IT Employment

Our forums are currently in maintenance mode and the ability to post is disabled. We will be back up and running as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience!

General discussion


Windows 2003 server vs Windows 2000 server

By sanymil ·
My company have around 50 servers with Windows NT 4 server installed on it. Next year we are planning to move to the next step. What would be easier for us network administrators. Windows 2003 server or Windows 2000 server.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Windows 2000 Vs. Windows 2003

by mrtechguru In reply to Windows 2003 server vs Wi ...

well i guess u better go with windows 2003 b'cuz this is a enhanced version of windows 2000 with some more features like clustring,firewall etc..

and i believe it will be legitimate step towards improvising ur support towards ur organization.

Collapse -

2000 vs 2003

by Jellimonsta In reply to Windows 2003 server vs Wi ...

We started our upgrade to 2000 from NT 4 server a few years ago. I have managed to look @ 2003 server and it looked similar to 2000 for the most part. I have a friend that has a 2003 domain and is very happy with the outcome.
He noted that 2003 server seemed to have trimmed a lot of fat, and it ran substantially faster on the same equipment as 2000 server.
Being as 2000 server is already 3 years old it will also reach end of like long before 2k3 so that may be another reason you would go with 2003.
One thing to note though, is some situations upgrading from NT 4 to 2003 can be difficult, and with the case of NT 4 certificate server you cannot directly upgrade to 2003. You must first upgrade to 2000 then 2003.
Good luck!

Collapse -

Make the leap to 2003 - Skip 2000

by ccochran In reply to Windows 2003 server vs Wi ...

We just upgraded our 2000 domain to 2003 and Active directory/Group Policy for 2003 was enhanced, particularly for Terminal Services. Also, 2000 with all the service packs runs AD version 14, 2003 runs at 30. Schema changes can churn the stomach. Go with 2003. It's really more secure right out of the box, too. The single best improvement in my opinion is Volume Shadow Copy. It allows you to back up open files reliably.

Collapse -

Server 2003 terminal server

by jolbricht In reply to Make the leap to 2003 - S ...

We can not determine the issue of licensing in 2003. In 2000 server, we never had to purchase license. Under 2003, we can not connect with terminal server because of licensing.
Do any of you know if under 2003 client 5 or 20 pack licenses are manditory?
Is buying the server 2003 5 pack allow clients to connect, or is there a 2003 client license pack also.
It seems on the server, one can simple extend the temp. licenses.
WHat info do you have?

Related Discussions

Related Forums