Windows Server 2000 vs 2003
 

Right, I'm about to buy some decent dedicated server hosting, and wanted your guys' thoughts on Windows Server 2003.

• Is it worth sourcing it over 2000?
  
• What can I do on it that I can't on 2000?
  
• I assume stability is improved, but I didn't have much of a problem with my old 2000 Ad server box.

I'm buying a 2.67GHz Xeon with a 1GB of RAM and 50GB harddisk, that I enough I presume!? :)

I'll be running SQL 2000 Server, running a web server and email... and a remote storage facility (not done before.).

Just looking for some general thoughts and any specific advice you have? :)

Re: Windows Server 2000 vs 2003
 

its got IIS6 and takes about 10 seconds to boot...but to answer your question would all depend on money how much is the 2000 and how much is the 2003 and how long would u have to spend getting the 2003 setup? is it worth the hassle

Re: Windows Server 2000 vs 2003
 

Not sure about the webserver side of it. I think that 2003 has better .net support.

If you just want AD for users then I would not bother with the upgrade !

Re: Windows Server 2000 vs 2003
 

The server is for my own use, as a dedicated box to run my companies websites and web services (email/ftp/etc.).

I don't have the cost that the hosting company wants to charge me as yet, but the setup would be done by them. The choice is simply do I want it, if so here's the cost and we'll load it...

Are there any features in 2003, that are useful that are not in 2000?

Sorry, I have currently 2000 server and not Ad server. :)

Re: Windows Server 2000 vs 2003
 

When you say AD server I asumed you meant active directory. Both 2000 and 2003 have active directory and there is little diference between the two.

I would find out the cost and go for 2003 if its not to expensive. IIS6 is a bit more stable.

Re: Windows Server 2000 vs 2003
 

well exchange 2003 is a lot better than 2000 if you using it on offline cashed mode with outlook 2003

iis6 is fancy and the WSS is very useful especially as it will be remote you can get at it from any pc with a browser ...

both will be using sql 2000 so no biggie there except as its remote im not sure u will notice much difference between em but 2003 is a bit faster on all systems ive installed it on ...all depends on price and what u wanna do with it both do what you want just 2003 does it a little faster and smarter ..

Re: Windows Server 2000 vs 2003
 

2003 has greater security if you listen to M$, what they really mean by this is everything (YES EVERYTHING) is turned OFF by default. So if you want IIS6 you need to enable it, etc. Supposedly more secure as they pass the blame to you (You switched it on). Server spec looks OK, I might be tempted to chuck some more memory in if you're going to run SQL Server, W2K3 will certainly want to take a chunk of the memory. I would normally go 2GB for standard server, and 4gb for a dual processor if running W2K3 and SQL2K

Re: Windows Server 2000 vs 2003
 

There is no question - go for W2003 - W2000 has no advantages over 2003.