This guide provides a prescriptive migration path with step-by-step instructions for small and medium-sized organizations planning a migration from Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 to Windows Server 2003. Elsewhere, this set of code samples show how to work with the most essential components of the .NET Framework and accomplish the most common coding tasks in C#.
Migrating from Windows NT Server 4.0 to Windows Server 2003
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
move from an os that you have been using for a few years to an os no one is using.. and if it turns out like ME… compleate waste of space
That’s the absolute self lapidation from known crap to
the unknown.
Well one might think that after NT4 it can only get better?
Well I thought have thought it would be the perfect opportunity to move to a nice samba/ldap environment.
Yep, I’m quit impatient for Samba 3.0.
Development seems to last forever….
<Yep, I’m quit impatient for Samba 3.0.
Development seems to last forever….>
If it were M$ related -Samba – than you had seen a dozen of BETA versions and a zillion bugfixes – also known as service packs.
Come on, Eugenia, post one!
http://lwn.net/Articles/35425/
Get your beta now with active directory support.
move from an os that you have been using for a few years to an os no one is using.. and if it turns out like ME… compleate waste of space
well, since there is no longer any official support for NT, you gotta move on to something else, or people are going to hack the living bejesus out of you
NT is dead…2000 won’t be alive that much longer either, might as well either move to 2003, Novell NetWare, or Linux
Pick your poison
When will the official support end for w2k and XP respectively..?
A friend’s office has been migrated from W98 to w2k only a few days ago and I told him that he was kinda ripped off, because his supplier will shortly migrate him to XP after W2K support ends. There was no reason to chose W2K over XP for a bunch of lawyer-desktop systems, except for the fact that you can cash-in twice in a relatively short period of time…
A better move is from Windows NT Server 4.0 to Linux!
Actually my company is doing the same thing, the decision was taken 18 months ago and we haven’t finished the transition.
New machines are being downgraded from XP to 2000 Pro, it’s a COE version which sucks more than you could believe.
I remember telling them Move to XP at the time
They said it was too recent a system. ere were are now with 18 months later with an end of life product.
I have put my name down the list who’s gonna test the SUN linux solution when it comes out so there is still hope.
(I would rather have a Mac but apparently it’s overkill) What’s wrong with G5?
Yay! I’m a retarded little linux zealot. My work is done for the day!
Wouldn’t it make more sense to post something intelligent? For instance, a comparison between Win 2003 and the latest RH Enterprise server would be able to let prospective Windows switchers know that Linux is not an OS just for high school PFYs.
This site can be absolutely sickening sometimes.
:: This site can be absolutely sickening sometimes.
Heh. Yeah. It was nice of Eugenia to post Microsoft marketing materials for us, though. I mean, where else will I get a chance to hear the W2K3 message? Not from the trade press, surely. Especially Ziff-Davis media.
“Microsoft says you have to buy Windows Server 2003, now.”
Yeah, thanks!
I’m with the other Todu — how about a real comparison of choices? The only replacement for NT is *not* Y.A.M.P. — there are alternatives with are cheaper, perform better, are more secure, more flexible, and less troublesome (read: expensive) to administer. Red Hat, for instance. It will take care of all your NT4 file/print needs, as well as quite a number of other services. Cisco, for instance, runs its entire print infrastructure on Linux. Upper management, after a meeting with MSFT, ordered that ti be moved to Windows — which caused the reliability of the print infrastructurs to plummet. Management demanded that it be fixed — and it was moved back to Linux, and worked again.
Don’t be a thrall! Just because Microsoft wants for you to do something, and tells you you have to do something, and the trade rags re-print their marketing messages, doesn’t mean it’s good for your business.
This artcile is NOT about Linux. Quit trying to make every single Windows article a Windows vs. Linux battle.
This article IS about finding information on how to migrate from NT4 to Win2k3.
It’s people like you, Anon, Todu, that make the internet annoying. How about posting something worthwhile rather than just trolling every Windows article.
This article is about Linux. Every future article about Windows, at least here on OSnews, will have to mention Linux. Even future OS X articles will have to mention that Linux will likely overtake it’s market-share.
This is the new world we’re living in. It’s an open source paradise with Linux at its core.
“Why has this happened?” It happened because Micro$oft garnered too much success. Now it must pay the consequences for its monopolistic actions.
Topics on Windows are no longer significant on the internet. That is just a fact you will have to live with. The sooner you stop trolling for M$, the better.
well, i’m a conviced GNU/Linux user, and i don’t have windows on my machine. Of course i hate microsoft, and i’m very happy each time GNU/linux impose himself in the battle (Suse in Munichas an exemple).
But i agree about CPUGuy. The news could be usefull for windows user, telling what’s wrong, what’s good. There ‘s a lot article of this type “moving from windows to linux”, “moving from MacOS to linux”, “moving from PC to Mac”. It’s just “moving from windows to newer windows”.
Comparing with linux why not. But saying without argument “houhaaaa fool stop using windows go on linux” is stupid. As if some W4r3z punks had indeed moved to linux, and kept their language habit. It has no interest.
It’s bad for linux : i’ve seen windows users upset by linux, not because they use it, but because they’ve been annoyed by people telling them they were stupid not to use linux. Those people are now harder to convince. Thanks the trolls.
Those migration tips are really about migration but about an implace upgrade. I would never do an implace upgrade from nt to 2k or 2k3. You will only have problems. A clean install of 2k3 with different migration tools of acounts and shares and such is a much better way to do an upgrade.
When the department you work in uses an application designed to run on some windows server with MS SQL Server as a db you don’t get to choose linux as a server.
There are a great number of applications that don’t exist on any flavor of *nix that are used in the real world, in real corporations, that depend on using them to make significant ROI. These coporations don’t care what the server is running they care what the applications provide.
It’s worth noting that, if you work in a mixed environment, don’t expect to be able to connect to shares on a Windows 2003 server — Samba, certainly, has issues with W2K3 at present (certainly stable releases do). Microsoft appear to have subtly changed the SMB protocol in the latest release of their server operating system, such that connections via Samba have issues (access denied on correctly authenticated connections), whereas Windows 2000 and XP clients work fine.
what happens in 2005 when Microsoft rewrites everything, creates a new .iNET and breaks backware compatibility again?
That’s my fear of proprietary solutions. Got any thoughts?
And that is how the redmond boys work…
Its not about innovation or concurence or even about
giving your users good,stable,compatible solution. Its all about getting as much money is the less time as possible.
The bigger they are the harder they fall!
Why is this on Osnews and not:
http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003070801526NWDTHW
http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003070801626OSCYMS
These articles are far more intressting then reading about
how to transfer your product A to B. Its no news.
———————–
what happens in 2005 when Microsoft rewrites everything, creates a new .iNET and breaks backware compatibility again?
———————–
You will have to pay again for cosmetic enhancements…
This is the problem with M$ “solutions”. They are temporary and expensive solutions that requires other acquisitions in general to work completely.
When you learn and deploy free software you have a permanent solution. Even if the development of program stops you can remain using your solution or can improve it by yourself because you have the source code.
The fundamentals of Unix administration are also the same for 30 years and you don’t have to relearn all again at every Windows version.
The initial outlay/upgrade costs for an os isn’t the expensive part of the software costs at most organizations. (I’ve spent 21 years in consulting and commercial software development).
The applications the company requires to handle the business process is what costs. The company still has to pay someone to write customized software around anything they buy/download. They still have to pay someone to maintain the server/desktops (don’t expect accountants and CEO types to do anything except call someone). They still have to have business process software written for new process the CFO outlines. They still need someone to create the … You get the idea. The cost of Microsoft Server (any edition), or any other OS, over the next 10 years is infitesimally small compared to my salary (or other people like me) to add to it with functionality they requre to meet new government guidelines, accounting practices, acquisistions, etc.
If the only thing a company does is send and receive email, okay, then a linux server is a good choice. If that company wants to say trade crude or natural gas on the spot market, or use any of the other untold number of market specific applications then they’ll probably never see anything but windows.
It is time for people to move away from NT 4.0.. Isn’t 8 years a good enough run for an OS? When NT 4.0 server support is dropped next year it’ll be 8 years old. I think that’s long enough to support an OS.
And Server 2003 is a good product. It’s better than NT 4.0…
As for Linux, I don’t think most comapanies see it as an option right now. Especially with all this SCO crap going on… you never know what could happen. What if SCO actually wins? More messed up things have happened in this world…
>As for Linux, I don’t think most comapanies see it as an
>option right now. Especially with all this SCO crap going
>on… you never know what could happen. What if SCO actually
>wins? More messed up things have happened in this world…
Right! just like when Microsoft was in court, everybody was dropping Windows..pfff.
It’s worth noting that, if you work in a mixed environment, don’t expect to be able to connect to shares on a Windows 2003 server — Samba, certainly, has issues with W2K3 at present (certainly stable releases do). Microsoft appear to have subtly changed the SMB protocol in the latest release of their server operating system, such that connections via Samba have issues (access denied on correctly authenticated connections), whereas Windows 2000 and XP clients work fine.
I have never fully understood why this happens. Think about it. If Microsoft changes SMB(CIFS) to the point that it breaks “other systems” why aren’t Windows 98/NT/2000/XP not broken? Why is it that the changes only break Samba? The fact is that Windows 98/NT/2000/XP all work with Windows 2003 over CIFS but, Samba was broken.
And for those that will say that M$ is doing it intentionally against Samba specifically, I doubt that very much. I really doubt that M$ is that concerned with Samba yet.
At best, they don’t know if it breaks Samba, and don’t care. “Interoperability” for them means “working with some of our own products.”
In the middle, they realize they’re breaking samba, but don’t care.
At the other end, they are intentionally breaking Samba in much the same manner that AOL keeps breaking AIM clients.
MSFT tests against their own products, only. I suspect that they *are* breaking Samba intentionally, but intentions aside, I doubt they formally test each new release of Windows against Samba.
Does OSX work with W2k3’s SMB implementation?
Riight, like your post wasn’t annoying. Nope, not at all. How about doing something worthwile rather than just trolling every osnews article. 😛 heh
I’ve seen Linux users upset by Windows users, more often than the other way around. Get over it.
Yes, because I’m trolling with the ONE post on this thread, which wasn’t really a troll.