Server 2003-For Better or Worse?

[Gi2]

I do not have much knowledge in the ways of M/S Server 2003 and recently had a question posed to me whether it be better than M/S Server 2000. Any input from anyone on this? How is the stability of the 2003 vs 2k and is it generally better?

P.S This is for a small business of less than twenty users.

Thanks so much!!

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
- Ken Olson, President, Chairman and Founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

 

[iolair]

I have installed it, and can not tell any difference. Of course, we use Windows servers only as special servers, not to run our network on.

Iolair MacWalter

 

[dkediger]

Check into Small Business Server with just that many users. For a little bit more than the price of a standalone Windows server, you can also get Exchange/Outlook, ISA Server, and SQL server.

 

[Teamaker]

We moved over about 5 months ago and it's been plain sailing, we have a very busy print server that has never been rebooted (our NT4 one needed rebooting ever couple of days) and active directory has been refined.

It is an improvement on 2K server and if you are starting from scratch I would recommend going straight to it. I also agree with Dkediger take a look at SBS it is worthwhile for less than 50 seats.


!!A good cup of Tetley keeps the madness at bay!!

 

[SteveTheGeek]

It isn't more stable than Win2k from everything I've seen and heard, but it is more secure by default than Win2k. If you're going to get a new server, I'd recommend Win2003 over Win2k.
-Steve

 

[Gi2]

Thanks so much all of you. I will pass it on!!

"Wine is sunshine held together by water." Galileo