Windows is often the whipping boy when it comes to server platforms. But many in the industry now admit that Windows Server 2003 offers some significant breakthroughs over earlier versions of Microsoft’s server software — a change that could help Microsoft compete more effectively against Unix and Linux servers, eCommerceTimes reports.
Inside 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
Slightly on-topic: Has anyone came up with a virus scan package which works on Windows 2003 yet? I was playing around with it a bit, but never was able to get a virus protection package to run under it.
Most virus packages won’t install as it’s a Windows version that they don’t recognize.
Same goes for a firewall… While I did get Zone Alarm installed under W2003, it complained about the version, and so I’m not really too sure how good of protection it’s providing.
Ideas?
I like some of the changes and security that W2003 brings to the table, but without a virus scanner or firewall, I refuse to run it (it’s still Windows afterall!).
I’m not a Linux Zealot, I’m more a Linux Templar (if we are to speak of the Zealots from Stra Craft)…
Seriously: Win 2003 server might be good, but this days because of all the competition software has started to gain qualitty. To be honest, I don’t wanna see Windows and MS everywhere. It would be cool to have Windows OS from more than one vendor, it would mean freedom of choice, nut having MS involved in every business and in every area, every home and every office, its just .like it was in the east-comunist block: everyone had to have the one car from one manufacturer, live in a small tiny apartment and weare the same uniforms (you can’t call them clothes), have the same hair cut and the same beliefs.
The alternave OS’es bring choice to computing, and if we would have more choice on the desktop (Linux is in its childhood on the desktop), than it would so cool…
Oh, well, that’s life.
And to be more on-topic: MS will try to compete in any area in IT possible, but to take a desktop OS that doesn’t scale and to try to turn it into a Server OS, with all the security wholes it has, is pretty bad. I don’t wanna know what MS would have donne if they had owned a big part of the UNIX source code…
Try f-prot as the anti-virus and sygate for firewall
Windows Server is not based off of a desktop OS. They share a common code base, yes. However, one is tuned for workstations, the other for serving.
Do you have ANY data supporting your claim that it doesn’t scale well? No? Oh, ok…
Win2003 has only had 2 or 3 security holes found that actually effect the default install. This is not a lot of security holes.
BTW, Microsft used to make their own version of Unix.
Are you talking about Unix services for Windows? If so, they still provide that but I would no call it a version of Unix.
No, he does not talk of Unix Services. He is talking about Xenix, a full UNIX, from Microsoft.
Like most companies, Microsoft never built its own version of UNIX. Their UNIX, Xenix, was actually based off of AT&T UNIX Release 6. Its funny to note that Xenix actually became that piece-of-shit excuse for a UNIX now called SCO OpenServer…
Anyway, I’m glad that Windows is improving in the quality department. The cynic in me says that the only reason we’re seeing any quality improvements come out of Redmond is that they’ve finally come up against a competitor they couldn’t buy-out, push-out, or FUD-out of the market. But as good as Win2003 is, it doesn’t change the fact that Microsoft is a convicted monopoly that uses dirty business practices to push competitors out of the market. It doesn’t change the fact that MS’s licensing policies are draconion. More and more enterprise users are seeing these facts, and Win2k3 might just be too little, too late.
Now, under different circumstances, I wouldn’t be so bitter. If Microsoft owned only 70% of the computer market, and the new Win2k3 totally blew Linux out of the water, I’d be happy for them. But they don’t, and I’m not.
One of the things that the article notes is the Common Language Runtime.
While I agree with statements that the CLR cuts down on bugs there is very little .net authored software available yet.
These benefits won’t be seen for a couple of years yet.
True, but as far as operating systems go they’ve never really had any serious competition since Dr-Dos
I have never played with Windows servers before, so I was a Linux believer in terms of servers. But in the place I just started to work 3 weeks ago, they have 5 W2k3 servers, they are setup pretty nicely to be honest.
If you have a bunch of Windows Clients, it is so much easier to manage them with Windows server. Also, the servers are setup to do automatic rollover for services… I kinda see the beauty of Win servers. Now, when I am asked, why choose Linux server over a Windows one, I have less arguments.
To answer the anti virus question, we are using Symantec AntiVirus, and it works ok.
> The cynic in me says that the only reason we’re seeing
> any quality improvements come out of Redmond is that
> they’ve finally come up against a competitor they
> couldn’t buy-out, push-out, or FUD-out of the market
Microsoft wants to sell new products, so even with no competitors they would still have to improve their products to convince people to upgrade.
Look at MS Office. They have dominated the office-market long before Open Office, but still they needed to improve their product.
Same goes for a firewall… While I did get Zone Alarm installed under W2003, it complained about the version, and so I’m not really too sure how good of protection it’s providing.
I personal will recommend you to get another hardware to take care of firewall such as Linux, BSD or use router/firewall hardware such as Linksys, Cisco or else.
But I only have so much of me to go around, and i’ve dedicated my time to learning linux,freebsd/os-x.
i still use xp for the occassional ap.
Right. Exactly how WinME was *such* an improvement over Win95…
>>Exactly how WinME was *such* an improvement over Win95<<
I purchased a computer a couple years back that had Win ME on it, and it crashed all the time. It could never go into sleep mode, and CD Burning was iffy at best; it would crash in the middle of burning a disk sometimes. A friend of mine had been using a product called Norton Systemworks and said it helped him with some problems he had, so I gave it a try. When I ran the tests it found hundreds of Registry errors, ActiveX errors and Shortcut errors on a fresh install. So I ran the fix routines and Win ME actually became stable. This was before the consulting firm I worked for bought me my own MSDN subscription and I had a legitimate copy of Win 2K Server to load on my machine, haven’t even thought of using Win ME again. Just found it kind of interesting that Win ME shipped with so many errors built into it.
We have been using McAfee VirusScan Enterprise V.7 at work for 3 months and we’re very happy with it.
i’ve used Win2K Advanced server and it was pretty good…then I switched over to FreeBSD since price wise…there’s no comparison.
i think people make two choices…pay a lot and double click or pay nothing and buy books.
Microsoft wants to sell new products, so even with no competitors they would still have to improve their products to convince people to upgrade.
Not true. All they have to do is convince people that the [i]features[i], not necessairly improvements, are worth the money. And, as we’ve seen, they’re very good at this.
I wholeheartedly agree with Rayiner tho, the thing that really bugs me about M$ is not necessairly Windows – I believe it’s actually somewhat needed in the industry. But what really bugs me, in fact, infuriates me, is their disdain for fairness and ethics. And on top of that is more dishonesty regarding security. Plus, the fact that they keep whining about foreign governments decisions on protecting their own economies is really pathetic.
So, my home is mostly Linux machines, 1 Powerbook, and 1 copy of XP. But only because the business market demands it. While I prefer OS X or Linux as my desktop machine, I really have no major qualms about Windows from an end-user standpoint.
Rayiner Hashem (IP: —.res.gatech.edu) – Posted on 2003-09-26 19:43:49
Like most companies, Microsoft never built its own version of UNIX. Their UNIX, Xenix, was actually based off of AT&T UNIX Release 6. Its funny to note that Xenix actually became that piece-of-shit excuse for a UNIX now called SCO OpenServer…
Xenix is based on AT&T SVR3. SCO (Santa Cruz Operations) bought along with Microsofts UNIX license, added SVR4 enhancements and called it OpenServer. UnixWare is SVR6 IIRC, that is their main “flag ship product” and OpenServer is mearly there for legacy reasons. The eventual aim is to get all the OpenServer people over to UnixWare via their OpenServer personality module they’re offer to current and potential UnixWare customers.
and this is a point I’ve made before. It’s all well and good
that Win2003 Server is a major improvement. But for many of us, the issue with Microsoft isn’t that they compete fiercely – which they do – it’s that they are essentially bullies who have, on many occasions, done very questionable things to maintain or enhance a dominant position.
But really, the question in my mind isn’t how good Win2003 Server really is; it’s what the hell took them so long.
If arrogance were an operating system, they’d have 99.999 market share.
I’ve always laughed at their “freedom to innovate” line. In my opinion, the most innovative computer company would be Apple. Some of their ideas have been short-lived or daft but they keep on trucking and they just keep on doing amazing – and brave – things.
I think it would be a fair competition between these 3 companies.
No monopoly antmore on the small and medium server market.
It would be very stupid to pay the full price from Microsoft, SuSE or Redhat when we can get a discount just by involving the competitors.
Microsoft can cut its price (50% ?), SuSE and Redhat as well.
Does anyone still pay the full price ?
But really, the question in my mind isn’t how good Win2003 Server really is; it’s what the hell took them so long.
“So long” ? What’s your benchmark ?
As for their behaviour – they’re no worse than any other large corporation (although their size tends to make the impact greater).
And the word “innovation” has been abused so much over the last decade it’s lost any meaning to me.
“In my opinion, the most innovative computer company would be Apple. Some of their ideas have been short-lived or daft but they keep on trucking and they just keep on doing amazing – and brave – things.
”
Ah ah… Depending on what you are calling innovation, both (microsoft and apple) or none are innovative.
For once, microsoft is not just about windows. Look WMA, which is a great audio codec for low bitrate, for example. Look the idea of NT, which was also great on a commercial point of view : microsoft understood the need for that kind of OS, and they were the first to do it (a plateform whoch is easy to use, in a network environnement).
Apple did some nice stuff, yes. But stole a lot of ideas, too.
And, frankly, I was at Apple expo in Paris a week ago : I am glad that apple has not 97% (or 95 or 90%, whatever) of marketshare. Microsoft are kind baby bears comparing to the arrogance of Apple guys…
Apple did some nice stuff, yes. But stole a lot of ideas, too.
Ideas can’t be stolen, but they do get refined and improved.
The sooner everyone realises that, the better of we’ll all be.
And, frankly, I was at Apple expo in Paris a week ago : I am glad that apple has not 97% (or 95 or 90%, whatever) of marketshare. Microsoft are kind baby bears comparing to the arrogance of Apple guys…
Can’t argue with that. Imagine how expensive machines would be if Apple controlled the industry.
“Can’t argue with that. Imagine how expensive machines would be if Apple controlled the industry.”
I don’t speak about that; you can even find emac which are good enough for the joe user. Fast mac are expensive, but not the “cheap” ones.
But : no linux, no windows in the apple expo. If you have one laptop with both, you are more than devil. It is worth than linux style expo, when people see windows XP on my laptop. Lies everywhere (Mac OS X is better for everythin, you know, even if it cannot do it
).
Several times, I wanted to invest in apple ( which means a lot for a student : one year work, even more); each time, I was disgusted by their lies.
Apple, with a few percent of marketshare, has an horrible culture; it is elitist, without any reasons to be so. At the apple expo : no technicians, just dumb guys who keep saying Mac OS X os great, windaube sucks, etc…
You don’t win by saying the other suck; you win by saying why you are better than the other; when Apple will understand that, it will be a huge step for them (idem for Linux community; I really consider to give up linux because of the spirit…FreeBSD spirit is so more mature)
“Ideas can’t be stolen, but they do get refined and improved.
”
Well, depends on what you call ideas, but it is obvious that windows take some ideas from mac OS, without improving them. The same for linux, which took some concepts to other Unix without improving them, etc…
I laugh when I see people highlighting the innovation of apple to bash microsoft. The two of them did some great things, and not so great things.
“Anyway, I’m glad that Windows is improving in the quality department. The cynic in me says that the only reason we’re seeing any quality improvements come out of Redmond is that they’ve finally come up against a competitor they couldn’t buy-out, push-out, or FUD-out of the market.”
No, the real reason is that analysts (and even MS management themselves) believe that MS has in many ways peaked and leveled off in terms of features/profits. If they want to go higher than the plateau they are on, they need to continue to innovate. Hold on a second, that sounds like just any other company that has to make a profit to survive.
Its no big surprise that any company that makes big wins is hated by the competition. It is high time for the anti-linux and anti-MS bashers to figure this fact from Economy 101 out and quit it. Hearing the same whining ad nauseum time after time after time after time gets really old.
“but to take a desktop OS that doesn’t scale and to try to turn it into a Server OS”
Oh, I can’t stop laughing.
windows 200* server is still a toy for lan boys.
10 years and counting.. still cant make a crack at the big data centers.
windows 200* server is still a toy for lan boys.
10 years and counting.. still cant make a crack at the big data centers.
Some toy to be running sites like microsoft.com, hotmail.com, nasdaq.com, barnesandnoble.com, etc.
But really, the question in my mind isn’t how good Win2003 Server really is; it’s what the hell took them so long.
If arrogance were an operating system, they’d have 99.999 market share.
I’ve always laughed at their “freedom to innovate” line. In my opinion, the most innovative computer company would be Apple. Some of their ideas have been short-lived or daft but they keep on trucking and they just keep on doing amazing – and brave – things.
Did microsoft say they were the most innovative company? No, they merely said they should have the right to innovate too. Hypothetical question for the open source fundamentalists: What if you were born in a world where breathing was patented because someone did it before you were here? You’d be up a creek I reckon. It’s funny, the OSFs are against patents and especially frivolous things like copyrighting look-and-feel type shit, until it’s microsoft who receives the subpena, then it’s a 180 degree spin on everything they “stand” for with all that “conviction.” What a joke. Is MS supposed to stay with DOS forever because apple used (not invented) the gui before them? How about linux, should they get rid of KDE and gnome and X too? And Beos and the others? Do you realize how stupid your argument gets when delved into yet?
Apple (nor motorola, nor IBM) invented the cpu, maybe apple shouldn’t even be allowed to sell computers without paying intel for the theft of the cpu they’ve participated in.. These are just arguments of desperate people who realize apple will never beat MS in the market place so they have to run and look under every rock for some judicial procedure to stop them. Fills me with great joy to look at the onestat.com figures these days, though long ago I would have felt sorry for apple and linux, that was before I got to know their users so well..
Apple (nor motorola, nor IBM) invented the cpu
Should be:
Apple (nor motorola, nor IBM) didn’t invent the cpu
Microsoft wants to sell new products, so even with no competitors they would still have to improve their products to convince people to upgrade.
<BR>
Look at MS Office. They have dominated the office-market long before Open Office, but still they needed to improve their product.
<P>
Excuse me, could you provide any examples of improvements between Word 2.0 and Word 97? I’ve had limited dealings with subsequent versions, but seen no immediately obvious signs. Do master/sub documents work yet? I am lead to believe that they do not; similarly for *proper* use of styles (ie, affect the document structure, not just presentation of that particular item) etc etc etc … My wife is a professional PA, and swears by MS Word, despite her Windows PC crashing on her 4+ times/day guaranteed, and having tried StarOffice on Linux (admittedly with a dying CPU). Even her arguments go no further than, “but… it’s not as nice”
Could you give me any example of how MS have improved since dominating an area?
StarOffice (OpenOffice.org) beats MS Office on functionality, but that battle is long dead since the 1980s wars. However, it also provides more control over documentation with *true* XML, not to mention being an average of 5-10 times smaller per document, in my experience over the past few years. Most of the net-connected world is still using 56k modems, so this is significant.
I don’t speak about that; you can even find emac which are good enough for the joe user. Fast mac are expensive, but not the “cheap” ones.
Yes, they are. Not to mention slower and, IMHO, have less relevant features.
The cheapest Mac I can buy new here in Australia is an 800Mhz eMac for $1500 and it comes with 128MB of RAM, a 40G hard disk and a CDROM.
As a comparison, I can buy a 2.5Ghz Celeron machine with 256MB of RAM, a 40G hard disk, Combo drive and 17″ monitor from my local clone box vendor for $1000.
Or, for a name-brand a comparison, $1000 at Dell buys me a 2.4Ghz Celeron, 256MB RAM, 40G hard disk, CDRW and 17″ monitor.
Bump the PC price up to $1600 and the clone box is now an Athlon XP 2700, 512MB of RAM, 80G hard disk 128Mb GeForce FX 5600 and 15″ flat panel. The Dell is a 2.4Ghz P4 with 512MB of RAM, 80G hard disk, 15″ flat panel and CDRW.
Apple’s next best offering is a 1Ghz eMac with 128Mb of RAM, 60G hard disk and Combo drive for $1900.
Ironically, their most price-competitive model is actually the highest-end dual 2Ghz G5. Everything else is, comparatively, quite expensive. $1000 buys you a quite usable PC. $1500 buys you a Mac that can’t even run a bare OS at an acceptable speed.
/rant (my apologies for going OT)
Could you give me any example of how MS have improved since dominating an area?
XP is an improvement over 2000 and 9x. So now switch your argument to make sure your original conclusion is not threatened…
Why is the .Net framework integrated into Windows Server 2003 ? Aren’t Microsoft engineers adding cruft where they shouldn’t ?
“The cheapest Mac I can buy new here in Australia is an 800Mhz eMac for $1500 and it comes with 128MB of RAM, a 40G hard disk and a CDROM.
”
maybe Australia is weird, but in France, here are the prices (€ = $, only a few percent difference)
http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/francestore.woa/942/wo/f8pw…
1000€, one emac fast enough for basic stuff.
Man, I am defending apple
I wouldn’ believe it 5 minutes ago.
Why is the .Net framework integrated into Windows Server 2003 ? Aren’t Microsoft engineers adding cruft where they shouldn’t ?
Gee lets see here. MS wants to move all development to the .net framework. Its the replacement for Win32 among other things.
I can’t for the life of me figure out why they would integrate their next generation development platform into the OS. You bring up a good point! NOT!
2003 is certainly an improvement, it is more stable and simpler to use than ever but after using it for the last 3 months I feel MS has missed the point.
Security sucks, I have spent the last week trying to make an XML server componenet work and after trawling through docs I find that I have to lower IE (why – it’s s SERVER component?) security settings to do it. Same with setting IIS security – NTFS is so closely integrate that if I want to make my computer more open to internal users I have to make IIS less secure to external users. Want to do something slightly insecure on one site (e.g. WebDav) you have to enable it for all sites.
Then there is the absolute mess that is IIS config files. Now I understand the Apache config can look complicated – well 2003 requires about 400 lines of unreadable XML to set up one site – it’s ridiculous. Then there are the clumsy and buggy VBScript files which are MS’s answer to command line tools.
Basically I don’t think MS are taking things seriously here. Sure 2003 is leaps ahead of 2000 and has tried to compete with Linux but you can really see that at this stage they haven’t taken it seriously.