Home > Windows > Windows Server 2003: Worth the WaitWindows Server 2003: Worth the Wait Eugenia Loli 2003-04-04 Windows 25 Comments“Long-awaited OS a strong performer with good scalability” InfoWorld states in their 3-page review.About The Author Eugenia LoliEx-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 25 Comments 2003-04-04 7:48 am Windows 2003: Worth the Wait? You have never seen Windows crash like that.Computer analysts say: “Windows will be displaced as server (ie: data centers) between 2003 and 2004.”The point is just something as “having a bad product makes you loose market share”.n0dez 2003-04-04 9:29 am Yah, right. Win2k3 is teh crash gal0re according to n0dez, that’s also why our Windows Server 2003 RC2 boxes are pretty rockstable, huh? 2003-04-04 9:33 am We’ve been running 2k3 RC2 as a domain controller for the xp machines in our test lab, and I have to admit the improvements are way above and beyond the old 2k functionality.I salute MS in some excellent work – I was sceptical when beginning the eval, but I will now be the first to defend the OS from any “M$” bad-mouthing.It’ll be interesting to see more in depth discussions as the OS gets slowly implemented on the grand scale. 2003-04-04 9:43 am First of all, the article was crap, hopefully there will be a decent one put together by Paul (from http://www.wininformant.com), atleast there will be some content on what is actually in Windows 2003 Server.As for what I use, I prefer FreeBSD and no my opinion isn’t going to change. I’m now in a nice little rutt with my ports, regular releases and GNOME 2.2, I don’t think there is one thing that could move me out of it.Now, secondly, if you want use Windows 2003 Server, all power to you. If that is what you consider a solution for your problem then so be it, HOWEVER, as so long as you don’t come back and complain to me in 6-12 months giving me a tail of wowes and talk about this “terrible monopoly” and “insecurities”. 2003-04-04 9:53 am From all I’ve heard it does sound like this is going to be an OS that brings people satisfaction.Personally I’m not going to consider an MS OS for any purpose until I’m convinced they are not going to try to lock me in. I know how to use unix now and I also know that those skills are transferable, Windows still is a one-way ticket as far as knowledge and purchases go. It’s hard to back out.Recent news does suggest they want to make ammends. Of course it may just be lies.. Still, I look forward to hearing some implementation stories for 2003 Server. 2003-04-04 10:34 am …I cannot see any disadvantge written in that article. Does that mean Windows 2003 Server is a perfect produt? Why am I don’t want to belive it? 2003-04-04 10:44 am microsoft complainers come in several categories. there are those that have to no choice and use it (employees, license locked-in businesses), those that use it because the customers want it (developers that obviously have no choice but to do what the customer wants), and those that know nothing else (they use microsoft stuff because that’s all they know, that’s all they have ever tried). i hate the last bunch because they are my friends. they always complain, but never try anything else. they see something that says “microsoft” and they want to try it. but when it’s something else, they don’t wanna bother. that sucks.windows 2003 will be nice, i’m sure. but its rather strange that microsoft keeps releasing OSs when a lot of people still use win95/98/2k. why not just spend the time fixing those, releasing bug fixes at a subscription rate, instead of getting everyone to upgrade. if their product is so great, it should be able to stand for 5 years, and at least be able to install updates without a restart of the OS.oh by the way, is it just me or does the message queueing service clear the message queues when you “restart” the service, but retain the messages when you “stop-start” it? i hate that. 2003-04-04 11:53 am Yes I Got a copy quite nice, what XP should have been IMO. their is over 1,000 build’s between this and 2000 and that is making a real difference for me. also if you do it right it can even run as a workstation (which I’m doing all the pluses of xp none of the negitives) 2003-04-04 11:59 am I think you let one to many troll’s post E please get rid of them, and to the trolls: this is OSNEWS not windowsucks. 2003-04-04 12:15 pm this article is crap, i read the article and now I know nothing more about win2003 than before. 2003-04-04 12:25 pm Well, I’ve said this before, but I think it’s worth repeating – why are so many Linux distributions chasing the desktop when they could compete against Microsoft in the server sphere? Linux has a real opportunity to grab users who need a server solution, and now Microsft appear to have developed a solid server solution that’s easy to deploy and use. I think it would be interesting to see a comparison of Windows and Linux server distributions (e.g. http://www.e-smith.org) – as I believe Linux’s natural strength lies in its role as a server solution, not as a general-purpose desktop (although it might succeed as targetted desktop). 2003-04-04 12:27 pm That is 70% or a grade of a C-. Sience when is a C grade considered to be really good? 2003-04-04 1:45 pm There are not 1000 builds between Win2k3 and Win2k. Well, maybe, it would depend on how you count.Incrementally patching/fixing Win95/98 involves devoting time to a 2nd code base, that would basically require much more dev/test resources than required w/ one code base. Not a good cost proposition for Microsoft. Also just not a good practice: there would be duplication of engineering efforts, and both branchs would make a few of the same mistakes, and alot of different mistakes. This leads to more complicated compatibility matrixes when different mistakes/bugs are created. And just plain stupid problems when the mistake is made in two branches fixed in one, and then later identified and fixed in the other.Incrementally patching/fixing Win2k (same code base), also has problems, in that it leaves you in a bind for implementing complicated or more in-depth architectural changes to the OS. Some were needed, and a new release allows deeper investment for programmer resources. The break from Linux 2.2 to 2.4 was the same thing, and this understandable and acceptable to most people.I think it was with Win2k3 (maybe WinXP) Micrsoft will have enabled some QFEs to be “hot patched”, right? Now you can apply some fixes not just to the server w/o restarting, BUT TO THE SERVICE W/O RESTARTING (the service)! I don’t think Linux has anything that sophisticated. 2003-04-04 2:01 pm Story said:Shops that are still running a mixed environment of NT and Windows 2000 domain controllers will have to eliminate the older controllers from their environment before upgrading.I say:This is not true. Really depends on what he means by “upgrading”. She/He doesn’t talk about something called the “forest functionality” level. The forest functionality level is required to be upgraded to enable certain AD features. To upgrade the forest functionality level, then older DCs will need to be eliminated.Story said:Upgraded AD sites can be renamed using a simple-to-use tool included with the new Windows; this wasn’t possible in the Active Directory that came with Windows 2000.I say:IMO, this is not a simple to use tool. It’s doable, but an involved non-simple process for a regular deployment. 2003-04-04 2:36 pm // I hate the last bunch because they are my friends. //Geez. With friends like you, who needs enemies? 2003-04-04 2:53 pm Paul Thurrots Windows Supersite has a more thorough review of this Windows Sever 2003.http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winnetserver_rc1.aspBeing fully aware that Thurrot is a well know windows, advocate, fanboy, i still find it hard not to get excited with this version of windows. Relative to win2000 i dont see any flaws at all upgrade. Even tho i’m using win 2000 primarily as a desktop OS, im thinking of upgrading to 2003 because i dont see any reson not to. All the server services are turned off by default anyway. Its more secure and its more robust, why wouldnt anyone upgrade from 2000? 2003-04-04 3:25 pm This review is the crappiest I have ever seen.There was no test description, no mention of anything which can be done with it.What is so great about it.I can understand upgrading from N4T to W2k.Faster, more stable remote upgrade and administration capabilities which actually work.What does that one do? We are still in the process of upgrading frpm 95/98/NT4/W2k to a COE version of W2K.We are talking about 4000 PCs.It has been year since we started and we don’t see the endof the tunnel yet.There is absolutely no chance we’ll ever consider that thing. 2003-04-04 4:07 pm “We’ve been running 2k3 RC2 as a domain controller for the xp machines in our test lab, and I have to admit the improvements are way above and beyond the old 2k functionality.I salute MS in some excellent work – I was sceptical when beginning the eval, but I will now be the first to defend the OS from any “M$” bad-mouthing.It’ll be interesting to see more in depth discussions as the OS gets slowly implemented on the grand scale.”I’ve seen this kind of thing time and time again WRT Microsoft products. Then I get to use them later on.Outlook crashes on me an average of once a day, on Windows 2000, which is where I was told it would work properly. I get calls all day from users who say it takes several seconds to do this and that. Etc., ad nauseum.Now, I ain’t saying that Microsoft products suck. That would be very dishonest. But I *am* saying, I don’t believe anything that comes out of the mouth of a beta terster any more. Not from Microsoft users, not from Linux users, not from Mac users.This is not necessarily a slight against the computer industry, either, per se. Here in Chicago, for instance, we saw people build a huge shopping mall around 20 years ago and everybody loved it! Now, it’s sinking into the ground (which was a former swamp.) So they’re demolishing all the buildings, pulverizing the bricks, amd making a harder surface for next time. Only thing is, the machines that are pounding the stuff into the ground may also be cracking people’s plaster for miles around.Another example; for years, I kept goading Microsoft about the absence of a system-wide scripting tool for Windows. Now that I have one, it’s being used to destroy the value of the Internet’s e-mail system, by people who have no lives. So they gave me a scripting language without properly assessing the security issues first. Good product, otherwise….good enough to be abused by people who should be making little rocks out of big ones.So…WRT Microsoft’s new products, my take is: We’ll see. I certainly hope they play nice with everybody else, but maybe that’s too much to ask? 2003-04-04 4:35 pm Personally I’m not going to consider an MS OS for any purpose until I’m convinced they are not going to try to lock me in.That is part of their marketing strategy. Lock-in is a part of installing Microsoft software, from the API level up. A good deal of their technology does not integrate well with the competition, but it integrates really well with itself.On the other hand, if you have no need to ever try out different techologies, Microsoft can be a great experience for you. If you work in a mixed environment like I do (Unix, Linux, Novell, Microsoft) you will find that the most painful part of system administration is getting Microsoft products to work well with others. 2003-04-04 5:12 pm There are not 1000 builds between Win2k3 and Win2k. Well, maybe, it would depend on how you countwell, considering Microsoft does daily builds of their products and there Win2003 shipped 3-4 years after Win2K, that would allow for over 1000 builds. 2003-04-04 5:16 pm //Here in Chicago, for instance, we saw people build a huge shopping mall around 20 years ago and everybody loved it! Now, it’s sinking into the ground (which was a former swamp.) So they’re demolishing all the buildings, pulverizing the bricks, amd making a harder surface for next time. Only thing is, the machines that are pounding the stuff into the ground may also be cracking people’s plaster for miles around. //Come again? 2003-04-04 6:44 pm Did you use it?Why do some people or magzine boast it is stronger than steel?If i have to use it, i will wait untill the release of SP2.That is because of the good tradition of MS.In the high-end server market, it is a baby, how can you shout it is a fighter?Please tell me you do not need work for MS or make money from it. 2003-04-04 10:36 pm Web server-only edition, $397;Ouch!Standard Edition (with 10 client licenses), $1,199;Ouch Ouch Ouch Ouch Ouch x 10!Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition (with 25 client licenses), $3,999;Ouch Ouch Ouch Ouch Ouch x 25!Well,BSD and Linux are way much better choices for me 🙂 2003-04-05 2:44 am How long until the first major remote bug is found? Bets anyone. 2003-04-05 3:06 am Actually, there are 1000 builds between Win2k3 and Win2k. Microsoft does daily builds of the whole system. 3 years, 1000 builds, that’s about right.