Windows 2000: To do or not to do

It would depend on what NOS you are using now, and how much of an investment you have in it. I upgraded from NT 4.0 to 2000 server, and found it to be much more stable, and MUCH easier to administer once I learned the way around AD. I also run a Novell 5.1 system (and have been doing Novell since version 2.15) and like the way it runs too, although there were a lot of instability at first (read that ABEND). Bad enough we had Novell engineers in to look it over. No problems with 2000, so far.

TCO. With built in functionality like RIS, QOS, and Terminal server 2000 provides in one package what a shop would need several servers to do. Also the benefits of GPO's make administration much easier.

I wouldn't touch 2000 with a 10-foot pole, at least not until MS has found and fixed the bugs you normally expect in a new rollout. Before I recommend upgrading to one of my clients, I'll make sure they do a thorough cost analysis -- upgrading the memory and hard drives on the servers and end user machines will cost a bundle.

Erik,

I would consider the chief reason to upgrade to be the "dogfood" component. If you are an IT consulting firm which sells itself on the microsoft platform you will in the not too distant future be dealing with projects involving Windows 2000. Alternately you are going to be answering questions about the platform well before that.

If you are in a position to intelligently answer those questions and give your own experiences as real life examples (because you ate your own "dogfood") you are going to be in a much stronger position to gain the client, make the sale and deliver the project properly.

A WHOLE LOT OF REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD:

FUNCTIONALITY,
DEPENDABILTY,
INTEGRITY,
BROAD SUPPORT FOR NETWORKS (SAY ENTERPRISEWIDE OR EVEN BETTER, WORLDWIDE), HIGHER SECURITY (LAN TO WAN),
BETTER INTER-OPERABILITY WITH OTHER NETWORKS(TO GET THEIR BUSINESS),
RELIABILITY,
MANAGEABILITY,
BROADER HARDWARE SUPPORT,
AND MOST IMPORTANT, THE MOST HIGHLY SECURED NOS FOR A CENTRALIZED ADMINISTRATION OF A LAN OR WAN.

WHY NOT?
WELL, ITS KIND OF EXPENSIVE FOR A SMALL NETWORK. THE TCO ALONE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH TO SEND TO CHAPTER 11. BUT IF YOUR INTO AN EXPANDING NETWORK, ITS WORTH IT.

GEE, NOW I SOUND LIKE A MICROSOFT MAN.

JUN

I don't believe this to be a question of, "Should I or Shouldn't I"? For me, it's a matter of timing.

The question of, "Why should I?" is answered by the sales promises advanced by Microsoft as well as the future needs of my client base.

The question of, "Why should I wait?" is best answered by Microsoft's track record.

I'm rolling out Win2K (Pro, Server & Advanced Server) in a mixed test environment, and waiting until the first service packs are released to tackle the issue of a production rollout. This is my "official" recommendation to my clients who are "chomping at the bit."

Objectively speaking, I have little need for the promises made by Microsoft, but I have to know Win2K to serve my customers, and shield them from the risks inherent in any NOS migration.

Most of our staff have newer laptops (including USB, etc). So having Win2k on the desktop (laptop) is great. Better power management, better device support, much more stable and usable than Win98 ot NT.

For the servers, I would go Win2K to take advantage of the capabilities. Key points:
granular administration
group policies

And the big reason:
Exchange 2000. From the information I have seen, this is the key factor in moving to a Win2k platform.

Bottom line - what IT consultants sell is knowledge and experience.

The aspect of my current consulting practice that is in greatest demand: W2K migrations.

Frankly, the technical merits, or lack thereof, aren't what sell the product. People aren't asking me if they should migrate, they are asking for help to just do it. Business succeeds where you meet the needs...

And my chances of learning it well without living it are precisely (0).

paul

Paul M. Wright, Jr. MCSE, CNE
McKay Technologies