General discussion

Locked

Windows 2000 or Windows 2003 Server?

By cbrett ·
Arch.Company currently trying to decide between Windows 2000 Server & 2003 which one to use on a new server.
One vendor* says 2000 because 2003 can't put in a user name like RAY ? Is this true?
Also there are other bugs in the 2003 software?

Vender*.1 spec.
Acer Altos G510 Server;
3 X 73SCSI H/SWAP Hdisks;
2 x 512 DDR-SDRAM with ECC -266Mhz;
ASRC 1x channel 64Mb U320 RAID contrlr;
- RAID levl 5.
Intel Xeon 2.4 Ghz 512k 533 MhzFSB;
Windows 2000 server + 25 user lic.

Vender.2
Intel HT P4.3 Ghz (3000Mhz) 800 Mhz FSB S478 521K
M/b - S875WP1LX P4 S478 server brd. 800FSB 2DDR266
DDR266 PC2100e 512Mb A-Grade unbuffered ECC (Intel Cert.)
3 X 73SCSI H/SWAP Hdisks;

Windows 2003 server + 25 user lic.

We don't know which one to go for?
Can any one help?
Are we better to use Raid 5 and using 3 h/disk as one or use one h/disk with mirroring to another and the third as a hotswap backup?

AutoCad, Photoshop, M.S.Office, Windows Xp to Win 98 on other user cpu.s.

Firewall router, dat daily backup all same on quotes

Chris Brett

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

6 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

by Oz_Media In reply to Windows 2000 or Windows 2 ...

Save yourself the headache, don't choose either and look at Novell Linux and Ximian LInux for desktops.

The interface is actually easy and user friendly, you get a free office suite (MS Office compaitible both ways) and a tonne of other free software for less money and with greater stability.

Unless you just want to be a busy MCSE that is.

http://www.novell.com/linux/

Collapse -

by cbrett In reply to

Poster rated this answer.

Collapse -

by jschein In reply to Windows 2000 or Windows 2 ...

OK.. Crackhead linux smokers need not apply here. User is asking a question specifically about WINDOWS Servers. If he wanted a comparison, he would have asked for it.

Now, the question @ hand.. 2k server or 2003 server...

1. Always get RAID 5 if this is an important server. If it's just a server to have one for on the side routines or files, raid 5 is not required. Mirroring will go down and it is time consuming to repair. Especially if 2 drives fail... Raid, running copies, everything is ****** dorey. Drive fails, hotswap another in it's place and go back to work.

As I said, depends on how important the server is to you. Not to mention a backup system. CD's - Cheap, but takes alot of end time to do. Use a tape drive. 30gb and above, go with a DLT or LTO drive. Information below 20gb... Go with the DDS-4 Tape drives.

2000 Server or 2003 Server. No, they lied. 2003 server is better due to updated technologies / security for one. Secondly, if you couldn't have a name such as "RAY", then you couldn't have a name such as "ADMINISTRATOR" or "GUEST" lol. Go with 2003, you'll like the features and quality. And if it's a really important server, Raid 5 with either a DDS-4, DLT, or LTO Tape Drive.

Good luck.

Collapse -

by CG IT In reply to Windows 2000 or Windows 2 ...

humm determining what to use really is based upon what the user needs and what the existing network [ if any] is. A 25 user office that doesn't use the internet, doesn't need a domain, only needs to share folders between users, and doesn't want to have to hassle with a lot of IT maintenance, either O/S will do the trick. Windows XP in a workgroup sharing folders for that matter would do the trick.

W2K is not case sensitive A=a. Not sure about W2003 Server and if they put that case sensitive user names and passwords.

You mention Autocad, Photoshop, Office but those programs dont mean anything in setting up a network unless collaboration on projects is needed and if off site users will collaborate on those projects. If so, Sharepoint Portal Services works well with W2003 server.

For that matter with a small office you could go with W2K or W2003 Small Business Server.

As far as RAID, I buy and use mainboards with hardware RAID Promise Fastrack set up for mirroring on the DCs. SQL servers I use SCSI RAID setup for performance with hot swap.

I don't use software RAID

Collapse -

by adasys In reply to Windows 2000 or Windows 2 ...

I agree both to jschein and d.r the corporate groups. RAID5 is still the best for you HDD config. Why cheaper config in terms of failover and faster. Windows 2003 is what I recommend in this case because you have to think for the future, maybe right now you only w2k but next year you might need some services that w2k cannot offer that w2003 can. so why not grab the w2003.

Collapse -

by gpartridge In reply to Windows 2000 or Windows 2 ...

2,3 and 4 are correct. 2003 is very good.

Back to Networks Forum
6 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums