IT Employment
Since Win 2000 and 2003 are much similar and when I attended a seminar, that host brought differences between win nt 4.0 and 2003 but not 2000 and 2003 a, as I know that there are not much differences between 2000 and 2003.
Why should one upgrade from 2000 to 2003?
by gralfus
I'm sure there are lots more reasons than I list, but here is a start.
Pros:
Ability to rollback if a driver causes problems.
Many drivers already built in.
Allegedly more stable than W2K.
Tries to make using a computer easier for people who don't know a computer from a toaster.
Cons:
I still use W2K at home because it works fine for me. MS sometimes decides to change functionality, and did so with XP. For example, Explorer in W2K shows a preview of selected graphic and video files. In XP, you have to display all files was either preview icons or as file names.
XP has a lot of bubble popups designed for idiots to better understand why they are using a computer instead of an Xbox. These are annoying.
XP makes you authenticate with MS, requiring a connection to the internet, or time out of your day to call them on the phone to verify your installation.
by tonythetiger
You seem to be describing the differences between 2000 and XP. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) he was talking about server products. I would also know if there's a good reason to upgrade from Windows 2000 server to Windows 2003 server.
By the way, What's a toaster? :)
by djsheets
by vetch_101
One of the main benefits of W2k3 over W2K for me is the improved security functionality.
The "safer" group policies which are available to you can allow you to lock down specific applications to run at only "restricted" user level as opposed to administrator - if you are working in a corporate environment where the standard response to an app not working as a domain user is to up the user to local admin, you can still restrict IE and Outlook to run with reduced priviledges (this is available in XP SP2, as well, but you can't actually apply the group policy on it from a W2K server - even with a custom .adm file, at least, not so far as I could see...)
The improved windows firewall is also a benefit, though if you need something like that, you can always add one to w2k server.
2k3 is also reduced in functionality from out of the box - rather than giving you an install that has a wider surface area of attack, it does nothing that you don't ask it to - allowing for less chance of misconfiguration.
It's also got some nice add-ins for load balancing and the like - but that's only really useful if you're using it in a large network.
Personally, if I was going to buy a server now, I'd buy w2k3 - if I had a fully installed and working w2k, I'd stick with that.
On the other hand - depending on the needs of the organisation, the server and the budget, I'd be trying out a few of the linux distributions, because in terms of useability (once you've actually managed to install them, which can be a nightmare with drivers) they aren't far off the usability of Windows servers these days - though you'll have a steep learning curve...
windows 2003 requires password everytime u login and moreover it has muchmore security than 2000 since there are not much differences between 2000
and 2003 it has a built in protection for outsiders that is hackers
by kotabenerjee
Here is the site where u can get more differences between Win2000 and 2003
I hope these reasons are enough to one upgrade form 2000 to 2003
This discussion is closed to new replies.
Sort by Trending