waiting and I told them to reinstall that line that they can not for any reason uninstall a line without informing us first. They said that we could not have uverse and dsl in the same house hold and I told them the 2 don't work off the same line one is a POTS line and the other is a fiber line and we have had both the UVERSE and the POTS lines for about a month now and decided today to shut it off. I kept asking them to transfer me to someone who knew what they were talking about and never did I told them seriously I can handle the tech talk and would rather talk to someone who has a clue about phone lines and tv then someone that keeps repeating themselves and saying it just can't. So I kept asking why. FRUSTRATING
Hey KG,
The real problem is the way that AT&T does business. While they tend to get new products out very quickly, they do it at the cost of not being able to handle problems in an expedient and consumer friendly way. This results the issues that we have run into, and typically takes them 2 years to work out. There is no reason that you can't have any combination of POTS, POTS w/ DSL, Dry Loop DSL, U-verse, etc., service all at the same time. The limiting factor here is that the U-verse service is not yet integrated with the other systems and they don't have a system in place to let them both co-exist at the same time.
The only think that I can tell you is that you will need to drop all of your current services and rebuild everything from scratch. You should be able to keep any POTS numbers that you have, but you may be offline for as much as 3 weeks. I know how their systems work, so I was able to get back up in 6 days, but it took me 16 hours of talking with people on the phone to get it done. If you haven't already placed a brand new order for service, do that right now. You can always cancel the order if you get lucky and they are able to restore you old service, but if they aren't and you don't place the order now you will be offline for 3 weeks while their systems go through the workflow.
Good luck,Bill
One big issue AT&T is having is "U-verse False Reds". This is when the call center or ordering online they say U-verse isn't available but your neighbor has it. I found that it is a P-Committed Pairs issue & the Pairs need to be conditioned for U-verse. I found a guy at AT&T that can fix it & his email address is lk6435@att.com just send him your name, address, phone number & he works with engineering to fix it so you can place your order.
one of the three taboos? What are the other two?
Hey Brian (creator of BeHeard.com),
You don't know the other 2? Religion is one, and sexual preference is the other. All three topics are based on emotions, but there is no blakc and white right and wrong. People try to connect them with morality, but morality is a concept of its own that people distort to prove their arguments. Bringing up any of the 3 is a good way to get you banned from most web sites. :)
Hey Bill,
I'm not ordinarily in the habit of replying with "hey try our stuff" style comments but a random Google search led me to your web site.
You might check out Telerik's Sitefinity CMS when you have a bit of time. We try to stick closely to traditional ASP.NET technologies to make it easy for .NET developers to extend the system.
You can find online demos, downloadable trials, open forums and the free community version at http://www.sitefinity.com/
Graffiti CMS is obviously a nice bit of software as well. Whatever you choose, I wish you & your client the best of luck.
Gabe Sumner
www.sitefinitywatch.com
Hey Gabe,
I am extremely happy that you posted this as Sitefinity is something that I hadn't looked at since it's first release. I had a previous client that used the first release of your AJAX controls, so I am familiar with Telerik. After looking at a couple pages, your pricing, and watching a video, I forwarded the information to my client. He almost dropped dead when he saw what it could do and at 1/3 the price of Umbraco. Needless to say, he gave the go ahead and about 5 hours later I had our entire site fully integrated with Sitefinity. All I need to do now is to actually start using it. My client will be ordering a license on Monday. Do you think that I could get a free license for this site? :)
Thanks a bunch,Bill
Hi Bill, I use the Umbraco CMS for quite a while now since 2006. The replies on forumposts usually are always with the intention to help. As I read your post, IMO most people are also trying to help, but the discussion what followed of what a CMS should be and what Umbraco can do OOTB felt negative indeed. The fact that umbraco can be fully extended.
Personally I think the Karma option is a useless option. It is introduced 2 months ago, and a lot of people (including me) do not like how it works.
BTW: At the end of your thread, there was some positive conclusion. Although you already choose another CMS, your original question (about uploading to an exacty location) will be included in the near future :-)
Hey Nico,
I did check back a few days ago, and I did see that one of the core developers responded positively with what you stated. The bottom line for us came down to 2 issues:
While #2 may have largely been a language disconnect, it should not have been in an English forum and it is something that I will not discuss further. However, the design of the Umbraco Window had a major affect on my clients decision as we felt that it would not be prudent (too expensive) to expend resources to make the changes that we absolutely require.
While Umbraco has come a long way, it does not work very well with IE. Since more than 99% of our users use IE, this was a rather simple decision for my client to make. The users were also very confused on how and where to create and edit content, and they spent an entire week with it. Since Sitefinity is basically just an extension of ASP.NET itself, it was much easier to work with and no one had any problems using it.
Thanks for the comment,Bill
Great to hear that you found a product that suited your needs. No product is a silver bullet that works for all and the downside of a very enthusiastic user base can be that they really wants to persuade you into a product that might not fit your bill.
I'm curious however about the IE issues that you mention. Could you take the time to elaborate on how Umbraco doesn't work with IE? From our experiences it works flawlessly with IE6, IE7 and IE8.
Cheers,Niels Hartvig (Founder, Umbraco)
Hi Niels,
We do our development using IE8 in standards mode, and then check the site under compatibility mode to make sure that it still looks and works properly. The Umbraco window does not display items properly, nor does it work in some places, when in standards mode. We were constantly forced to switch between the modes to get any work done, which wastes a lot of time. We were also very concerned by the amount of javascript used in the Umbraco window as that directly relates to higher maintenance costs in the future.
I use both Umbraco and Sitefinity (as well as Sitecore) and I've had a good experience with both for deploying websites that work for my clients.
I'm surprised that there was a feeling of negativity in the Umbraco community because it seems to be the most active and helpful community of the three I've listed above.
They all have their pluses and minuses. Umbraco is best when you build a site from the ground up using it. I feel like the end users get a much cleaner and less complicated content editing experience (similar to Sitecore) when done right.
I agree, Sitefinity is more ASP.NET like. I like all of the OOTB modules they provide. However, the editing of content in Sitefinity can tend to create more of a burden on the content editor without templates/document types like Sitecore/Umbraco. So for less experienced clients, that may be a factor we have to weigh.
Given that you were migrating an existing site with themes I can absolutely see how Sitefinity would be a slam dunk for getting the site up and running quickly.
Question: I'm curious why the model of having separate CMS Users (umbraco membership?) and site users (asp.net membership) is a bad security model?
Oh, and why the high licensing cost for Umbraco? I'm using the free version. It is open source after all...
Hey Jason,
Most applications with complex security models misuse the ASP.NET Membership System and Umbraco is no different. This is a huge topic and beyond the scope of this post, but if you look into enterprise level single sign-on solutions you will see how they are misusing it.
As for the cost, you will have to ask Niels Hartvig as he is the owner of Umbraco. There are very strict limitations on the free-use open source license for Umbraco. Open source does not mean freeware, but the majority of people do not understand that.
We're looking at a vendor to build our new Web site on Umbraco and your comments make me nervous. My understanding was that since it was open source there was no licensing fee. Did I misunderstand something? I'm so confused. Also, when I was doing reference checks everyone I talked with really liked Umbraco (these were marketing types, not tech people). Now I'm not sure what to think. Can someone sort of clarify things a bit?
Hey Kari,
The simple answer is, nothing is completely free for all uses unless it specifically says "Freeware". If you look at the UPDATE at the top of this post, you will see a link around the "$4,300-$5,800" text. Click on this link and you will see the licensing terms.
Thanks, this solve my problem that was giving me a really big headache
wat happened to the video!?! :(
According to customer service I must cancel my current DSL service (PAETEC formerly McLeodusa) before Uverse can be installed. Even though customer service says Uverse is available at my current address, I need to be 100% certain. (I have two co-workers who were told the same thing, but then the technician showed up, opps you can’t have it.) My current DSL provider will not reconnected me if I cancel my service. PAETEC is getting out of the residential business. Customer service is unwilling to open trouble ticket to conduct a site survey at my residence to ensure I’m Uverse compatible.
Thoughts?
Hey Johnny,
There are a lot of things that can make it either troublesome or impossible to install U-verse at your current address. As of the last time that I spoke with anyone at AT&T about this (almost a year ago), I was told that due to the way that their systems are setup, it is only possible to have either DSL or U-verse, not both, at a single street address (i.e. w/o unit/floor modifiers). If you live in an apartment complex and anyone has DSL service, then no one in the complex will be allowed to have U-verse unless everyone switches to U-verse, and vice-versa.
U-verse is technically HDSL that is delivered to your local junction box via fiber, and you are required to use the 2Wire box that AT&T provides. This setup has severe limitations and may not work for you if you have a local network and host your own servers, so be warned. All machines must connect directly to this box. You can't place a firewall between your machines and the 2Wire box unless it is able to simulate multiple MACs on a single NIC, which only a very few expensive devices are able to do.
And last, but not least, if you need multiple public IPs you may just be SOL. There are too many variables to go through, but even though AT&T says that you can run servers, they have designed the system in such a way that no business that knows anything about Internet security would every allow their network to be connected in the manor that AT&T requires.
At my current location, Verizon was unable to get my DSL lines up after 5 days, so I went to my local cable provider to get business service. This differs greatly from the residential service that may drop to virtually a zero data rate when busy. I am guaranteed a minimum data rate and enjoy about 1.5 times that almost all the time. About a year ago, the pfSense beta added support for multiple virtual IPs on the WAN connection which allows me to use the modem provided by my local cable company. This might be something that you want to look into as an alternative.
Take it easy,
Bill
Hi there. I have a Quick question.
I have exactly the same problem. I am running VS.Net 2008 with IIS7 and I get the error message as:
"Unable to start debugging on the Web server. The IIS worker process for the launched URL is not currently running."
I am little newbie, could you please show me step by step on how to make the IP address set to All Unassigned.
Thank you. :)
I will be very grateful to you.
Best regards.
Sid
For me it's worst, I got the Uverse connection when I had already have an ADSL. They installed and both uverse and adsl were working for couple of days and they canceled Uverse without notifying us, and when we called, they LIED and said we requested for cancellation, which we never did. Their U-verse CPE is one of very few CPEs supporting certificate based authentication and there is NO WAY to disable the firewall on the CPE. I wasted 2 days fixing this with no success and ultimately I came to know that by POLICY they can not provide UVERSE and ADSL! which they can not explain and you guys know the call center MESS of At&t!
It was a bad experience with ATnT.
Zaheer
I also went through a nightmare week before UVerse replaced my DSL line. Apppointments got mixed up, and I was on the phone with several different departments at AT&T and none of them were able to communicate with each other, so that meant having to be on hold for another 20 mins. while I got transferred and then having to re-explain the entire story over and over again to another technician. It's working now, but not the way I was originally sold. I was originally told by the salesperson when I ordered it that I would receive speeds between 12-15 due to UVerse's new technology. After installation, my speeds run between 6 and 7 (they were running between 5 and 6 with my original DSL). The technician informed me that I will never be able to achieve higher download speeds than what I have now as long as I'm using a phone line, because I'm 8500 feet away from the phone box. So what, really, is the point of UVerse? Why did AT&T invest so much $$$ into it when it's essentially the same as my old DSL was?
Hi, thanks a lot for the trick. It saved me from white nights and nightmares. Disabling the property instantly resolves the problem.