Slashdot Mirror
Service Pack 1 for Windows Server 2003
mithridate writes "Microsoft has posted the Windows 2003 Service Pack 1 Release Candidate. eWeek has a short review of the service pack. My favorite quote from the article is, 'The company argues that the improvements are important enough that applications should be changed to accommodate them.' I know I still have not installed SP2 because of the problems it causes with SQL Server, I can't wait to see what kind of havoc it causes on the servers..."
I am much of an anti-Microsoft person as anybody...
:)
But, guys... this is a release candidate. It designed to test out in your test environment... Even the evil overlords say:
We advise against installing and evaluating beta software on any production computers.
When they don't fix the problems we find before they release the final version... that's when we should start the griping.
Er, you know that XP is closer to 2003 than 2000 is. Server 2003 is based on XP; they took the XP code base, re-added the 2000 server stuff and made some updates.
2000 is NT 5.0
XP is NT 5.1
2003 is NT 5.2
If your running asp.net under win2k it runs as an ISAPI process. With server2003 its runs natively in IIS, makes it a little bit more robust. Also like the security settings, especially being able to control TCP/IP down to the port level. Not sure if this also on win2k, if it is, it must be buried.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
Some (enterprise-grade) applications require the use of SQL Server Desktop Engine (the anti-virus vendor Sophos, for one, use this - Veritas would be an example of another).
In many instances, this doesn't react well with software on Windows server builds (again, as examples, SQL Server proper and Terminal Services both are broken by and break these two products in particular).
Especially in the ranks of middle-sized organisations which don't feel like splashing out hundreds of dollars (or more) for copies of windows server simply to run veritas and sophos, there are plenty of organisations which run 'server' software and SQL desktop engine / SQL Server on workstation builds of windows.
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you
There's this wide belief that Windows 2000 is better than Windows XP because it's more simple... i.e. less background services, less eye candy, runs faster.
The fact is that XP, once configured close to Windows 2000's defaults, is actually quite a bit faster than Windows 2000, uses the same amount of memory, and still has all the features built-into XP. (Like Remote Desktop, System Restore, more advanced IE.)
In my opinion, there is absolutely no reason to still be using Windows 2000 with Windows XP available. Grab XP, spend an hour customizing it, and you can make it basically a clone of 2000 but with more features.
Comment of the year
If you're buying or leasing new systems, it's probably a better idea to go with Windows Server 2003 than an OS that's five years old. Sure there's good reason not to jump on the new OS bandwagon, but I think it has proven its stability. Think about it: in three years time (which could be well within the lifetime of those servers), Win2K is going to be getting very long in the tooth. Almost as long in the tooth as NT4 is now.
Anyway, all our new servers use the new OS. Obviously tested it first. It's a lot nicer to work with remotely, and is just generally better all round (shock! horror! Microsoft's marketing turned out to be true!).
All the consumer-level (read: home user) products up to XP were DOS based. In other words, DOS was the framework and the GUI's were slapped on top(95 beta actually used 7.0 as a version on boot disks made with it). This includes 3.x, 95, 98, and (shudder) ME. XP Home is the first consumer-level OS from Microsoft that is NOT based on DOS - it uses the NT kernel. IIRC, MS made a BIG deal about the fact that XP home was the first non DOS-based OS for home users they've released (a goal for a LONG time).
"This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
By that logic Linux as loaded by loadlin.exe could be considered DOS based. From Win95 up I don't believe any system calls made it back to the DOS boot system (save perhaps DOS TSR programs/drivers if loaded?), but it was in memory lying dormant somewhere.
Maybe I'm being pedantic. Even if what I say is all true the Win9x line was a hybrid of 32-bit and 16-bit and switched from protected mode to real mode and back as it saw fit. (thunk compiling)