Windows 2003 Server

[Cobra]

Well folks 39 days and the new Windows installment hits our systems. I have read all the documentation i can find about this latest installment and to be honest there is nothing firm as far as i can see. It is all speculation.

For example. Better performance this, better performance that .. etc etc..

But there is no way of knowing that without running it. As far as features go, again I could not really find anything that give hard facts on what the benafits will be of this new OS.

Anyway, anyone got any thoughts or comments on what the next installment will bring?

[Metgod]

Yeah, I have some ideas what it may bring us..

New bugs, holes, and flaws. New malware. New technologies that are suposedly better than what is already here. And if we're lucky, a brand new version of the BSOD ! :)

Oh, did you mean *good* things ? Damn ! Stupid brain lapses !

Seriously though, this better performance is not new; it is old. And by definition, old can not be an improved version, because the old is what is actually improved upon. New can be an improved version, but old can not be.

Hopefully there will be something new and exciting though. Only time will tell.

Met

[Uneek]

Well, from what I've read some of the stuff they're coming out with is supposed to be pretty good, like their new file system. I've got the beta at work but I haven't tested it yet. Maybe I'll install it in the coming week and I'll let you know my take on it.

[Syxx]

I saw a copy laying around the server room, its only RC1, but I still might have to try it out.

[Tazinator]

Having already loaded the full install of 2003 Enterprise on a production network, its actually working very well. Surprisingly enough its incredibly stable. Id have thought it would be buggy as hell with all the eye candy they added to make it look like XP Pro, buts its actually pretty nice.

I loaded it on a Dell Poweredge 1650 w/ 1.4Ghz P3 and 512MB ECC

Thats actually the slower of the 4 boxes I set up too, and its running better then the others.

The damn Exchange 2000 server is on a PowerEdge 2650 with dual 2.6 Xeons and 1GB ECC and thats running Win2K Adv server and I tried loading some smaller services on that one with incredible difficulty. It was dogging bad. Mostly with memory as it seems EX2K is a memory hoarder. Never set it up before, was my first time as I usually stick with 5.5 in an NT/2000 environment but I said, "What the Hell" this time. Thats an entirely different posting Ill have to make altogether.

But 2003 seems to do very well with memory management. That damn server is running Symantec Corp 8 Server, DNS, WINS, and Active Directory and you'd never know it was doing all that. Its just hummin along.

Ill give it to MS for finally doing something about the problem with all windows versions of eating up RAM like candy and never giving it up when its through with it.

[Uneek]

I have to agree with Taz actually. I loaded it up on a test box, and it's very stable. Another nice feature now is that out of the box, everything is turned off! You have to go and enable/install services to get them configured which makes it much more secure out of the box. Things like IIS which were installed and starting automatically by default now have to be installed by the admin. Maybe this new version of Server will be a step in the right direction for Microsoft... we'll have to wait and see.

[Cobra]

I loaded it onto a server here. For some reason i am having a bitch of a time with the IBM Raid Controller with it.. But one by one i am ironing out those problems. Other than that it seems pretty solid. Another couple of days and i will see how it acts in "real world" enviroments...

Will keep ye posted on my travels

But Uneek, alot of those services have to be installed and started anyway.. to have a functioning server.. Soooo.. It will still all come down to the same thing, once those services are running.. it will still come down to bugs in those services, or admins not configuring them correctly.. So saying "it is secure out of the box" is like saying.."Plastic explosives are totally safe!" .. Add a detonator and the fucker is coming down.... Okay .. I explained that shit .. but you know what i mean...  Windows 2003 out of the box is no use in a real world eviroment. It needs additional services and configurations... And it is these that cause the bulk of the probs...

Okay OKay .. I am finished ranting!

[Uneek]

Cobby... I agree totally with what you're saying. But I think I'd rather have an OS with everything disabled from the get-go since there are so many inexperienced admins out there who will go with a default install without knowing that there are services like IIS running without their knowledge. That was my only point. If you have to install it, then you know what's running. Otherwise, Joe Blow admin might install the OS and not know his server is so insecure.

[Cobra]

Oh yeah.. Sorry dood, don't get me wrong.. With ya 100% .. i would rather an OS to come with everything Disabled also.. Especially a server OS and Especially again an Windows Server OS ..

*nod nod nod*

[Zerored]

well...damn yall...ill prolly get a jacked copy from some friends...ole zero wit his ghetto ass...typical hacker shit...eeeeewwwwwww

[wilnix]

I'm moving away from Microsoft on the server side of things...we wont even use active directory at all...purple boxes w/ pc netlink keep the clients happy and hopefully in the next few years oracle's solution to counter exchange will come out of hiding and take over here...it's looking VERY nice so far...

wilnix