What OS’es should NAP support?
We visit many customers and partners around the world. One thing we hear consistently is “NAP client enforcement MUST BE SUPPORTED on XP”.
Which OS’es would block / hinder your NAP deployments if they weren’t supported? Any nice-to-have’s (non-blocking)? Raw numbers and/or supporting facts about your deployments, to justify the need, would really help us judge how big the problem really is.
Do you need support for:
1.) Windows 2000
2.) Windows Server 2003
3.) Mac
4.) Linux
5.) Other
Please post your comments through the blog.
Jeff Sigman [MSFT]
NAP Release Manager
Jeff.Sigman@online.microsoft.com *
https://blogs.technet.com/nap
* Remove the "online" to actually email me.
** This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Comments
- Anonymous
August 04, 2006
Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP would be deal-breakers, particularly the latter.
Mac & Linux I'd file in the "would be nice" column. - Anonymous
August 04, 2006
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
August 04, 2006
We have quite a few Mac OS X seats, and whereas it won't prevent us from doing our work, it probably will hinder us. A lot depends on what the Security folks have in store for us in terms of domain policies. - Anonymous
August 04, 2006
I think the order of importance is based on desktop not server:
1. Mac
2. Linux
3. Win2003
4. Win2000
I agree with Pat, I do not think we will be quarantining servers. We will just issue health certs to them and patch/maintain them separately.
Having none of these clients supported will NOT block deployment. - Anonymous
August 04, 2006
XP Would be nice until everyone gets up to vista speed - Anonymous
August 04, 2006
Linux and XP - Anonymous
August 04, 2006
Windows 2000 and Windows XP would be a requirement before we could implement this technology. - Anonymous
August 04, 2006
Linux, MAC and XP as well as Vista would be great. I have some customers who would need this in order to deploy this solution. - Anonymous
August 04, 2006
Windows 2000, XP, and Server 2003. - Anonymous
August 04, 2006
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
August 04, 2006
XP, Linux, MAC, Win2003. In that order. - Anonymous
August 04, 2006
We have almost 200 Win 2000 SP4 stations that will not be completely migrated until 2007. Depending on the Vista release date, many of those will be on Win XP and would not be upgraded from XP to Vista until 2010 or later.
I can find no business case for upgrading from XP to Vista or getting SA on the new desktops. Right now, Vista seems to be new wizards and new GUI. - Anonymous
August 04, 2006
Windows XP followed by Windows 2000 support would be critical to us. We have about 400 deployed systems with only a handfull of Windows 2000 installs. - Anonymous
August 04, 2006
Almost 10,000 seats of XP that would need to be protected with NAP. No rollout plans for Vista for the forseeable future. (It would be completely reasonable to NOT support 2000 and earlier OS's). Server 2003 support would be nice as well. - Anonymous
August 04, 2006
2003 and XP - Anonymous
August 04, 2006
My company would require Windows 2000 support as we have no plans to migrate our 1500 desktops to XP en masse and thus can be expected to be in use for at least another year. - Anonymous
August 04, 2006
XP, Linux and Mac along with Vista...
And speaking about Linux and Mac...
Any chance to make just one version that would work on almost any Unix like system?
Maybe by releasing the version in a way that could be relatively easy to link for either Linux or the *BSDs, by releasing the propietary code in the form of object files with the apropiate headers that would allow the users to link the software themselves. - Anonymous
August 04, 2006
1st. XP
2nd. 2000
3rd. 2003
4th. 98 - Anonymous
August 04, 2006
Would block deployment:
Linux (1,000s of systems)
Windows XP (5,000) many dual boot Linux
Nice to have:
Other UNIX
Don't care:
Windows 2000 Pro and earlier - Anonymous
August 04, 2006
I think NAP should be made available for Windows 2000 and XP. If I only had one pick though I'd say XP definitely! - Anonymous
August 04, 2006
It must be avaible for Windows XP
Windows 2003 - Anonymous
August 04, 2006
and NT4 of course ;-) - Anonymous
August 05, 2006
Wow, lots of comments. This is a good topic. :->
Looks like more people than not need XP support. The good news is "XP is real right now". Check this out:
http://blogs.technet.com/nap/archive/category/11667.aspx
I even posted a screenshot of XP NAP running on one my laptops.
Keep the requests coming-in, we are listening!
- Jeff Sigman - Anonymous
August 05, 2006
We should support NAP Client on XP and Vista. And we should have NAP Server on Vista(?) Server.
As far as non-windows OS's goes we should rely on free software developers to support these OS's. We can do this by publishing NAP protocol in detail and constantly reviewing our NAP protocol design to make sure it is open. - Anonymous
August 05, 2006
XP is a must, followed by Mac. Linux is a nice to have.
Like a previous poster noted, I view this as more critical for the client rather than the server. - Anonymous
August 05, 2006
We strongly need Windows 2000 support.
I believe most of all users in the world should have many of Windows 2000 computers.
The business strategy in the Microsoft will forget Windows 2000, however actual user IT environment is not so. - Anonymous
August 05, 2006
Win2K and Win 2003 Server should be supported.
In the large enterprize environment, Win2K is still main stream. - Anonymous
August 05, 2006
23 votes
XP (16)
2000 (10)
2003 (9)
Linux (8)
Mac (7)
98 (1)
Unix (1)
PS - I hope to announce NAP for XP (Beta 2) on the tech beta download real soon. I will keep you posted.
- Jeff Sigman - Anonymous
August 05, 2006
At a minimum Windows XP and 2003. Businesses are not going to move wholesale to Vista/Longhorn right away. Additionally, support for Mac and Linux would be helpful. - Anonymous
August 05, 2006
For the Higher Education environment, we really need to have support for at least Mac OS X and common Linux variants (Red Hat, Ubuntu, Suse). While it would be ideal if Microsoft provided these clients free of charge, at a minimum we need to have them available from a partner at a reasonable costs (<$5 per seat). Without support for non-Windows operating systems, we'll never be able to force NAP client health validation in any widespread way. - Anonymous
August 05, 2006
For the client side mostly Windows XP (~200+) and some Windows 2000. For the server side Windows Server 2003.
Is there any information on implementing the server side on an alternate platform other than Longhorn? ie Server 2003. - Anonymous
August 05, 2006
Hey Morgan. We have no plans at this time for implementing the Server-side pieces of NAP on anything but Longhorn Server.
We are looking at allowing WS03 Servers to act as NAP Client's, by back-porting NAP Client pieces to this platform. This would also include x64 support for WS03.SP1.
Is there a specific reason you ask?
- Jeff - Anonymous
August 05, 2006
XP is enough in windows side through out microsoft's support lifecycle. Big linux distributons such as Fedora and Suse would be great also with Nap client and customizable scripting to check health status - Anonymous
August 05, 2006
XP/2003 and major Unix distros.(including Solaris10, Linux and Mac OS).
I do not think there is a huge implementation demand for other OSes than Windows platforms for client sides, but think about the server side. There are plenty of those platforms up there at any data center. So I vote for these platforms... - Anonymous
August 08, 2006
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
August 18, 2006
We agree with you Joe. WS03 NAP Client support is planned to be released in parallel with Longhorn Server's release.
I plan on running a public beta of the XP / WS03 so folks can try it out. You must have access to Beta Longhorn Server builds though, in order to test NAP end-to-end.
I will keep the blog updated with the latest news!
- Jeff