Opinions on Win 2003 Server

[muppets]

I already have a dedicated Win 2000 server. I need to get another dedicated server. I'm thinking of getting Win 2003 server. Is it worth it? What's your opinion on this new platform?

[korkus2000]

I believe it is still a little buggy. Are you planning on running .Net, ASP, or just regular html?

[muppets]

bit of all 3

Do you believe the hype about things like static html served 140% faster, etc.

[visca]

I would say go with Windows 2003. If you already have 2003 in your environment, you might as well keep things consistent. It will cost (if my memory isn't too burnt out) about the same as a 2000 license - but it will have a longer life span, more stability, better compaibility with future software and take better advantage of latest hardware configurations. My experience with it so far (approximately 2 to 3 months) has been positive. Our server dishes out around 25 million hits per month, is running multiple database driven web applications and runs a full java based chat server - and the box is pretty much just sitting there waiting for a 'real' challenge - so thats all I could really ask for. Plus remote connecting, rebooting and other such tasks have been SIGNIFICANTLY improved in terms of responsiveness and timeframes. Rebooting is seconds not minutes. No real negatives that I can think of.

[muppets]

Cool. That's good enough for me. If you've been running it for 2/3 months that's a good enough road test. Thanks for the advice.

[TowerOfPower]

Win2k3 is also faster than Linux (with Apache) at serving static files, only for the reason that the IIS web server is integrated into the kernel (at least a good part of it).

Compared against TUX, a Red Hat web server that is also integrated into the Linux kernel, Win2k3 is about the same speed.

While Win2k3 is a step in the right direction for Microsoft, M$'s track record would prevent anyone serious about the matter from using Win2k3 over Win2k.

Don’t you need to buy a new version of all the tools and programs that ran fine on Win2k, but are incompatible to Win2k3 because they are not signed? Which defeats the major reason for getting the OS in the first place, that is if you try to run the unsigned version of your software? Maybe I'm thinking of the next version of Windows? (I'm a Linux guy).

[muppets]

I think I'm going to give Win2003 a whirl. I will be keeping my Win2000 box anyway so I should be able to provide a direct comparison after a few months. Will post my opinions then!