Microsoft on Friday is expected to reveal release of finished Windows Server 2003 code, as the company prepares for the April 24 launch in San Francisco.
Windows Server 2003 Goes Gold
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
So I can download it for free.
“still suck?”
It never sucked, according to Microsoft, Intel (who are already both using it to run their web servers), and errr… Some review magazines.
Hey, it’s a Microsoft product… If users are too afraid to switch to UNIX/Linux, this is only an upgrade typa thing
.
It’s suppose to make hackers obsolete. (Oops, they pulled that ad due to some reasons that can and might be explained in a variety of news sites around the net).
Upgrade to Windows 2003, and enjoy the capibilities of .NET (I’m not sure what it is, you’re probably not sure what it is, M$ is probably not sure what it is, but hey, it sounds cool), increases super-security (no bugs, no SP’s, no holes), lighting fast speed, and of course Windows 2003 will follow all open standards (open standards being Microsoft standards, which are, uh… open proprietary standards, but you get the point, they’re still standards… take that W3C!).
They have also upgraded their licensing scheme, to a more complex level, for better efficiency, which is probably a real plus… I mean, who knew you could take licensing to the next level.
Probably most importantly, yuuuuuuugle steelga beeeaule Abel twoooo yousssse Opara awn eet. Bork! Bork! Bork!
Do not know why companies still use Windows on their servers when *BSD, Solaris, and Linux exist. Heterogeneous networking is a reality and there are usally not many compatibiltiy problems anymore. I guess it might be easier to setup a Windows box, but it is definetely not easier to maintain.
The reason why most companies still run Windows, is simply that they have already invested the time and money into MS, and don’t want to reinvest time (which is money), into alternative platforms. And secondly most Windows networks do work, (when setup correctly).
But with shops running Win2000, I can’t see the point in them moving to Win2003. Win2K is stable (on good hardware), and perfect for most Small to Medium Businesses.
Chewy509…
Will they make this one GPL?
Why using Windows when there is Linux?
Nail on the frikkin head
Wrap up your hot air in some difficult words or acronyms and sell it expensive seems to be MS mantra
MS knows all too well that management likes this kind of stuff, as i have constated myself not so long ago. If you wrap up your shit in a nice dress and have a pretty slideshow to go with it, you can sell people stuff they already have.
MS is selling up .NET and win2k3 server as if it’s something very innovative, but all in all its just catching up to unix/java/…
They have inferior products, but they sell them better
product activation?
What does it do?
YES
It does what Windows 2000 Server does + .NET + oogly eye candy + activation + .NET + new licensing scheme.
Or erm… You can take it right from what M$ says:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/default.mspx
To be honest i don’t know why ppl are always so against microsoft..what it really comes down to is where admins & IT pp wanna invest there money. You can never compare both prouducts cuz they both add value of there own. Linux is for ppl who wanna mess around..and i agree its very very stable OS but come on guys give windows 2000 some credit i’ve been using it flawlessly for over months. I mean think about it even tho its not a big deal.. ppl still got to work around just to listen to MP3 on there computers.. watch DVD’s.. now from an average person’s point of view do you really think someone’s gonna sit down to learn linux fiddle around just to make dvd’s play or just to listen to MP3’s..What i wanna say is both products offer different things under different circumstances and ppl who say that MS is this and that well you won’t be liking linux if it wasn’t free and that is one main reason that ppl do go for linux. It someone was charging 100 bucks for Linux and no MP3 support ppl wouldn’t be happy about it. Windows has occupied so much of market and made it so easy for an average user to configure and use windows that they just love it. No average user out there wants to learn the technical terms and get away from c: and d: to hdb1 and hdb2. My view till the companies who make linux and make it way easy for average user to use this and not scare away from the technical terms Linux won’t shine. Till PC manufacturers start shipping out computers in big volumes loaded with linux it won’t shine. To diss MS well i do not see a point cuz as much as ppl would not admit it i think they have and did a fine job producing windows 2000 and its a very stable and a very decent OS. Maybe not for running a corporation.. but i work in a 1000+ environment where PC from compaq are pre loaded with win2k and our admins are pretty happy with how things are going. Everything has its own place in this world and so does Windows & Linux. I think its better to make em work together and get full potential of the features that are to be offered rather than to diss products.
Rishi V
[email protected]
“I think its better to make em work together and get full potential of the features that are to be offered rather than to diss products.”
Sure sounds all nice and gooey… The Open Source was never actually pitted against Microsoft… It was hyped up…
But hey… Microsoft is the one that doesn’t want to work “together”…
So screw off, move on, and some parts of the OSS community will hate M$’s ways of doing things. How can they work together when M$ is constantly killing potential supporters/developers of Linux, slashing away ways of making it easier for Linux and Windows to work together, and all sorts of other things. There’s a reason why some people hate Microsoft so much.
It’s not about Windows itself, but Microsoft…