Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Active Directory on Win2k or 2k3?

Posted by Cliff on from the which-is-the-safer-option dept.

lordbry asks: "I am a Windows admin for a major university in a business computing area (if we have problems, people might not get paid). We have a Windows NT Domain, and are planning to migrate to Active Directory. One of my co-workers is pushing for doing this under Windows 2003. I, however, feel that (as with any M$ product) we should not even consider using 2003 for production anything until there is an SP 2 or 3, and that we should go with AD under Windows 2000. Does anyone have any advice, arguments, or horror stories that could help me make my case to the rest of my group, all of whom are somewhere in the middle? Does anyone think that 2003 is the way to go?"

9 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. I'd go with 2003 by Ummagumma · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I recently upgraded to AD (well, 5 months ago...), and now Im wishing I went with 2003. Its not a big difference, but our test 2003 machines are a joy to use. Additionally, if you want to run the 2000 Server Adminpak on Windows XP, with the Exchange 2000 tools, its not fun to install - the 2003 tools work natively on an XP client.

    There really is no reason not to go with 2003, given the choice.

    --
    "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson
  2. Word of advice.. by eingram · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've only used it on Windows 2000, so I can't offer advice on which to pick, but I can tell you that it isn't wise to dump over 2500 users in to Active Directory with a script. AD will not like it, trust me. :)

    1. Re:Word of advice.. by weave · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I've added around 10,000 users at a time using vbscript through ADSI calls without a problem. Did this under 2000 server and 2003 server.

      However, another person who replied to you points to a kb article that says it is a problem under 2000 server.

      Maybe I was just lucky.

      Mass adding users is common in educational institutions at the beginning of a term. Scary that it might have problems...

  3. Windows 2003 Is Amazing!! by FlameSnyper · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It lets you do AMAZING THINGS like oh, change properties on multiple users at once... and stuff. Ya know, like you could in frickin' NT, 10 years ago.

    Thanks, Bill.

    If you haven't bought 2000 -- skip it, most of our customers that have 2000 want 2k3, but now have to purchase all new CALs...

    Again, thanks, Bill.

  4. Sorry if this is off topic...but... by Stevyn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wouldn't bother to listen to your argument if you are calling Microsoft "M$". That's biased, and so that doesn't help make rational decisions that are needed when you're dealing with a project of this magnitude. Leave the M$ WinBlowz speak for the IRC chatrooms.

    Sorry to sound like a troll or spread flamebait, I just think this talk has to stop because it makes Apple, Linux, etc, users seem like biased morons.

    I'd rather this be replied to harshly than modded down if you find what I said to be disagreeable.

  5. 2003 all the way by CliffH · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Like others have said, it is an upgrade, not a new OS. They have improved AD a good bit. It is more stable than 2000, it's a bit quicker network wise (new BSD stack), handles memory a bit better, and is generally snappier than its predecessor. If you're going to use it for any Terminal Services, you also have the bonus of doing more than 256 color in a terminal session and can easily map all of your drives, printers, sound, etc to the local terminal. 2003 is a good chunk of what 2000, actually, NT4 was supposed to be. Now, if they could get WinFS in there they would have most all of their pre-NT4 technologies in place. :) CliffH

    --
    sigs are like a box of chocolates, they all suck remove the underscores to email me
  6. Relying on service pack numbers? by bookemdano63 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As an "admin for a major university" I would hope you are basing upgrade decisions on the service pack numbers. Maybe do some research and check stability statistics and use cases.
    I guess this kind of reasoning is why Java 5 is so much better than Java 1.5.

  7. Why not use the Best of Breed technology? by Radical+Rad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Which is, according to the industry rags, NDS, now called eDirectory. I know many people will point out that LDAP could almost certainly handle the job and is basically the de facto standard, but NDS has had more time to mature and is more robust. Either one can run completely on Linux (or even Solaris or NT/2Kx if you enjoy paying needless license fees). Are you stuck using the legacy windows platform or can you make a clean break and migrate to something better?

  8. Go for 2003 - Hands Down by major.morgan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have worked with Active Directory since it's early Beta's, arranged and performed at least a 100 production installs and upgrades over the past few years. And I would say (strongly recommended) that most of my people move over to 2003. I have yet to have a 2003 install fail, while at the same time it works faster and more stable than 2000 - and not that 2000 Server was bad to begin with. As far as service packs, I would agree with other posts that 2003 is pretty much Windows2000 SP6 or so. Keep in mind the MS version numbers:

    Windows2000 = NT 5.0
    Windows XP = NT 5.1
    Windows2003 = NT 5.2 .2 is a minor version upgrade.