David Stone's Blog

I'm open to suggestions for a subtitle here! (Really!)

Windows Server 2003 Is (NOT) A Small Step Forward

b17bmbr writes "According to eWeek, 'The release of Windows Server 2003 is a small step forward for the platform -- an effort that really should be considered ... [Slashdot]

I love this. Up at the top there's all this anti-MS stuff about how it really is a small upgrade and MS is only releasing little new features in this OS. Then 'bout 2/5 of the way down the page, you get the guys stepping in and defending WS2003 with the following features:

MSMQ, COM+, AD, Clustering, More RAM support, 64 bit version, VSS, better SAN support (which is huge for our IT guys right now...we're about to push for a SAN), Windows Media Server 9 (I love it), NIC Load balancing, and let's not forget everybody's favorite features: IIS6 and .NET 1.1

Reading further, this guy sums up my feelings:

I've been running windows 2003 as a desktop for a couple weeks, and am really liking it. It comes with virtually everything disabled by default, and all the security stuff maxed. The main reason I moved over is cause I read an article here a while ago stating that microsoft had actually tried to release an OS with as few bugs as possible, and if I remember correctly the bug count is somewhere low like 100 or less (obviously this is known bugs only, I'd bet it's way higher). After the install I found it had everything XP had, themes, directx, everything. Believe it or not, games performed better on win2k3 server than on winXP. I had both installed for a couple days, and did some other comparisons like memory usage, etc, and it turned out it uses WAY less. My 7 month old XP install used 400mb of virtual memory and 250 physical memory with no programs running, while 2k3 used 100 of each. That is a HUGE difference. It also boots alot faster as well. I haven't found any incompatibilities yet, so I'll be keeping this as my desktop. I do run a server on linux, and will definately keep it that way simply due to resources difference. (Note: I don't run Linux servers)

But really, it is like XP...and then some. All this stuff comes disabled and you have to enable it. But once you do, I've noticed that my WS2003 machine has been working better than my XP install.

As soon as I get that VS.NET 2003 DVD shipment in from MSDN, I'm repaving my laptop, and installing WS2003. I've only been waiting because I'm too busy (and lazy) to download everything again. :)

Comments

No Comments

Leave a Comment

(required) 

(required) 

(optional)

(required)