I am still checking out Win2k3. In fact the only advantage noticed so far is that some applications load faster than with XP or W2k but I think that W2K3 has a lot of security restricitions, (that can be bypassed) but my doubt is: Do you really think that we should move tho this O.S, initially intended to work as a corporate server, not for home use and what would be those advantages? I would like to receive the comments of advanced users. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Regards

Lospala, That's what I want to know. I've got my 360day eval just like everyone else. Set up on a small subnet at home w/ 2000 Ad server, xp pro, 2000 pro, & a linux box; Trying to see if I should recommend this upgrade to my boss over 2000 server. I love it, it's much better for a smaller network that doesn't need AD. It is faster, though I've NEVER thought about playing any games on it. Although at this point financially I can't recommend this product, It doesn't bring anything to the table we don't already have. Moving from NT to 2000 was a no brainer, until we get a 64-bit Itanium system....2000 is fine.

This link may answer your question. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance/etest.mspx Personally, I would not recommend this to a home user unless she/he is well versed in turning features that are not needed off. I have seen compatibilty issues with hardware and software. Some features are little more streamline then windows 2000. However, if you have a network and several machines.. I say go for the upgrade. The features of 2003 are well worth the upgrade to the IS manager. Just check you hardware and what you intend to use. Groupwise and several other software packages, I have had trouble with. Security standpoint... well, I have not seen better out of the box from microsoft as this. It is robust, to some degree, a (few second + depends on how it is configured) quicker then xp. Would I do the upgrade now if I had xp to server? NO, not worth it to the home user. Wait for longhorn release the end of 2004 or so. Save your money!

Daniel I have been watching this article today. Please take a look at it http://www.entmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=5585 Regards Carlos

Yes thanks for the link.. have heard that for about 3 months now in beta testing of longhorn. Client release was always in the ms plans. It will be geared to the typical home user as a replacement for windows xp or those users who are still using win 98, me, 2000 pro. Longhorn is not that bad of an operating system. The file system will be very close to server 2003. So some significant (10% +) improvement in speed on games and cad/cam programs over xp.

After reading your post I made a phone call to the local office of Microsoft and they told me that the version of Longhorn for beta testers is not yet available for distribution. How is that version running if Microsoft did not launched it?

3663 build codename longhorn. Alpha build supposedly there is 3720 build, but neither I or anyone else has seen it. 3683 build codename longhorn. Alpha build 4008 build codename longhorn. Alpha build 4015 build codename longhorn. Alpha build The release of the first beta is expected to coincide with Microsoft's Professional Developers Conference in Los Angeles in October. So us developer are hoping to get it before then. :-) Only office 2003 or office 11 is at the moment in beta testing and it is available. The longhorn build above has been released to developer.. :-) and 4008 was considered a beta then changed to alpha. Some sites refer to one in the same.. Hope this answers you question. And they are not worth downloading from the web, I have heard they are available in some circles. They are not worth the time, too many bugs.