pharaoh fortune slot
ExamNotes.net
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 18, 2017, 10:03:01 AM

Login with username, password and session length
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  ExamNotes.net
|-+  Microsoft (MCSE, MCSD, MOUS, MCAD)
| |-+  Windows XP exams
| | |-+  .Net Enterprise Server
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: .Net Enterprise Server  (Read 1889 times)
whytokayok
Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 171

1


View Profile WWW
« on: August 26, 2002, 02:31:07 AM »

Is any one out there running .Net yet? The preview release is available from Microsoft.  I've installed it and so far my problems have been minor. The wizards are very cool and they make setting up the POP3, NAT, etc.. server roles very easy.  It has the XP feel to it however the XP interface was not included in the preview version (RC1).  It does however support IP version 6 so I'm pretty sure there will questions on it's exam relating to this subject.
Logged

John 3:16 bought me to my knees..

California e-Business Solutions
www.c-ebs.com
rallen155501
Junior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1

0


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2002, 06:14:06 AM »

Well I got mine but haven't installed it yet, the 64 bit says a minimum of 32 GB of ram? Is this a typo or am I going to need alot more ram to be able to run this mother. I have read the resource cd  and I really like that I am just overloaded right now.
Logged
ym_tan2
Junior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1

0


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 01, 2002, 06:49:24 AM »

It is like Windows XP. It's cool. Little configuration compared to Windows 2000 server. It does almost everything automatically from DNS to AD to WINs. One thing I don't understand is that it don't do reverse lookup. It's almost a perfect server from what I see. However, I've not try all. One application, I try to run is exchange 2000. However seems like it got some compatibility problems. Anyway, it's still too early to say....
Logged
tohrt
Senior Member
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 321

0


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2002, 04:17:22 PM »

My analogy is close to everyone elses as far as too early to tell about SR1.

It is bloated.

It is plug & play to the point when I change some setting I can't expect it to stay. It will reset back to default about 1/2 the time on reboots.

It is an inordinate resource hog.

Exchange has some major issues with it.

It appears to be XP without the Corp. GUI pretty much.

If someone doesn't know how to set up a server, this & all its' wizards is for them. If you want to set up a custom configuration, the wizards get in the road at times & I like 2000 much better.

I think a Net Admin will be doing allot of registry hacks keeping this straight unless he accepts the M$ defaults.

I'm thinking this is aimed at small businesses that do not have admins. For that it should work good for them.

Personally, I don't care for it so far. But, I can see its' place in the market.

But thats' just my opinion.
Smiley
Logged
AMDWiZARD
Kneel Before Me
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 214

2


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2002, 11:29:09 PM »

It will be extremely awesome to see the final version of this thing. And yeah, it eats resources, but im not worried about it, any dual Athlon machine should be able to handle it just fine Wink
Logged

Knowledge IS POWER!

Greatness REQUIRES Sacrifice!
tohrt
Senior Member
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 321

0


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2002, 04:58:18 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by AMDWiZARD
It will be extremely awesome to see the final version of this thing. And yeah, it eats resources, but im not worried about it, any dual Athlon machine should be able to handle it just fine Wink


And yeah, it eats resources, but im not worried about it,

OK
But my test box for server stuff is a Dual PIII 1000 w 1Gb memory & SCSI's on a hardware RAID controller.

Linux - Win2000 - NT 4.0 - Novell - Solaris - [hot swap sleds] all just flies on this system. XP & .Net doesn't. My experiences have been that anything that sucks that kind of resources is inefficient glitchy & crash proned in what it does. So put into a production enviorment, how many lockups & crashes will this thing be doing because it sucked the life resources out of the system. I've tried adding another 512 Mb memory & that didn't improve anything.
The thing is bloated. It installs everything you need & a ton of what you don't need or use by default, turned on. Go in & remove & shut down services helps quite alot.
They had better do some major code improvements prior to final release, or this thing won't be able to find anything to run on out of the box.

Come on - Recomending 32 Gb of memory for .Net Server. IF this is what it takes to run this thing in a production enviorment, wouldn't it be better/cheeper to LEARN how to configure a server, & not rely on this PnP server for novices? Everything else requires 2 to 4 Gb of memory. 32, I can't beleive that.
:rolleyes: And yea, it eats resources
Logged
StevoC
Senior Member
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355

0


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2002, 09:42:38 AM »

Does anyone have a list of hardware requirements for .net?  I loaded it on a laptop with a single 1.4 Intel processor on it and it seemed to run fine.  A little slow, maybe (only 256 MB's RAM), but otherwise it was OK.  I didn't run it through many tests though.

Thanks and appreciate the help.
Logged

Just my 2?.
tohrt
Senior Member
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 321

0


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2002, 10:00:49 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by StevoC
Does anyone have a list of hardware requirements for .net?  I loaded it on a laptop with a single 1.4 Intel processor on it and it seemed to run fine.  A little slow, maybe (only 256 MB's RAM), but otherwise it was OK.  I didn't run it through many tests though.

Thanks and appreciate the help.

Smiley
This is what I get currently >
The Hardware Compatibility Database is temporarily unavailable. Please try again later.  
Try this link when M$ gets it back up  
http://www.microsoft.com/hwdq/hcl/
Wink

What you have is adequite to run it.
What else you load is where the added resources are needed. Like I doubt you will be loading a ton of services or a large Oracle or SQL database to a laptop. That is where everything starts adding up fast & the need for a ton of memory comes in.
Smiley
« Last Edit: September 12, 2002, 10:06:09 AM by tohrt » Logged
StevoC
Senior Member
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355

0


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2002, 01:55:04 PM »

The main reason I loaded it on a laptop was for testing purposes with Exchange 2000.  This way I could easily move the laptop back and forth from home to the office.  

Sounds like Exchange may have some issues with .net though...
Logged

Just my 2?.
tohrt
Senior Member
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 321

0


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2002, 04:57:18 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by StevoC
The main reason I loaded it on a laptop was for testing purposes with Exchange 2000.  This way I could easily move the laptop back and forth from home to the office.  

Sounds like Exchange may have some issues with .net though...

Smiley
This is KBAlertz. It is a compilation of all M$ posted bullitins/issues/bugs/eratta/ Etc..

http://www.kbalertz.com/technology.aspx?tec=246

navigate by using the search box on the left side of the page. The above link is to the XP list. I found about 300 for .Net the other day.
Good Luck .
Smiley
Logged
AMDWiZARD
Kneel Before Me
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 214

2


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2002, 02:57:19 AM »

Exchange 2000 and Win.net are incompatable.. its a documented issue. Well not an issue, just a Microsoft way of making you move to their next piece of software which is better than their last Smiley
Logged

Knowledge IS POWER!

Greatness REQUIRES Sacrifice!
Bingram
Member
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 94

0


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2002, 06:49:31 PM »

I've been running .net server for about a month now.  Yea, it is a resource hog.  But after all it is a "do everything" NOS!

The overall OS seems pretty good compared to the Win2K beta (remember back in the days when Y2K was on the front page?).  But then again, .net benifits much from it's W2K foundations.  A tried and true engine, with not much new modification.

I'd say .net is much closer to it's predecessor (W2K) than W2K was to NT4.  Because of that, don't look for MS to radically redesign the MCSE track.  Furthermore MS doesn't wish to commit the error they avioded last year (remember the plans to de-certify the NT4 MCSEs?)

Look for dual track certs (W2K and .Net) for a while, eventually leading to one track in a couple of years or so.  

Is .Net bloated?  Yep.  Many years back an old UNIX admin with many years of wisdom told me the best way to keep your server running is to keep it simple, but beat the devil in the details.  For example, only load the DNS daemon if you must have it, and then verify the .conf file down to the last detail... and check it again!

The problem I see with the wizards and easy to setup services lies in the ease of implementation.  Too easy to setup, yet difficult to mod past the defaults.  Good admins should keep their registry editing skills tuned up for .net!

Consultant's nightmare -- brief the client they need X service running.  Client decides it can't be that hard (Control Panel>Add/Remove Programs> Poof!).  Calls back next day, "I've been hacked because of that #@$@* service you said to install."  Consultant wastes valuable personal time fixing error and bug filled default install of X service.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!