1.) Firstly, lock the account to prevent the user from using the login until the change has been made:
# usermod -L
2.) Change the password expiration date to 0 to ensure the user changes the password during the next login:
# chage -d 0
3.) To unlock the account after the change do the following:
# usermod -U
Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 brought with it several new features, including local continuous replication and cluster continuous replication. These features use log shipping to store a secondary copy of the Exchange server database in an alternate location. That way, the server can be recovered quickly by retrieving data from the database replica in the event of a catastrophic failure.
Although LCR and CCR are great features, Microsoft went a step further in Exchange Server 2007 SP1 with standby continuous replication, which works similarly to LCR and CCR, but has some additional capabilities. SCR overcomes some of the limits of LCR and CCR. It may be tempting to begin using SCR immediately, but you should be aware of its significant limitations and restrictions. That's why it's crucial to properly plan an SCR deployment.
LCR requires that database replicas are stored locally; CCR lets you store database replicas on a different server that must exist in the same subnet as the primary database server. With this, you can have only one replica.
SCR allows your primary mailbox server (source) to replicate its database to multiple standby servers (targets). These target servers can exist on your LAN, but that isn't necessary. The subnet limitation doesn't apply to SCR.
The first SCR limitation to be aware of is that, like LCR and CCR, SCR works by replicating an individual storage group. However, you can't replicate any storage group. Recovery storage groups are not supported, and the storage group that you're replicating can't contain more than one database.
While there is no limitation to the number of targets that a source storage group can be replicated to, Microsoft recommends that you limit the process to no more than four targets.
SCR and server roles
Although Microsoft recommends using a dedicated Exchange Server to host each server role, many companies choose to host multiple roles on a server because they lack the budget for a fully distributed deployment or they don't have enough users to justify having dedicated servers for each role. Because hosting multiple roles on a single Exchange Server is a common practice, it's important to understand how server roles work when SCR is implemented.
The roles that an SCR source server can host vary, depending on whether or not the server is clustered. If the source server is clustered, then it can only host the Mailbox Server role. If the source server isn't clustered, then the Mailbox Server role is required for SCR. However, the server can also optionally host the Client Access Server, Hub Transport Server or Unified Messaging (UM) Server roles. The same basic rules apply to SCR target servers. The Mailbox Server role is always required, because it contains the necessary replication components. If the target isn't part of a cluster, it can optionally host the Client Access Server, Hub Transport Server, or Unified Messaging Server roles. In either case, LCR cannot be used on a target server. If the target is a part of a cluster, it should be designated as a passive node on a failover cluster. The Mailbox Server role must be installed where no other clustered mailbox servers have been installed in the cluster. SCR and Exchange backups One last limitation is related to backups. Many organizations use CCR to make the backup process more efficient. Backups can be run against a CCR replica without affecting the primary mailbox server. But unlike cluster continuous replication, you can't run a backup against a standby continuous replication target. You can, however, use CCR on an SCR host. This allows you to create a CCR replica of the primary database, run your backups against this replica and still reap SCR's benefits.
On Friday, Microsoft gave computer makers a six-month extension for offering Windows XP on newly-shipped PCs. While this doesn’t impact enterprise IT — because volume licensing agreements will allow IT to keep installing Windows XP for many years to come — the move is another symbolic nail in Vista’s coffin.
The public reputation of Windows Vista is in shambles, as Microsoft itself tacitly acknowledged in its Mojave ad campaign.
IT departments are largely ignoring Vista. In June (18 months after Vista’s launch), Forrester Research reported that just 8.8% of enterprise PCs worldwide were running Vista. Meanwhile, Microsoft appears to have put Windows 7 on an accelerated schedule that could see it released in 2010. That will provide IT departments with all the justification they need to simply skip Vista and wait to eventually standardize on Windows 7 as the next OS for business.
So how did Vista get left holding the bag? Let’s look at the five most important reasons why Vista failed.
Apple’s clever I’m a Mac ads have successfully driven home the perception that Windows Vista is buggy, boring, and difficult to use. After taking two years of merciless pummeling from Apple, Microsoft recently responded with it’s I’m a PC campaign in order to defend the honor of Windows. This will likely restore some mojo to the PC and Windows brands overall, but it’s too late to save Vista’s perception as a dud.
In 2001, when Windows XP was released, there were about 600 million computers in use worldwide. Over 80% of them were running Windows but it was split between two code bases: Windows 95/98 (65%) and Windows NT/2000 (26%), according to IDC. One of the big goals of Windows XP was to unite the Windows 9x and Windows NT code bases, and it eventually accomplished that.
In 2008, there are now over 1.1 billion PCs in use worldwide and over 70% of them are running Windows XP. That means almost 800 million computers are running XP, which makes it the most widely installed operating system of all time. That’s a lot of inertia to overcome, especially for IT departments that have consolidated their deployments and applications around Windows XP.
And, believe it or not, Windows XP could actually increase its market share over the next couple years. How? Low-cost netbooks and nettops are going to be flooding the market. While these inexpensive machines are powerful enough to provide a solid Internet experience for most users, they don’t have enough resources to run Windows Vista, so they all run either Windows XP or Linux. Intel expects this market to explode in the years ahead. (For more on netbooks and nettops, see this fact sheet and this presentation — both are PDFs from Intel.)
For years Microsoft has been criticized by developers and IT professionals for “software bloat” — adding so many changes and features to its programs that the code gets huge and unwieldy. However, this never seemed to have enough of an effect to impact software sales. With Windows Vista, software bloat appears to have finally caught up with Microsoft.
Vista has over 50 million lines of code. XP had 35 million when it was released, and since then it has grown to about 40 million. This software bloat has had the effect of slowing down Windows Vista, especially when it’s running on anything but the latest and fastest hardware. Even then, the latest version of Windows XP soundly outperforms the latest version of Microsoft Vista. No one wants to use a new computer that is slower than their old one.
It’s easy to forget that when Microsoft launched Windows XP it was actually trying to change its OS business model to move away from shrink-wrapped software and convert customers to software subscribers. That’s why it abandoned the naming convention of Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows 2000, and instead chose Windows XP.
The XP stood for “experience” and was part of Microsoft’s .NET Web services strategy at the time. The master plan was to get users and businesses to pay a yearly subscription fee for the Windows experience — XP would essentially be the on-going product name but would include all software upgrades and updates, as long as you paid for your subscription. Of course, it would disable Windows on your PC if you didn’t pay. That’s why product activation was coupled with Windows XP.
Microsoft released Windows XP and Office XP simultaneously in 2001 and both included product activation and the plan to eventually migrate to subscription products. However, by the end of 2001 Microsoft had already abandoned the subscription concept with Office, and quickly returned to the shrink-wrapped business model and the old product development model with both products.
The idea of doing incremental releases and upgrades of its software — rather than a major shrink-wrapped release every 3-5 years — was a good concept. Microsoft just couldn’t figure out how to make the business model work, but instead of figuring out how to get it right, it took the easy route and went back to an old model that was simply not very well suited to the economic and technical realities of today’s IT world.
One of the big reasons that Windows XP caught on was because it had the hardware, software, and driver compatibility of the Windows 9x line plus the stability and industrial strength of the Windows NT line. The compatibility issue was huge. Having a single, highly-compatible Windows platform simplified the computing experience for users, IT departments, and software and hardware vendors.
Microsoft either forgot or disregarded that fact when it released Windows Vista, because, despite a long beta period, a lot of existing software and hardware were not compatible with Vista when it was released in January 2007. Since many important programs and peripherals were unusable in Vista, that made it impossible for a lot of IT departments to adopt it. Many of the incompatibilities were the result of tighter security.
After Windows was targeted by a nasty string of viruses, worms, and malware in the early 2000s, Microsoft embarked on the Trustworthy Computing initiative to make its products more secure. One of the results was Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2), which won over IT and paved the way for XP to become the world’s mostly widely deployed OS.
The other big piece of Trustworthy Computing was the even-further-locked-down version of Windows that Microsoft released in Vista. This was definitely the most secure OS that Microsoft had ever released but the price was user-hostile features such as UAC, a far more complicated set of security prompts that accompanied many basic tasks, and a host of software incompatibility issues. In order words, Vista broke a lot of the things that users were used to doing in XP.
There are some who argue that Vista is actually more widely adopted than XP was at this stage after its release, and that it’s highly likely that Vista will eventually replace XP in the enterprise. I don’t agree. With XP, there were clear motivations to migrate: bring Windows 9x machines to a more stable and secure OS and bring Windows NT/2000 machines to an OS with much better hardware and software compatibility. And, you also had the advantage of consolidating all of those machines on a single OS in order to simplify support.
With Vista, there are simply no major incentives for IT to use it over XP. Security isn’t even that big of an issue because XP SP2 (and above) are solid and most IT departments have it locked down quite well. As I wrote in the article Prediction: Microsoft will leapfrog Vista, release Windows 7 early, and change its OS business, Microsoft needs to abandon the strategy of releasing a new OS every 3-5 years and simply stick with a single version of Windows and release updates, patches, and new features on a regular basis. Most IT departments are essentially already on a subscription model with Microsoft so the business strategy is already in place there.
As far as the subscription model goes for small businesses and consumers, instead of disabling Windows on a user’s PC if they don’t renew their subscription, just don’t allow that machine to get any more updates if they don’t renew. Microsoft could also work with OEMs to sell something like a three-year subscription to Windows with every a new PC. Then users would have the choice of renewing on their own after that.
