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..."

Comments

Come on.

[BoldAC]

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. :)

Re:Running Win Server 2k3 as a Workstation

[Foolhardy]

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

Re:Running Win Server 2k3 as a Workstation

[Blakey Rat]

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.

Re:Windows 2003 popularity?

[Malc]

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!).

Re:Win2k & Server 2k3

[flosofl]

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).