Windows 2000 was such a revolutionary change from NT 4.0; somehow to me it doesn't seem old enough, even though it's been our for four years (and I've moved to Windows 2003). And yet, mainstream support for it is ending on June 30 of this year (http://www.support.microsoft.com/windows2000/support/lifecycle). Does this support deadline affect your plans to migrate to Windows 2003?
--Sean
End of Article
Still running NT4 on some old server plateform apps are on lan and security on nt4 is now tight thank to the mistake of win2k and XP, Windows 2K will still be the mainstay for production server and workstation at my place. moving to a new server ( clean install ) would require long test cycle for compatibility/ performance evaluation. maybe when we will buy a new server.
Anonymous User January 18, 2005
My comment is to the anonymous user - i have 2003 installed on several older servers and found a performance boost compared to when these servers were running 2000 and nt 4.
MRR44 January 18, 2005 (Article Rating: )
I think you'll find a number of reasons it's worthwhile. There is a significant performance boost between W2K and W2K3. The hardware footprint is pretty much identical, so if you can shoehorn W2K into it you can install W2K3 as well. Application compatibility is the sticking point, but if you upgrade a server rather than rebuild, I think you'll find the security for an application is a bit easier. And by now, pretty much all of vendors know their W2K3 compatibility; you'll certainly have to test but you don't need to start from scratch.
(TallSean is the author. The handle is an old joke between Sean Daily and I.)
Order Your Fundamentals CD Today! Register today for your in-depth copy of one of three Fundamental CDs on the following topics – Exchange, SQL, and SharePoint.
)
)
moving to a new server ( clean install ) would require long test cycle for compatibility/ performance evaluation. maybe when we will buy a new server.
Anonymous User January 18, 2005