Windows Server 2003?

[Trent]

Has anyone used any of the Server 2003 beta's or the Real version? Is it really better than 2000? I really need to know for my server upgrades, that would be nice.

 

[James]

So far, other than the .NET incorporation, MS also claim similar features to that of Linux and Unix, that is you can add in additional hardware or RAM without booting the server. I havnt try that though, because i do not know any of the pc hardware have this feature in my country.

The graphic user interface is also better than w2k. In terms of stability, havnt try out much, but so far so good. Personally, don't upgrade it now as MS products are always stable after a time cycle of a year or so. Remembered the time when they claim that XP is very good? In the end, so many patches were out. If its good, why do they need patches?

Just keep your Win2k first. You may like to download the evaluation copy and play with it first. But if you intend to upgrade, do wait a while more, approx 6 mths or more.

 

[Person]

Win2003's stabilitity is the greatest of all WIndowses ever.
But Win2003 doesnt work right with a lot of old hardware.

 

[randy]

Heres what I have to say: LINUX SERVERS!!! I have Widnows Servers.

 

[Trent]

hey thanks guys, the only other question is...In your opinion what is better and more stable, 1. Linux 2. Unix 3. Windows? Thanks

 

[randy]

Linux all the way.

 

[Seloce]

Uhm...

This is apples to oranges, really.

If you're looking for a superb file server and service provider with extensive use in a business setting, go with Unix. However, you must have deep pockets for a few reasons.
1) Liscensing and support
2) Hardware
3) Greybeards

Linux can provide most of the versatility of Unix (linux is not the best web server), but it costs less. All you pay for here is the support plan (a good idea). You'll have more flexibility in your staffing as well as you don't have to have Greybeards in order to function properly.

freeBSD (or any of the BSD flavors) are very good at their specific tasks. ie., freeBSD for web serving. can't remember the prefix for it, but there is a BSD version that is EXTREMELY secure (hasn't been hacked in over 8 years, iirc). there's another one too...but I can't remember it off the top of my head.

another advantage to freeBSD and Linux is that they are open source and heavily user tested. mixed bag, if you ask me...but for a savvy businesss IT department it can shave thousands off a budget. Linux and BSD have the distinct advantage (in the cost department) of running on consumer level i386 architecture...so you're not selling your soul to the likes of Compaq and AT&T.

Windows is a newcomer to the business end of things...at least as a server platform. The advantage here is that your business servers are going to be on an interface that 95% of the population is familiar with. The disadvantage here is that your business servers are going to be on an interface that 95% of the population is familiar with. I wouldn't want anyone other than an IT staffer working with the server...for obvious reasons (just imagine a couple of people in sales gathered around the server after it 'broke'). other than that...haha...I'm not sure that I'd use Windows at the core of any business due to its extensive vulerability. Since it is the most commonly used OS at this point, it's worthwhile for programmers to work out the exploits and stage attacks. Unix, BSD, and Linux all have a learning curve and they are much, much, much more configurable.

I am by far no expert on all of this...but from someone who has at least been in the trench...there's my $0.02.

 

[Trent]

thanks guys!