Computing.Net > Forums > Windows Server 2003 > Windows 2000 vs Windows 2003 Server

Computer Problems? Computing.Net has over 1,000,000 posts about all things technology related! Click here to start participating now! Also, check out the New User Guide.

Windows 2000 vs Windows 2003 Server

Reply to Message Icon

Name: Infinite Recursion
Date: April 12, 2004 at 07:52:31 Pacific
OS: Win2k
CPU/Ram: 512
Comment:

Hello everyone...

I am looking for opinions on why I should upgrade from Windows 2000 to Windows 2003 Server. My network consists of 8 personal computers.

Is there really a need for 2003 Server, is it any better?

Thanks for the input.

Sarah



Sponsored Link
Ads by Google

Response Number 1
Name: Winetree
Date: April 12, 2004 at 10:18:24 Pacific
Reply:

Hi,
Besides the fact that win2003 is in fact better (it's based on win 2000, but improved), if you are upgrading you should (in my opinion) aim for the newest...


0

Response Number 2
Name: OctalDeterrent
Date: April 12, 2004 at 11:49:58 Pacific
Reply:

All one has to do is look at the number of Remote Exploits for Windows 2000 and Windows 2003. Look at the fact that the few Remote exploits for Windows 2003 were all stoppable by a simple Firewall which Windows 2003 comes with. Windows 2003 also scales better and is based on a more modern and more secure code base.


0

Response Number 3
Name: jefro
Date: April 12, 2004 at 17:31:52 Pacific
Reply:

Three years on an OS?

If you have such a small setup I don't feel that there is a real need. That assumes that you have it setup and protected with firmware and software if it connects to the internet. It also assumes some responsibility with regards the the users.


0

Response Number 4
Name: Sandman
Date: April 13, 2004 at 01:34:48 Pacific
Reply:

You could always download the trial and give it a whirl.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/trial/evalkit.mspx

Chances are you don't "need" to upgrade. But if you were getting a new server I would definitely say get Win2003. Win2003 is a great os, a nicely streamlined version of Win2000.

Sandman

An Official Microsoft Minion. ˙


0

Response Number 5
Name: rick
Date: April 14, 2004 at 09:33:47 Pacific
Reply:

i vote no, with only 8 clients you may not even need a server at all. depends on what your actually "serving" to the clients.


0

Related Posts

See More



Response Number 6
Name: craglett
Date: April 28, 2004 at 03:32:32 Pacific
Reply:

Going with the latest microsoft o/s is never THE best idea, it is always released with bugs and there are less people out there to help you through the problems.

However, it has had a while to start being patched, there are a number of people taking up the o/s and there are a lot of similarities with w2k so there will at least be some people to help you.

You haven't stated exactly why you are thinking to upgrade in the first place. If it's because you feel you should and the current server you have isn't broke then I vote to stay with what you know. If it's because the current server is broke then by all means go up to 2003, there are some nicely tidied up features in it which I find makes life easier when administering the thing. IIS 6 is better than 5 (although you may not use it).

As for upgrading for a built in firewall, that's just crazy!! There are plenty out there, go buy or download.


0

Sponsored Link
Ads by Google
Reply to Message Icon

Default printer changes w... Windows 2003 RRAS and FTP



Post Locked

This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.


Go to Windows Server 2003 Forum Home


Sponsored links

Ads by Google


Results for: Windows 2000 vs Windows 2003 Server

Windows 2003 Server AD 2000 www.computing.net/answers/windows-2003/windows-2003-server-ad-2000/3039.html

Windows 2003 Server and JetAdmin www.computing.net/answers/windows-2003/windows-2003-server-and-jetadmin/4374.html

Mail server on Windows 2003 Server www.computing.net/answers/windows-2003/mail-server-on-windows-2003-server/383.html