Very Computer

After all there might be a way to use IIS worker process mode. And you don't have to plug hotfixes during initial setup. And it's a way to run Exchange on W2k3 DC. And many more of that kind.

Mostly agree, but playing with it a few days for self-satisfaction surely won't hurt anyone. And note that I never talked about being "economically useful".

  "Andy Webb" <aw...@austin.swinc.com.spamsucks.com> wrote in message news:OmJPU8KRDHA.1564@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
  Yes, in fact process impersonation is different in Windows 2003.  Further, there is more to OWA and Exchange Admin and mail delivery than ISAPI extensions.

  Why do you think Windows 2003 in a dumbed down IIS 5 permissive configuration is better than Windows 2000 with URLScan and the current IIS rollup?

  There are, so far, no signs why it should be necessary.  The question should not be "is it possible", but rather is it economically useful.  Given the risk, the investment in time and effort and the potential for lurking, unseen problems, I would say no.

  So far your justification of this curiosity isn't compelling.  Why spend days on this when you can set up a Win2K box in a couple hours and move on to a more interesting and useful task?

  --

  ========================================
  ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released
  http://www.swinc.com/erm
  ========================================

    "Dmitry Korolyov" <d...@mail.ru> wrote in message news:%230AqG2KRDHA.1560@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    Martin,

    getting closer to the subject here. Yes, security settings are different, but is it completely impossible to emulate IIS 5.0 environment? You can use IIS 5.0 isolation mode and try various configurations.

    Does that mean that IIS 6.0 is incompatible to IIS 5.0 in a way of implementing ISAPI extensions (which is all that needed by Exchange)? Don't think so, cuz it would be pretty stupid to release a new version which has inpompatible ISAPI filters implementation - this would make many of the existing apps not work. And, it is never stated by MS that it has incompatibilities in ISAPI.
    What next, different way of impersonation and different security settings regarding process impersonation. What if we use IIS 5.0 isolation mode with Low or Medium app pooling level? What if we configure different account to run IIS on? This will affect other web applications? C'mon, you never want to host Exchange and serious web sites at the same box, so this should not be a problem.
    In other words: there are no signs that it should be impossible, the point is in finding correct configuration.
      "Martin Tuip [MVP]" <mt...@cdolive.com.nospam> wrote in message news:e9KDAuKRDHA.3768@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
      1. No. It doesnt'

      Regarding the platform.  IIS 6 has different security settings and these cannot be ported to Exchange 2000.   I know that you can get Exchange 2000 run on Windows 95. There is a nifty program called VMWare which will help you get E2k running on Win95.  I for instance have Exchange 2003 running here on Windows XP in VMWare ;)

      What are to you the reasons MS did these changes ?

      --------------------------
      Martin Tuip
      MVP Exchange
      Exchange 2000 List owner
      www.exchange-mail.org
      www.sharepointserver.com
      exchange2000-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
      --------------------------

        "Dmitry Korolyov" <d...@mail.ru> wrote in message news:uQ9c5oKRDHA.3192@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
        (Skip first paragraph)

        The justification is:
        1. Exchange 2003 does not have instant messaging features. Does it?
        2. No need to pay extra money for yet another license

        And plus the "entertaining" factors I've mentioned before.

        Counter-question.

        What is the need to make a product which does not work on a certain platform? What is the need to artificially make it not work on that certain platform? What is the need to insist that some combination of products won't work while actually it does work? What is the need to remove features from a product and make them available in a separate product rather then in the next version?

        Do you know the answer?

        P.S. If I figure out how to make Exchange 2000 run on windows 95 with no domains, I'll notify you personally.

        "Andy Webb" <aw...@austin.swinc.com.spamsucks.com> wrote in message news:usCInZKRDHA.304@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
          Of course, you're right.  We should all be banging our heads against the wall figuring out how to make this work rather than working on useful production implementation models.  Rather than working on Exchange 2003 implementation and upgrade strategies, we should be focusing on a combination of software that should not be ever run in production.  If you can figure out how to make it run on Windows NT 3.1, that would be entertaining too.

          Exchange 2003 is out.  Use it if you want to run Exchange on Windows 2003.

          If Exchange 2000 is /required/, then use Windows 2000.

          What is the justification for needing to cross the versions like you are doing?

          --
          "Dmitry Korolyov" <d...@mail.ru> wrote in message news:eeuM$9JRDHA.3192@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
            By "support is required" you meant PSS and I did say that this is not required and you did understand it.
            By posting this message about OWA I wanted to (possibly) attract some attention of someone who does not think that Microsoft is the center of the world and PSS know everything.
            Getting OWA work is simply a technical task and not a "quest to prove MS being wrong" as you seem to get it. If you aren't interested in solving technical stuff why did you go into IT anyways? If you weren't interested in this particular question why posting meanless message (you first one) instead of saving your time and hitting Shift-Del?
              "Mark Fugatt [MVP]" <n...@4mcts.com> wrote in message news:uC0pW4JRDHA.2344@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
              I am not getting into an argument with you on your quest to try and prove Microsoft wrong, and yes you did say support is required or you would not have posted your question to this group, if you dont get an answer to your question here then I would recommend you call Microsoft PSS and see if they can resolve it for you.

              --
              Mark Fugatt
                "Dmitry Korolyov" <d...@mail.ru> wrote in message news:%23I$K01JRDHA.712@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
                Sarcasm again, did I say that support is required? Or did I say that such setup is to be used on a production system?
                The key idea is to make OWA work. In one article MS says that Exchange 2000 just will not install on W2k3 Server and they are wrong here already, it does install. In other article they say that it will not work this way, and here they wrong again - it does work. Well except for OWA, but who would use OWA, a solution based on a very insecure IIS (5.0 at least, didnt have time to play around 6.0 enough), in a production environment?
                Only those who install SP4 on production servers next day after release (you have to really care not about your servers, job and company to do that!). Well, just another reason to make it WORK after all and make MS wrong one more time. Don't you think so?
                  "Mark Fugatt [MVP]" <n...@4mcts.com> wrote in message news:eM6PbqJRDHA.2276@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
                  Just because you may have it installed does not mean it is support, I for one would not recommend anyone try to install Exchange 2000 on a Windows 2003 box if they wish to continue receiving any level of support.

                  --
                  Mark Fugatt
                    "Dmitry Korolyov" <d...@mail.ru> wrote in message news:OnD3xkJRDHA.2204@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
                    Mark,
                    <sacrasm>
                    very much thanks for your extremely valuable input,
                    </sarcasm>
                    but if you read my message again you will probably find out that Exchange 2000 does install on Windows Server 2003 and does work. Everything works - routing, message delivery, recipient update services, etc. OWA is the only thing which does not work, but I believe this is configurable. IIS 6.0 has significant changes from 5.0, and this is most likely the cause. I was actually asking someone who played with such configuration and found a solution - i.e. IIS 6.0 configuration which makes OWA work perfectly.

                    P.S. Yes, I did know about the article you provided before posting original message.
                      "Mark Fugatt [MVP]" <n...@4mcts.com> wrote in message news:uQriycJRDHA.2676@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
                      http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;321648

                      --
                      Mark Fugatt
                      Microsoft Exchange MVP
                      www.exchangetrainer.com
                      www.msexchange.org

                        "Dmitry Korolyov" <d...@mail.ru> wrote in message news:OJl5WZIRDHA.2128@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
                        Anyone knows how to get OWA working in this configuration?
                        Everything else works just fine except for OWA. I'm receiving authentication errors when trying to connect to OWA. Tried both in IIS5.0 and in worker process isolation mode, still no luck.

Life is short.... and sucks.... we all need to survive.... since you guys
are very smart.... why don't you work for MS.... then you will know why MS
doing this doing that.... be realistics..... it all happened not just MS
world.... even IBM... Lotus Notes.... Novell..... etc.....

So... let it go..... familiar with the phrase 'AS IS'...? so.... let it
be....

Be happy.... :)

Vincent.

Quote:>>1. No.  But Windows RTC services is a much much better solution for

That is exactly what they do - make us pay for ANOTHER product, learn to
administer it, to fix bugs in there. Very good solution indeed. For their
revenue.

Quote:>>2. You paid extra money, in theory, for the Windows 2003 license.  Might

I've spent about 2 hours setting up evaluation version of W2k3 EE in a test
forest and installing E2k on it. That's much less than buying new licenses.

Quote:>>>There are major differences in Windows that required changes to Exchange.

Quote:>>  The investment in those changes was made in Exchange 2003 rather than

Making investment into removing features from one product and then selling
them as a separate product is definitely very smart marketing solution.
Bravo, MS!

Quote:>>>Exchange IM wasn't ever really a necessary part of the Exchange codebase,

Tell that to many users who are very happy using IM.

--

========================================
ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released
http://www.swinc.com/erm
========================================

(Skip first paragraph)

The justification is:
1. Exchange 2003 does not have instant messaging features. Does it?
2. No need to pay extra money for yet another license

And plus the "entertaining" factors I've mentioned before.

Counter-question.

What is the need to make a product which does not work on a certain
platform? What is the need to artificially make it not work on that certain
platform? What is the need to insist that some combination of products won't
work while actually it does work? What is the need to remove features from a
product and make them available in a separate product rather then in the
next version?

Do you know the answer?

P.S. If I figure out how to make Exchange 2000 run on windows 95 with no
domains, I'll notify you personally.

Of course, you're right.  We should all be banging our heads against the
wall figuring out how to make this work rather than working on useful
production implementation models.  Rather than working on Exchange 2003
implementation and upgrade strategies, we should be focusing on a
combination of software that should not be ever run in production.  If you
can figure out how to make it run on Windows NT 3.1, that would be
entertaining too.

Exchange 2003 is out.  Use it if you want to run Exchange on Windows 2003.

If Exchange 2000 is /required/, then use Windows 2000.

What is the justification for needing to cross the versions like you are
doing?

--

By "support is required" you meant PSS and I did say that this is not
required and you did understand it.
By posting this message about OWA I wanted to (possibly) attract some
attention of someone who does not think that Microsoft is the center of the
world and PSS know everything.
Getting OWA work is simply a technical task and not a "quest to prove MS
being wrong" as you seem to get it. If you aren't interested in solving
technical stuff why did you go into IT anyways? If you weren't interested in
this particular question why posting meanless message (you first one)
instead of saving your time and hitting Shift-Del?


I am not getting into an argument with you on your quest to try and prove
Microsoft wrong, and yes you did say support is required or you would not
have posted your question to this group, if you dont get an answer to your
question here then I would recommend you call Microsoft PSS and see if they
can resolve it for you.

--
Mark Fugatt

Sarcasm again, did I say that support is required? Or did I say that such
setup is to be used on a production system?
The key idea is to make OWA work. In one article MS says that Exchange 2000
just will not install on W2k3 Server and they are wrong here already, it
does install. In other article they say that it will not work this way, and
here they wrong again - it does work. Well except for OWA, but who would use
OWA, a solution based on a very insecure IIS (5.0 at least, didnt have time
to play around 6.0 enough), in a production environment?
Only those who install SP4 on production servers next day after release (you
have to really care not about your servers, job and company to do that!).
Well, just another reason to make it WORK after all and make MS wrong one
more time. Don't you think so?


Just because you may have it installed does not mean it is support, I for
one would not recommend anyone try to install Exchange 2000 on a Windows
2003 box if they wish to continue receiving any level of support.

--
Mark Fugatt

Mark,
<sacrasm>
very much thanks for your extremely valuable input,
</sarcasm>
but if you read my message again you will probably find out that Exchange
2000 does install on Windows Server 2003 and does work. Everything works -
routing, message delivery, recipient update services, etc. OWA is the only
thing which does not work, but I believe this is configurable. IIS 6.0 has
significant changes from 5.0, and this is most likely the cause. I was
actually asking someone who played with such configuration and found a
solution - i.e. IIS 6.0 configuration which makes OWA work perfectly.

P.S. Yes, I did know about the article you provided before posting original
message.


http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;321648

--
Mark Fugatt
Microsoft Exchange MVP
www.exchangetrainer.com
www.msexchange.org

Anyone knows how to get OWA working in this configuration?
Everything else works just fine except for OWA. I'm receiving authentication
errors when trying to connect to OWA. Tried both in IIS5.0 and in worker
process isolation mode, still no luck.

  (Skip first paragraph)

  The justification is:
  1. Exchange 2003 does not have instant messaging features. Does it? It doesn't have a directory either, so what?
  2. No need to pay extra money for yet another license Sorry, doesn't hold water. You've got to pay an extra license for Windows 2003! And for those organizations that are on maintenance, the upgrade is already included.

  And plus the "entertaining" factors I've mentioned before.

  Counter-question.

  What is the need to make a product which does not work on a certain platform? It's the reverse. There simply was no compelling desire to make Exchange 2000 work on Exchange 2003. Exchange 2003 is available today and will be shipping shortly. Exchange 2000 will continue to work on Windows 2000. Exchange 2003 will work on both platforms. To make Exchange 2000 work on Windows 2003 would require a LOT of work. I believe that the team decided it just wasn't worth the effort to create a new product and modify the old one at the same time.

  So were you complaining when Exchange 2000 didn't work on Windows NT? Sometimes there are just some basic issues that cost too much to be solved.

  Which would you have desired, Exchange 2000 to work on Windows 2003 AND the introduction of the Service Pack for Exchange 2000 as well as the introduction of Exchange 2003 to be 6+ months later OR Exchange 2003 released when it was?

  And how much would you pay for the Service Pack for Exchange 2000?

   What is the need to artificially make it not work on that certain platform? There's no artifically about it. IIS has major changes. Security has changes that are major to Exchange.

   What is the need to insist that some combination of products won't work while actually it does work? What do you mean it works? You've already said that OWA doesn't work. Have you check ALL of the underpinnings to make sure that other things haven't gotten damaged? There are indeed ways that you can force PARTS of Exchange to look like they are working. But you can't make Exchange, the entire product, work on W2K.

   What is the need to remove features from a product and make them available in a separate product rather then in the next version? Because they really didn't fit well with the Exchange Product line. And they were actually getting somewhat ignored in the Exchange Product group. And also the fact that some things, like the IM Server are getting a complete rewrite. And since there are some organizations that don't run Exchange, but would like IM, this now gives them the ability to utilize it.

  Do you know the answer? See Above

  P.S. If I figure out how to make Exchange 2000 run on windows 95 with no domains, I'll notify you personally. I'll give you $1,000 if you show me how this is done. And don't bother me until you've got a URL hosted on a Windows 95 box for OWA.

I'll save you the time of searching for the proper configuration.  It won't
work no matter what you do.  Period.  No setting, tweak, adjustment,
registry hack, programmatic manipulation, etc., will get this working for
you.  It just won't work!
--
Regards,

Scott Schnoll
MCT MCSE MCSA MCP+I
Microsoft MVP
Exchange 2000 Server: The Complete Reference - ISBN 0072127392
TNT Software - www.tntsoftware.com
Microsoft Cluster Server Center - www.nwnetworks.com/cluster.html
Internet Explorer Security Center - www.nwnetworks.com/iesc.html

Martin,

getting closer to the subject here. Yes, security settings are different,
but is it completely impossible to emulate IIS 5.0 environment? You can use
IIS 5.0 isolation mode and try various configurations.

Does that mean that IIS 6.0 is incompatible to IIS 5.0 in a way of
implementing ISAPI extensions (which is all that needed by Exchange)? Don't
think so, cuz it would be pretty stupid to release a new version which has
inpompatible ISAPI filters implementation - this would make many of the
existing apps not work. And, it is never stated by MS that it has
incompatibilities in ISAPI.
What next, different way of impersonation and different security settings
regarding process impersonation. What if we use IIS 5.0 isolation mode with
Low or Medium app pooling level? What if we configure different account to
run IIS on? This will affect other web applications? C'mon, you never want
to host Exchange and serious web sites at the same box, so this should not
be a problem.
In other words: there are no signs that it should be impossible, the point
is in finding correct configuration.


1. No. It doesnt'

Regarding the platform.  IIS 6 has different security settings and these
cannot be ported to Exchange 2000.   I know that you can get Exchange 2000 r
un on Windows 95. There is a nifty program called VMWare which will help you
get E2k running on Win95.  I for instance have Exchange 2003 running here on
Windows XP in VMWare ;)

What are to you the reasons MS did these changes ?

--------------------------
Martin Tuip
MVP Exchange
Exchange 2000 List owner
www.exchange-mail.org
www.sharepointserver.com

--------------------------

(Skip first paragraph)

The justification is:
1. Exchange 2003 does not have instant messaging features. Does it?
2. No need to pay extra money for yet another license

And plus the "entertaining" factors I've mentioned before.

Counter-question.

What is the need to make a product which does not work on a certain
platform? What is the need to artificially make it not work on that certain
platform? What is the need to insist that some combination of products won't
work while actually it does work? What is the need to remove features from a
product and make them available in a separate product rather then in the
next version?

Do you know the answer?

P.S. If I figure out how to make Exchange 2000 run on windows 95 with no
domains, I'll notify you personally.

Of course, you're right.  We should all be banging our heads against the
wall figuring out how to make this work rather than working on useful
production implementation models.  Rather than working on Exchange 2003
implementation and upgrade strategies, we should be focusing on a
combination of software that should not be ever run in production.  If you
can figure out how to make it run on Windows NT 3.1, that would be
entertaining too.

Exchange 2003 is out.  Use it if you want to run Exchange on Windows 2003.

If Exchange 2000 is /required/, then use Windows 2000.

What is the justification for needing to cross the versions like you are
doing?

--

By "support is required" you meant PSS and I did say that this is not
required and you did understand it.
By posting this message about OWA I wanted to (possibly) attract some
attention of someone who does not think that Microsoft is the center of the
world and PSS know everything.
Getting OWA work is simply a technical task and not a "quest to prove MS
being wrong" as you seem to get it. If you aren't interested in solving
technical stuff why did you go into IT anyways? If you weren't interested in
this particular question why posting meanless message (you first one)
instead of saving your time and hitting Shift-Del?


I am not getting into an argument with you on your quest to try and prove
Microsoft wrong, and yes you did say support is required or you would not
have posted your question to this group, if you dont get an answer to your
question here then I would recommend you call Microsoft PSS and see if they
can resolve it for you.

--
Mark Fugatt

Sarcasm again, did I say that support is required? Or did I say that such
setup is to be used on a production system?
The key idea is to make OWA work. In one article MS says that Exchange 2000
just will not install on W2k3 Server and they are wrong here already, it
does install. In other article they say that it will not work this way, and
here they wrong again - it does work. Well except for OWA, but who would use
OWA, a solution based on a very insecure IIS (5.0 at least, didnt have time
to play around 6.0 enough), in a production environment?
Only those who install SP4 on production servers next day after release (you
have to really care not about your servers, job and company to do that!).
Well, just another reason to make it WORK after all and make MS wrong one
more time. Don't you think so?


Just because you may have it installed does not mean it is support, I for
one would not recommend anyone try to install Exchange 2000 on a Windows
2003 box if they wish to continue receiving any level of support.

--
Mark Fugatt

Mark,
<sacrasm>
very much thanks for your extremely valuable input,
</sarcasm>
but if you read my message again you will probably find out that Exchange
2000 does install on Windows Server 2003 and does work. Everything works -
routing, message delivery, recipient update services, etc. OWA is the only
thing which does not work, but I believe this is configurable. IIS 6.0 has
significant changes from 5.0, and this is most likely the cause. I was
actually asking someone who played with such configuration and found a
solution - i.e. IIS 6.0 configuration which makes OWA work perfectly.

P.S. Yes, I did know about the article you provided before posting original
message.


http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;321648

--
Mark Fugatt
Microsoft Exchange MVP
www.exchangetrainer.com
www.msexchange.org

Anyone knows how to get OWA working in this configuration?
Everything else works just fine except for OWA. I'm receiving authentication
errors when trying to connect to OWA. Tried both in IIS5.0 and in worker
process isolation mode, still no luck.

--
Dmitry Korolyov
d...@nospamformorons.mail.ru
To e-mail me, remove "nospamformorons"
from the address.

"Scott Schnoll [MVP]" <scott_schn...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:#DCjcoLRDHA.1624@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

Very funny! See inline.

--
Dmitry Korolyov

To e-mail me, remove "nospamformorons"
from the address.

    (Skip first paragraph)

    The justification is:
    1. Exchange 2003 does not have instant messaging features. Does it? It doesn't have a directory either, so what?
    2. No need to pay extra money for yet another license Sorry, doesn't hold water. You've got to pay an extra license for Windows 2003! And for those organizations that are on maintenance, the upgrade is already included.

    And plus the "entertaining" factors I've mentioned before.

    Counter-question.

    What is the need to make a product which does not work on a certain platform? It's the reverse. There simply was no compelling desire to make Exchange 2000 work on Exchange 2003. Exchange 2003 is available today and will be shipping shortly. Exchange 2000 will continue to work on Windows 2000. Exchange 2003 will work on both platforms. To make Exchange 2000 work on Windows 2003 would require a LOT of work. I believe that the team decided it just wasn't worth the effort to create a new product and modify the old one at the same time.

    So were you complaining when Exchange 2000 didn't work on Windows NT? Sometimes there are just some basic issues that cost too much to be solved.

    Which would you have desired, Exchange 2000 to work on Windows 2003 AND the introduction of the Service Pack for Exchange 2000 as well as the introduction of Exchange 2003 to be 6+ months later OR Exchange 2003 released when it was?

    And how much would you pay for the Service Pack for Exchange 2000?

    >>> What is the need to artificially make it not work on that certain platform? There's no artifically about it. IIS has major >>>changes. Security has changes that are major to Exchange.
    What are these major changes? Are they described somewhere *in detail*? No? Then how can anyone verify their existence?
    Answer this simple question I've been asking for two postings already: if IIS 6.0 supports ISAPI filters, and Exchange 2000 OWA implements ISAPI filter, why doesn't it work? Which part of configuration doesn't work? Are there new configuration entries in IIS 6.0 which make it not work? Where can we look at this? Are there some old configuration changes set as unchangeable defaults which make it not work? Which ones, and again where to look for more info?

    Finally, forget about Exchange 2000 at all. All you have is an ISAPI filter application not working on IIS 6.0. Where to look for troubleshooting and how to make it work?
    These are questions which should be addressed to MS, but they won't answer it.

    >>> What is the need to insist that some combination of products won't work while actually it does work? What do you mean it >>>works? You've already said that OWA doesn't work. Have you check ALL of the underpinnings to make sure that other >>>things haven't gotten damaged? There are indeed ways that you can force PARTS of Exchange to look like they are >>>working. But you can't make Exchange, the entire product, work on W2K.

    You have no idea how much testing of this configuration has been done. So far all the features needed for system administration and all the features needed by users work perfectly. Note that I didn't mention OWA here - needed neither for administration nor for users. And we will do even more exhaustive testing. Actually, the very fact that the system is working in all features that we need was the reason to say that it's functionality on W2k3 server is artificially limited.

     What is the need to remove features from a product and make them available in a separate product rather then in the next version? Because they really didn't fit well with the Exchange Product line. And they were actually getting somewhat ignored in the Exchange Product group. And also the fact that some things, like the IM Server are getting a complete rewrite. And since there are some organizations that don't run Exchange, but would like IM, this now gives them the ability to utilize it.

    For some extra price yes. Will not discuss pricing anymore, ok.

    Do you know the answer? See Above

    >>P.S. If I figure out how to make Exchange 2000 run on windows 95 with no domains, I'll notify you personally. I'll give you
    >>$1,000 if you show me how this is done. And don't bother me until you've got a URL hosted on a Windows 95 box for OWA.
    Have you ever head about X-Box project? So far that I know they finally make Linux work on X-Box. And X-Box is much more different from a regular PC than Windows 2000 from Windows 2003.

http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/evaluation/ti/TiWin2003.doc

HTH,
Brandon

--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Please do not send email to this address, post a reply to this newsgroup.

Anyone knows how to get OWA working in this configuration?
Everything else works just fine except for OWA. I'm receiving authentication
errors when trying to connect to OWA. Tried both in IIS5.0 and in worker
process isolation mode, still no luck.