Updating to Windows Server 2003 - When?

Back in the mid-1990's, when analysts clearly told the IT professionals not to migrate to any OS version at x.0

Some companies changed marketing product naming and branding tactics. So we all fell back into the old OS trapping.

You examine foryourself, when you can justify the additional business cost to me over migrating to TWO OS platforms within THREE years, then I'll gladly dedicate my first book's print to you.

TSP

Why??!!

Because Microsoft tell you you should?

Because it's better, faster and more reliable like they said about XP Vs 98??

Because Uncle Bill is running short of cash?

Because you like wasting six months farting around making it work properly?

Pick a reason, buy some aspirin and go for it! I'd rather have all my teeth pulled!

If you switch from your current setup to Win2K3 Server - you're going to want to remember this.

If you have ANY machines running Win9x or below - and you are on a domain - THOSE MACHINES WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO AUTHENTICATE PER HARD CODE IN WINDOZE 2003 SERVER.

It will only allow WinME - 2K - XP to authenticate to it.

Thanks again Bill for raping the people that put you where you are today!

Mrafrohead

As matter of practice, I NEVER upgrade unless there is a compelling reason to, or unless I have no other choice.

The mere fact that an upgrade exists is not a compelling reason. It tends to be too costly (not to mention time consuming) to implement the latest version of any software package every time a new version is released.

The most compelling reasons for a businesses tend to be cost (the business can expect significant and verifiable savings over the current software), supportability (support for older software tends to get phased out over time), features (newer software offers advanced features that will actually positively impact user productivity), stability (newer versions of software may offer increased stability over older versions, etc.

Also remember that it's one thing to implement a new desktop OS because older versions are no longer available. It's an entirely different situation to implement a new server OS as it has the potential to impact the operation of your entire organization.

The bottom line here is that upgrading to Win Server 2003 just because it exists, would be foolhardy. Make sure your reasons for doing so (no matter how long you wait) are compelling enough to justify it.

As a Netware administrator, I'm not too well versed on the differences between the 2002 and 2003 versions from M$, but this seems like the most common question ever asked about M$ products. When do I upgrade, and WHY should I upgrade. I think that ANY upgrade, whethre software updates, new desktop OS or server OS should be performed as needed. M$ seems to run dry every couple of years and simply introduces a new flavour because they need something to sell. Adding to this that they ANNOUNCE to all how the last version will be no longer supported adds to the hasty "I better get a new one" .

Again, I'm not an MSCE so I'll bow out now, but WHY M$ users need to upgrade all the time?!?

I' try Windows XP Home edition on my first
personal computer and the best performer about
advance tecnology, but S.O.S Help me, and my sistem.
XP is a "evil kid" to security,autonomy and independency days and torment.
S.O.S me help please Net operating Sistems of
Paranoid. God save the Windows 98 second edition
to a poor Hardwareman.

I believe I posted the question wrong. I didn't mean to imply that I would upgrade to Win2K3 Server six months after it's release. I follow pretty-much the same philosophy as everybody else: NEVER jump on the MS bandwagon when they release a new product. As is usual, when the product is released there will be a "ton" of security pathces, fixes and updates within the first 6 months.

It is for this reason that I don't even look at the latest OS within this period of time. Then, after this period of time I get an eval copy to look at the product. And I do this more out of curiosity than to consider upgrading.

I am the ONLY IT person at my current job and have no desire of being the only "team member" responsible for performing an upgrade. Rest assured that if one of the Executives asks me about whether we should upgrade or not; NOT will be my suggestion. This company is growing fast with multiple offices in 3 states and I have enough work to keep me busy.

Also, this network being faily new (I started here under contract before I was hired), I have not been assigned a budget yet. So I have to request items as I go. And I have to make sure that it benefits the company as a whole, not just to make my job easier. Example: I would like to have a product like ScriptLogic for easier AD Management, but that's not possible right now.

So, before anybody says anything about my mistake, I will be extremely careful how I phrase my questions next time.

Side Note: On the issue of "Uncle Bill", has anybody noticed that when donates a huge chunk of "his money" the pricing scheme for MS products and licensing changes? (just a thought, I guess his donations to low-budget schools does help kids).

Thanks,
dquicken

I would be interested in seeing anything in writing about your previous post. It definitely peaked my interest and caused me to start my own research. I couldn't find ANYTHING on the Micrsoft site to back up your claim. I followed your link and couldn't find any posts that mentioned this either. Given the large user base still using Win9x, I can't believe MS would shoot itself in the foot by developing their latest flagship server OS to PURPOSELY not work with Win9x clients.

If your claim is true, it is a very well kept secret. Otherwise, there would already be a major uprising throughout the Windows community (especially here in this forum) asking WHY Microsoft would do such a thing.

I truly hope this is just a case of you misreading something that spooked you and caused to raise the alarm.

PLEASE elaborate further if you can find your documentation.