Server 2000 v. 2003

  Doire_Bhoy 13:18 05 Sep 2005

Any major differences in the two? My work currently uses NT and 2000 server.
Just wondering if its worth my while studying up on 2003?

  recap 13:34 05 Sep 2005

"Just wondering if its worth my while studying up on 2003?" Yes is the answer in my opinion but, whether to go for 2003 is another question.

2000 server is a stable operating system that has a good track record. 2003 server in my opinion has yet to set itself out from previous offerings from MS.

  Doire_Bhoy 13:42 05 Sep 2005

Thanks mate. Are they major differences between the two?

  BigMoFoT 16:08 05 Sep 2005

differences - .net support, integrated sharepoint portal server features, improved security stability, mobile/PDA functionality, improved compatability with Exchange 2003, 64 bit support...

Dont have any exact links off hand for you but if you goto click here and do a search you'll get a spec sheet on 2k3.

What is important is that Microsoft are planning on phasing out 2000 and have already released a final rollup update. In shor 2K3 is the way to go if you want continued support

  Gaz 25 01:12 06 Sep 2005

2003 does have more security, thanks to a new protected and locked down shell.

It seems to be stable, and I'm running a few websites off one now. Never given me a glitch.

I actually find it a bit more self-managing, as it auto-updates a lot better than 2000.

Good luck!

  Taran 03:41 06 Sep 2005

Windows Server 2003 is streets ahead of Windows 2000 Server.

The differences are too many to list but they are very different operating systems.

Most 2000 users will happily be able to fudge their way through Server 2003 with few issues.

Server management is simpler, if you like Wizards. Personally, I prefer not to trust their particular brand of magic and so, like the old fashioned bod I am, I tend to do things 'properly' using a lot of command line hooha and jiggery pokery, most of which I am certain is unnecessary, but at least I know what it is I have done, when and why.

A close friend had a serious issue recently with an unruly Windows Server 2003 box when she enabled a specific feature which, in turn, pickled certain networking elements by adding an unwanted and unnecessary NAT setup into the mix. Wizards are OK, as long as you keep tabs on what they are actually doing for you.

By and large Windows Server 2003 is the cats meow. If you are serious at all about long term Windows server product use it makes sense to find your feet now rather than dabble when you have to. However, a good grounding in Windows 2000 Server will certainly make any future migration easier.

  Doire_Bhoy 13:50 06 Sep 2005

Cheers folks!

Any good books on 2003?

  recap 11:25 07 Sep 2005

click here
For a good guide to 2003 server. I personally like the Sybex books as they are technical without being technical, if you know what I mean.

  Doire_Bhoy 13:46 07 Sep 2005

Thanks redcap

  O'D 14:29 07 Oct 2005

some major advantages of 2003 is that you can easily apply GPO's (Group Policy objects) and rather that going through each individual user and do the same change to hundreds of users you can do it all at once by selecting them all!

for instance, you can change all from having local profiles on the server to having Roaming profiles!

hope this helps


This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

AMD Radeon Adrenalin release date, new features, compatible graphics cards

6 great UX design talks you can watch online

How to jailbreak an iPhone or iPad in iOS 11 or iOS 10

Musique de Noël : les meilleures chansons en streaming