Windows 2003

[MicroIT]

Isn't that the reason it's called "Server"? The last thing I want to do is to play games and surf the internet on Windows 2003 Server.

 

[Un4gIvEn1]

I myself run a Windows Server 2003 (eval edition) PC at home as a test PC. I use it to control a test domain, DNS, AD, DHCP, and RIS. I do it for the purpose it trying new things on a less volotile environment and then incorporating them into our environment here at work. Anyone who runs Windows Server 2003 as anything but a server does it only for bragging rights (and probably not legally since it's license is over $800).

j79zlr: you are a little mistaken with your opinion on the security between server and workstation. None of the services you listed are installed by default. Web, FTP, Telnet, Email... they are all components that must be installed.

So... unless you are using it to further your knowledge on the new MS OS, or create a test environment, or in a real environment, you really shoulnd't run it. If you are not completely proficient in Windows XP/2000 then running a server OS should be out of the question. I have said it before and I will probably say it again... Until you actually work in the industry you will never truely know how much about Windows (no matter which version) you really don't know.

 

[Terrahertz]

Originally posted by Un4gIvEn1
I myself run a Windows Server 2003 (eval edition) PC at home as a test PC. I use it to control a test domain, DNS, AD, DHCP, and RIS. I do it for the purpose it trying new things on a less volotile environment and then incorporating them into our environment here at work. Anyone who runs Windows Server 2003 as anything but a server does it only for bragging rights (and probably not legally since it's license is over $800).

j79zlr: you are a little mistaken with your opinion on the security between server and workstation. None of the services you listed are installed by default. Web, FTP, Telnet, Email... they are all components that must be installed.

So... unless you are using it to further your knowledge on the new MS OS, or create a test environment, or in a real environment, you really shoulnd't run it. If you are not completely proficient in Windows XP/2000 then running a server OS should be out of the question. I have said it before and I will probably say it again... Until you actually work in the industry you will never truely know how much about Windows (no matter which version) you really don't know.

I hear that.

 

[j79zlr]

I thought IIS was automatically installed on Server 2003? Oh well I guess I am an idiot since I don't work in the industry. Telnet, I didn't mention this btw, is actually configured on XP and 2000 by default, I don't remember if it is on the 9x's. My point was that alot of people were installing 2003 as their main OS since the eval was free, but they were trying to use it as a desktop, but it is a server OS. I personally would never run a non-unix based web server.

 

[Un4gIvEn1]

Yes, Telnet is installed, but the service is not enabled by default. I was not saying that if you don't work in the industry that you are an idiot, just that it's hard to understand some tools available in Windows unless you work in an environment in which you can use them. I have to disagree with you on the non-linux based web server though. IIS 6 is great. There isn't anything that it can't do that Linux can, I assure you that.

 

[j79zlr]

There is definitely one thing it can do that Windows can't, be patched/updated without restarting the entire OS

Telnet service is set to manual by default on XP Pro, 2000Pro and Server.

 

[Electronic Punk]

alot of stuff is installed on 2k3, but not enabled.

 

[Un4gIvEn1]

Manual means that the service is available. You must START it before it will accept connections.

 

[Doom]

Originally posted by grimman
It rocks. Been running it for three months now. Before that I just wouldn't give 2k up. XP sucks.

Exactly what does win 2000 and win 2003 have over xp? Will it run the same software?(games and such)

 

[Un4gIvEn1]

Windows 2003 does not have anything over XP except server functions. There are a lot of people who had the "I will NOT install Windows 95" mentality when it came out... Same case here. The truth is that Windows XP is more stable then Windows 2000. There are some people who have had compatability issues and because of this they think that "XP sucks" or whatever the case.