I know Windows server 2003 has only been out a couple of months. But it seems odd very little mention about improved uptimes. Some companies have been using it for months and few remarks regarding improved stability and uptimes. I suppose no news is good news.....I am just curious if MS has made some real improvements with this release. Windows 2000 for the most part could not even come close to matching Unix or Linux for uptimes. I was wondering if Windows 2003 was fairing any better. If MS could keep Windows with 6 month plus uptimes and lock it down security wise they might have a shot at enterprise level deployment. I really like XP Pro........its rock solid and plays games great. Though I must admit I dont leave my computer on 12\7. Just wondering where the opinions are hiding. I have read a few opinions but they have been short and vague.

I have mentioned uptime in several of my recent posts. Far, far better than XP and 2k. I am bloody hard on my O/S's, poking around where I shouldn't, tweaking this and that, putting very heavy development and testing loads on them. With XP I never got better than 3 or 4 days with out rebooting. 2K was about the same. With 2k3 I could go three to four weeks, stopping only to reboot due to software/hardware changes. Admittedly, not a true measure of stability, but pretty telling in my opinion.

i would agreed with lightningstrike, windows server 2003 is really the best OS that i have ever used. i have tried, MS-DOS, windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, 2000, advance server, XP Home, XP PRO..."longhorn" and i even tried Red-Hat linux, Mandrake. but, still windows server 2003 is still the best.

Uptimes on Windows 2000 are great is the server is configured correctly. Linux machines have longer uptimes because they are usually not doing much of anything besides 2 or 3 tasks. I have Windows 2000 machine that are up for months on end. If I didn't do security updates, the uptimes would easily be over 6 months. Do you sit at your Linux machines and dl programs from the Internet, play mp3's, etc, etc... probably not. It's not so much that the OS is unstable - it isn't. It's just screwed around with a lot more. Is Windows 2003 better? Probably. Is Windows 2000 unstabe? No. Not at all.

I have a 45 station LAN running multipile apps.Its been running without a reboot since Oct 27th.