Windows 2000 vs. 2003 ???

Since there already is a XP vs. 2000 post, I'd figure I'd bring up the debate in 2000 vs. 2003...

I am building a new comp (file/media server), I have 1 desktop, 1 laptop and 2 Xbox (XBMC - Xbox Media Centers) that I will be streaming media and files to/from... I want to have up to 8 HD's 400gigs in a Raid 5 config, for all my media and other files... I must also mention that I will probably be running an Exchange server in the near future as well.

So now I need to decide on Windows 2000 (which I already own and am fairly proficient in) or Windows 2003 (I have never used).

Suggestions/Comments greatly appreciated.
-BassKozz

Use whatever you have. There really isn't enough difference to be worth buying something new.

I do know there were some slight differences between ad2000 and ad2003 but I don't think you would really use these (mainly added flags like last login day) and since you say you mainly wanna use it for a file server and streaming server (most likely 3rd party software) might as well go with what you already own, unless of course you plan on installing exchange 2003 and want to have matching software.

darkdrago said:

...unless of course you plan on installing exchange 2003 and want to have matching software.

Click to expand...

I do plan on installing exchange 2003, not initially but eventually I will want an exchange server on this machine...

I've heard that I should go w/ windows2003 if I want exchange, but I have never used 2003 is it difficult to pick up, compaired to windows2000 ?

Personally, for what you're doing, I don't think that there is enough of a difference between Win2k and Win2k3 to warrant purchasing the more expensive OS.

You'll be able to do everything you need to do (and more) with Win2k Server over Win2k3 Server.

I read an interesting article on M$ upgrades recently. Apparently, only 15% of M$ office users are currently using M$ Office XP, 2 years into the product's life. M$ normally would like to see something like 2/3 to 3/4. The reason given is simply that people find the old versions "good enough" and the added features are not worth the significant expense. Apparently, this applies to a lot of corporations as well.

I know my mom still uses Word 97 and is very happy with it. She doesn't even scratch the surface of its features, nevermind need features from the newer versions. About the most advanced feature she uses is underlining. =p I'm sure there are some people that actually need features from the latest and greatest products, but for the most part, the older versions are "good enough" or no real difference is noticeable, and upgrades are usually expensive enough not to be worth it.

I think in this case, if you already have 2K, 2K3 is a waste of money. I really don't think you'll see any difference. That being said, if you have money to burn and want to upgrade, I really don't think you'll have any trouble using 2K3. I just don't think it's worth the upgrade costs.

I have heard from people that if you plan on installing Exchange, you will need W2003, because it won't work w/ W2000 ?

Is there any truth to this ?

MRD said:

Use whatever you have. There really isn't enough difference to be worth buying something new.

Click to expand...

Technically, there is a huge difference between 2000 and 2003. There are also several added features that improve the OS. Here are a few.

-Shadow Copy
-Software RAID (and other disk option), disks larger than 137 GB
-Windows Firewall
-Safe locked down installs
-Compressed folders
-XP style folder options/views
-XP style wireless networking
-IIS 6

As for your Exchange Question. You'll probably want two servers if your running Exchange. You have to have Active Directory set up to run Exchange 2003. You don't want to run Exchange and AD on the same server for several reasons. One of those is your server will take 30 minutes to reboot.

And yes Exchange 2003 works on Windows 2000 with the loss of some functionality. However Exchange 2000 will not work on Windows 2003.

I stand by my statements. The features you list are small things which are definitely not worth the upgrade cost if he already has 2K. I don't know how you could call those differences "huge". They are bells and whistles at best. Almost all the stuff you list can easily be accomplished in 2K with 3rd party software either for free or for far less than the cost of 2K3. In many cases, the 3rd party software is superior (such as norton firewall, which is far more mature than windows firewall). No one uses IIS anyways, Apache is the industry standard and holds the lions share of the market by a long shot... and it's free. Windows 2K does just fine with wireless networking... I've used it myself and I like it better than XP's.

Also, if he goes to 2K3, he'll have to deal with lots of activation hassles, while 2K doesn't have any of that.

Ebola said:

As for your Exchange Question. You'll probably want two servers if your running Exchange. You have to have Active Directory set up to run Exchange 2003. You don't want to run Exchange and AD on the same server for several reasons. One of those is your server will take 30 minutes to reboot.

Click to expand...

Oh man is that the truth! Exchange is a pig and agree 100% with Ebola here.

MRD, Everyone who programs asp or .net uses IIS. It is widely used for Coldfusion as well. Your ardent fanboyism for linux has clouded your judgement.

Activation takes about 30 seconds. Not much of a hassle.

This has nothing to do with liking linux or windows, I was talking about running Apache in windows as this person is obviously planning to use windows (2k or 2k3 is the debate, linux never entered into the picture). Apache is available for both platforms (and some others as well). So, your personal attack is nonsensical.

Here's some statistics on market share. It's current and shows Apache at about 70% and IIS at around 20%. Apache has consistently dominated the market since its inception in 1995. Apache is the standard... nothing else is even close. And it's free.

Statistics from: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html

Activation takes about 30 seconds. Not much of a hassle.

Click to expand...

30s per internet activation, then 10 minutes per phone activation after that... plus the aggravation of having to justify your decision to swap hardware... and they can refuse to activate if they are in a bad mood.

How much of a negative it is is debatable... but it's certainly a negative. Anyone in his right mind would prefer to not have to deal with it. In my own personal opinion, I find activation very intrusive, and would trade not having to activate for the list of features that 2k3 has and 2k doesn't anyday.

Could we all please back into our repsective OS corners and answer the young man's question? Thanks

Frankly, even with the extra bells, whistles, and gongs that 2K3 has, I can't see anyone (esp. me) buying it if I already have Server 2K. But that's because I'm a starving college student

Use your judgement. If you need the things that Ebola enumerated, then get 2k3.

I'm just trying to save the guy from throwing his cash away. I agree with what you said though Captain Newbie... if you can't live without one of the features mentioned, then you might need get 2K3, otherwise, you probably won't notice the difference.

You can try 2k3 for free for 6 months legally. Why not try it if you like it keep it otherwise go back to 2k.

I would can't really comment onmy opinion of why you should run either OS becuase my reasons have nothing to do with anything remotely stable.