Windows Server 2003 life is running out

Recently marked one final year of support for Microsoft’s Windows Server 2003 line.

Just like Windows XP, Microsoft will cease support on this wildly popular server line on July 14, 2015.

The migration is on for some, have already finished for others and some shockingly didn’t even know the impending doom is coming or are procrastinating.

Microsoft estimates that a Server 2003 network [i.e. Server 2003 controllers, DHCP, DNS, etc.] would take about 200 days to completely migrate off that server operating system to Server 2012 R2 [the 200 days depends on the size of the network].

Hewlett-Packard estimates something like 2.7 million servers running Windows Server 2003. That’s close to 7400 servers per day world-wide – assuming there are 2.7 million servers out there to migrate.

Server manufacturers such as IBM/Lenovo, Dell and Hewlett-Packard must be rubbing their hands waiting for the big rush of server purchases. Problem is that they will never see some of those servers.

First, some companies may decommission older servers and move features and applications to underperforming servers that already exist [and are running Windows Server 2008 or newer].

Second, many of those 2.7 million servers are virtualized. The hardware manufacturers will make nothing off those virtualized servers except if a company needs a new host or two to alleviate the strain as the newer servers have higher resource requirements.

Like Windows XP, expect some companies to take the gamble by not upgrading those servers with specialized hardware or software [for example: software that isn't upgradable]. There are companies still using Windows 2000 server – discontinued over 4 years ago.

Chrome browse bug poses power problem for portables

Wondering why you are not getting the same battery life [anywhere] near the expected life that is advertised for your laptop?

If you use Google’s Chrome web browser, that could be a reason.

A documented bug in the source code for the Chromium open source project – that has been around for close to two years – seems to account for some of the power drain that has hit users of Chrome browser have been experiencing.

The bug was first included for Chrome version 22, yet Chrome’s developers have so far ignored it.

The bug has to do with how Chrome forces Windows machines to manage processor idle time. When a laptop isn’t doing much, it sends its processor(s) to sleep to save power, waking up every once in a while if there are any events that need handling. For Windows, these wake-ups normally happen every 15.625ms, but that interval can be adjusted. Instead of waking up the processor every 15.625ms, Chrome tells Windows to have it wake up every 1ms. So while your laptop normally wakes up the processor 64 times per second when it’s idle, when you have Chrome running, the processor wakes up 1,000 times per second.

This wouldn’t affect a desktop [except a bit of power consumption] unless you are experience a power failure in the room but have a UPS. In which case, don’t use Chrome during a power failure.

I am wondering sometimes if Google does this on purpose. After all, it is on the competitor’s operating system.

New Gmail security kills syncing with some applications

If you are using Gmail with an application such as [but not limited to]:
• Microsoft Outlook [as part of Office]
• Outlook Express
• Thunderbird
• Email app on iPhone or iPad with iOS6 or below
• Email app on Windows Phone versions prior to 8.1
• 3rd party email apps on Android devices
Please read below….

Google has made a change in security with its Gmail mail system. This change was initiated today. If you are getting errors where you cannot synchronize one of the clients above with Gmail, it is because of this change. [An error message about an incorrect password is not true.]

The problem with these email clients is that they work with “Basic Authentication”. Google has increased its security measures to block access to Google accounts after July 15, 2014 if those accounts are being set up or synced in apps and on devices that use Basic Authentication.

To allow these clients, you will need to go into “Settings” in your Gmail account from the web site and adjust you settings like below [“Enable”]. You will receive a confirmation Email after of the change.

gmail-lesssecure

Typical Google. Was there any advanced notification?

 

 

One year away from the next Windows apocalype

Today marks one final year of support for Microsoft’s Windows Server 2003 line.

Just like Windows XP, Microsoft will cease support on this wildly popular server line on July 14, 2015.

The migration is on for some, have already finished for others and some didn’t even know the impending doom is coming or are procrastinating.

Microsoft estimates that a Server 2003 network [i.e. Server 2003 controllers, DHCP, DNS, etc.] would take about 200 days to completely migrate off that server operating system to Server 2012 R2 [the 200 days depends on the size of the network].

Hewlett-Packard estimates something like 2.7 million servers running Windows Server 2003. That’s close to 7400 servers per day world-wide – assuming there are 2.7 million servers out there to migrate.

Server manufacturers such as IBM/Lenovo, Dell and Hewlett-Packard must be rubbing their hands waiting for the big rush of server purchases. Problem is that they will never see some of those servers.

First, some companies may decommission older servers and move features and applications to underperforming servers that already exist [and are running Windows Server 2008 or newer].

Second, many of those 2.7 million servers are virtualized. The hardware manufacturers will make nothing off those virtualized servers except if a company needs a new host or two to alleviate the strain as the newer servers have higher resource requirements.

Fan takes team to court for dozing off during game

Yes. You read it right.

A New York Yankees fan has filed a $10 million lawsuit against two ESPN announcers, ESPN, Major League Baseball and the Yankees contending they mocked him using words like “fatty” and “stupid” when he was caught on national television sleeping in his seat during a game against Boston recently at Yankee Stadium.

In the lawsuit, Andrew ector admits in court documents he “napped” during a game on April 13, but says the ESPN commentators Dan Shulman and John Kruk unleashed an “avalanche of disparaging words” against him.

Rector says he suffered “substantial injury” to his “character and reputation” and “mental anguish, loss of future income and loss of earning capacity.”

The “loss of future income and loss of earning capacity” would not have happened if he didn’t fall asleep and didn’t file a lawsuit. Now that he filed a lawsuit everyone knows his name.

Yes, the announcers did go a bit far but until the lawsuit came out, I think few would of known he was the sleeping target.

The fact that he also blames the Yankees is ridiculous as they have little to do with the issue – other than a boring game [2-1]. Maybe he included them because it was a boring game and if it was 12-10, he would of been awake!

I would suspect Yankee fans won’t be happy with him.

You can see and hear a video of the what happened here. It’s your call. :-0)

Is the Windows Start menu coming back or not?

More games from Microsoft? [No not those games.]

Seems that after a Microsoft Build conference, one of the Microsofties announced something that just about everyone who supports Windows knew already: the Start menu would return.

Now the build conference was in April 2014, just before Windows 8.1 “Update” was released.

So most were expecting this in an “Update 2” which was initially denied [after all why wouldn’t “Update” be called “Update 1” if there was an “Update 2” coming out].

So, techies began to think that if there is no further update, the Start menu would be out as part of Windows 9 – still possibly another 1.5 years later.

Then talks swirled around that there will be an “Update 2” [scheduled now for a release in August].

But the latest news has it that “Update 2” will just have some minor fixes. No Start menu.

Now there is talk of a rumored “Update 3” scheduled for next spring which could have the Start menu update.

But by then it is rumored that Windows 9 would be released. [Of course we’d know by late this year if that rumor is valid when the first public betas are released (or a leaked alpha or private betas)].

You can actually see menu here.

Unfortunately, you can’t make out the build or version of Windows in the bottom right corner.

As for what the Start menu looks like? If that is the final looks in the video, you will have two camps: those who like it and those who want the actual Windows 7 Start menu back. There is no satisfying anyone.

Microsoft takes down malware pushing domain – affects legitimate sites

Recently, Microsoft seized 22 domain names from No-IP.com the company was aiming to put mostly [malware] criminals out of business; the domains were allegedly being used to conduct attacks against Windows users. Microsoft obtained a court order allowing it to seize control of the targeted domains. However, while some subdomains were allegedly being used in the attacks, the takedown also affected other servers that were used for legitimate reasons.

Some are questioning how Microsoft could request and get court approval to do this. As well, according to No-IP, Microsoft failed to notify them to take down the malicious domains.

Unsure if Microsoft has responded to the allegations that they never warned No-IP. But, I am sure No-IP were warned by others that they are hosting malware and did nothing about it [or didn't push hard enough].

Microsoft did take things in their own hands. But No-IP should of known that it could happen to them, if not by Microsoft pressure then by some other company.

As for Microsoft pushing their muscle, I don’t think it was Microsoft’s job to verify the facts. It was the court who are responsible to make the final decision. Whether or not the court [before the approved take down] asked Microsoft if it would affect legitimate sites is a question that needed answered. This is like asking for a warrant to arrest a suspect. The judge reviews the evidence given and may request further information or not. [I'm assuming the court who gave the approval to Microsoft knows a bit about technology.]

I think it is also time that registrars should be partially responsible for what goes on with sites they have registered. Too many of them will register a site without caring. Why else would someone register the domains [if they still exist - don't check!]: adobe-downloads.com, windowsenterprisedefender.com, and microsoftantispyware.net.

In the end, I’d be safe than sorry. Take down the domain. Those with legitimate sites can go after No-IP for knowing they are hosting suspicious web sites which could affect their site’s operation. [Of course I'm not a lawyer.]

[Update 2014/07/04:] Microsoft has since apologized to those legitimate sites that were affected for the “technical error”. Note that it took the court about a week to grant Microsoft’s request for the takeover. I am still thinking that the judge involved didn’t do his/her homework and see if it would affect others.

But according to reports, to did do some damage to the Syrian Electronic Army as well. According to Kaspersky Labs, the takedown impacted a quarter of the “advanced persistent threat” actors it’s been tracking.

The malware in this case was Bladabindi (NJrat) and Jenxcus (NJw0rm), which together predominantly used No-IP to generate over seven million infections in the past year.

Vitalwerks, which runs No-IP, said it now has 18 of 23 domains commandeered by Microsoft on Monday using a restraining order granted by the state’s federal court. I will assume these house the more legitimate sites.

Meanwhile, at one point No-IP that said it was under DDoS (distributed denial-of-service) attack but it did not affect its DNS infrastructure.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 66 other followers