Brian
Thu Aug 28 08:43:54 CDT 2008
Huh?????
Not sure where you read all of this into my answer.
Brian
"Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2AF4D144-1C68-4EB0-BEA0-24C15C184D78@microsoft.com...
> Thanks Brian. As you can see Mark Bohlsen my questions were relevant
> because
> it helped you to explain what you wanted to do and Paul has given his
> thoughts and now clearer heads prevail again with Brian Komar whose
> response
> is clear cut and shows that unless you have Enterprise or Data Center
> SKu's
> you will only gain newer bits. As we all can see, Brian Komar, mvp has
> cleared away the confusion of the situation and now Mark Bohlsen can make
> a
> better decision in how Mark would like to proceed and going to newer
> software
> does not always mean that the huge investment return on the newer software
> is
> worth the cost. Remember, Microsoft even has over 100+ pages about
> properly
> securing and safeguarding Windows 98 and Windows NT computers available
> from
> their website.
>
> "Brian Komar (MVP)" wrote:
>
>> - No issuance of certificates based on version 2 certificate templates =
>> no
>> customized certificates-
>> - No key archival and recovery
>> - No autoenrollment of user certificates for deployment
>> - Can only issue version 1 certificates using Automatic Certificate
>> Request
>> Services for computer certificates
>>
>> To be honest, you pretty much gain nothing moving from Windows 2000 to
>> Windows 2003 if you do not run on Enterprise or Data Center Edition
>> SKUs.
>> The only thing you gain is newer bits
>> Brian
>>
>>
>> "Mark Bohlsen" <MarkBohlsen@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:157E9980-A8A6-4162-8351-BE668CCB06EB@microsoft.com...
>> > Paul,
>> >
>> > Thanks for the response. Dan had me worried, I was hoping that wasn't
>> > going
>> > to be an attempt to answer my question. Anyway, I was wondering if you
>> > could
>> > expand on the 2003 features that I would be missing out on if I went
>> > with
>> > 2003 standard edition. Thanks in advance.
>> >
>> > Mark
>> >
>> > "Paul Adare - MVP" wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:52:27 -0700, Mark Bohlsen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > 3Hi, I plan to migrate my existing Windows 2000 physical server
>> >> > running
>> >> > certificate services (subordinate CA in the forest) to a VM, and
>> >> > then
>> >> > upgrade
>> >> > the server to Windows 2003 R2. Are there any caveats to an in place
>> >> > upgrade
>> >> > of this type? I will have to change the ip address, but the name of
>> >> > the
>> >> > server will stay the same. Is there any problems with this? Also,
>> >> > when I do
>> >> > the in place upgrade does it automatically detect that certificate
>> >> > services
>> >> > is installed and upgrade the certificate database without having to
>> >> > do
>> >> > anything else? Currently, all of 3 DC's in this child domain are
>> >> > Windows
>> >> > 2003. Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated, as I haven't
>> >> > gone
>> >> > through an upgrade of this type. Thanks in advance.
>> >>
>> >> Ignore Dan, he tries to insert himself into threads even when he has
>> >> no
>> >> idea what he's talking about, as is the case here.
>> >> An in-place upgrade from 2000 to 2003 will work just fine and
>> >> Certificate
>> >> Services will be upgraded along with the rest of the OS bits.
>> >> Keep in mind however, that you don't get to take full advantage of all
>> >> of
>> >> the new Certificate Services features in 2003 unless your CA is
>> >> running
>> >> the
>> >> Enterprise or Datacentre Edition SKU.
>> >> --
>> >> Paul Adare
>> >> MVP - Identity Lifecycle Manager
>> >>
http://www.identit.ca
>> >> That does not compute.
>> >>
>>