Re: ADAM on W2K
From: Dmitri Gavrilov [MSFT] (dmitrig_at_online.microsoft.com)
Date: 10/12/04
- Next message: Mike: "Re: Server 2003 Local Login"
- Previous message: Chriss3 [MVP]: "Re: Adding accounts to group doesn't work"
- In reply to: Joe Kaplan \(MVP - ADSI\): "Re: ADAM on W2K"
- Next in thread: noplay: "Re: ADAM on W2K"
- Reply: noplay: "Re: ADAM on W2K"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:23:43 -0600
Surely there are marketing purposes :)
I can only speak of technical reasons. There are some system calls that ADAM
makes that are not available on w2k. One example that I used to give is the
AuthZ library. But I heard it was actually ported to w2k not so long ago.
But there are other calls that are not ported. We could code around I
suppose, but... See above.
And, of course, there are test resource limitations that are always present.
Testing on yet another platform basically increases our test matrix.
Especially if we need to test on multiple SPs and such.
-- Dmitri Gavrilov SDE, Active Directory Core This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm "Joe Kaplan (MVP - ADSI)" <joseph.e.kaplan@removethis.accenture.com> wrote in message news:uEgDAuGsEHA.3076@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > I know that ADAM is designed to use the LogonUser API to authenticate > Windows users in addition to ADAM users. LogonUser can only be called by > SYSTEM level accounts (those that have Act as part of the operating system > privilege) under 2000, but can be called by normal users on XP and 2003 > server. Since ADAM is designed to run using low privileged service > accounts, this would not work in 2000. > > I'm sure there are more substantial reasons too, but that came to mind as a > technical one. Dmitri may chime in with some other stuff if he wants since > he knows better than anyone. > > Also, I wouldn't be surprised if there are marketing reasons. ADAM is free > with Windows Server (i.e. no additional license fee to use it), but I'm sure > MS would rather use that feature to sell more licenses of 2K3 than to > encourage people to stay on Win2K. > > Joe K. > > "noplay" <noplay@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:414E4657-B059-4258-A12F-AD33FD1922E8@microsoft.com... > > Any reason why in particular? Just curious, .NET 1.1 runs on Windows 2000 > > Server and it is new technology. > > > > Thanks for your help > > > > "Chriss3 [MVP]" wrote: > > > >
- Next message: Mike: "Re: Server 2003 Local Login"
- Previous message: Chriss3 [MVP]: "Re: Adding accounts to group doesn't work"
- In reply to: Joe Kaplan \(MVP - ADSI\): "Re: ADAM on W2K"
- Next in thread: noplay: "Re: ADAM on W2K"
- Reply: noplay: "Re: ADAM on W2K"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|