Posted: January 7th, 2011 | Author: rthomson | Filed under: Sysadmin, Tips & Tricks | Tags: microsoft, pro, problem, update, win2k, windows, windows 2000, windows update | No Comments »
I needed to re-install a Windows 2000 Pro system today because the HDD was failing and we wanted to convert from ATA to SATA at some point anyways. We have nice gzipped dd images of the system, but that’s with the ATA drive and a different SATA controller. The install is also old and crufty. We need a system in a better known state and so fresh re-install it is.
As to why I’m installing Windows 2000 in 2011? This application requires Windows 2000 Pro as it is an instrument controller and thus the proprietary control software is finicky and we only receive support with the manufacturer-mandated OS and software stack version(s). There are a few other reasons why we also need to keep Windows 2000 Pro at this point but they aren’t relevant or interesting.
Now on to the problem.
Windows Update no longer works from a fresh install of Win2k Pro! The issue is Internet Explorer 5, the version of IE bundled with Windows 2000 Pro. Windows Update now requires at least IE6 in order to function properly. I don’t know when that changed but presumably some time ago as I haven’t run Windows Update on a fresh 2000 install in years. Luckily the solution is fairly simple, just download IE6 from microsoft.com and get rockin’.
It struck me as strange at first but quite understandable after a few moments of reflecting on it, especially considering Windows 2000 reached end-of-life in July 2010.
Yeah, that post pretty much sucked. Sorry, folks.
Posted: November 10th, 2010 | Author: rthomson | Filed under: Sysadmin | Tags: aiglx, amd, centos, chroot, fedora, gdm, kvm, ldm, linux, localdev, ltsp, magny cours, radeon, rhel, server, virtualization, windows, xdmcp | No Comments »
There have been some interesting new developments lately! Here’s a shrunken summary.
At present I’m doing a technology review for implementing a new terminal server. Our existing terminal server is a 4-way AMD Opteron 848 system that’s about 5 years old right now. It runs CentOS 4 and has been so mega-customized over those 5 years, I’ve never wanted to go through the pain of in-place upgrading to CentOS 5. We also have a simple IBM 1U server running Windows 2003 Server for windows purposes. It’s ok but also about 5 years old.
The idea is to roll both these servers into a large single physical server with some kind of virtualization. The large system would also have the resources to run other VMs, as necessary. Development/test boxes or what not.
[ Read More ]»
Posted: April 30th, 2010 | Author: rthomson | Filed under: Sysadmin | Tags: microsoft, rage, rant, software, vendor, windows | No Comments »
I’m not a lawyer nor a business analyst nor a licensing expert but I’m annoyed at Microsoft’s double dipping on Windows licenses under their Campus Agreements. Apparently, Windows and Windows only, under the Campus Agreement is an upgrade license and not a full (albeit leased) license like every other product falling under the Campus Agreement.
What this practically means is that for a PC to qualify for a Windows license under the Campus Agreement one must have purchased that PC with an OEM version of Windows installed. How is that not double dipping, Microsoft? Is it simply because you call the CA license an upgrade? Why not apply the same rules to Office or would that be too obvious of a rape for your customer base to handle? I also find it humorous that if you buy a Mac from Apple, apparently the upgrade clause doesn’t apply! I wonder why that is? Perhaps it’s because Microsoft would like keep Mac users dependent on their software by offering it under the CA without the big “gotcha” you’ve snuck in for other manufacturers PCs because it’s impossible without Apple selling OEM copies of Windows? Why wouldn’t Microsoft want to “convert” some Linux geeks with whitebox or custom built PCs back to their platform the same way as Mac users? Not a big enough install base to care?
Am I the only person that thinks this is double dipping? Am I missing something here?