Thread: Windows Server 2000 vs 2003
View Single Post
Old 08-03-2004, 19:43   #7
Tricky
Inactive
 
Tricky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: I am house...
Services: $KY+HD - BT Infinity
Posts: 2,284
Tricky is the helpful oneTricky is the helpful oneTricky is the helpful oneTricky is the helpful oneTricky is the helpful oneTricky is the helpful oneTricky is the helpful oneTricky is the helpful oneTricky is the helpful oneTricky is the helpful oneTricky is the helpful oneTricky is the helpful oneTricky is the helpful oneTricky is the helpful oneTricky is the helpful oneTricky is the helpful oneTricky is the helpful one
Re: Windows Server 2000 vs 2003
2003 has greater security if you listen to M$, 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
Tricky is offline   Reply With Quote