• RIP Windows Server 2003 - April 23, 2003 - July 14, 2015
    104 replies, posted
[QUOTE=abcpea;48210893]linux doesnt cook pizza pockets[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Coffee.html"]It does coffee[/URL], though
that would be not only reckless but also dangerous
[QUOTE=~Kiwi~v2;48210942]GNU/LinuxCar[/QUOTE] guess the file would be compressed as [I].car.gz[/I]
pacman -S car no one can stop me now
[QUOTE=pentium;48210282]You need to learn that the latest sometimes ain't the greatest. I've bowed to your stupid demands once before and not even a year later I'll have assholes pushing me yet again to start over. It's a fucking file server used almost exclusively on a LAN. It has a single FTP server that is actually accessible through the internet. I have zero fucking reason to upgrade other than to waste more process cycles running the core OS instead of monitoring share quotas RAID capacity, and losing valueable disk cache. Plus, much like an American bureaucracy, I'm strapped for cash.[/QUOTE] good god you wouldn't fit inside a modern IT company even if you tried with that attitude.
[QUOTE=Ezhik;48209201]And stay dead.[/QUOTE] [thumb]http://postimg.org/image/vjon0h01v/[/thumb]
I wonder exactly what business function pentium needs to support. Seems more like "I'm a dark horse" as I doubt any sane business would keep such old kit in production use. I realise things like nuclear launch silos and stuff probably run on PDP-10s and other decades old weirdness, but that's hardly a mainstream application. My company's ERP system still runs on Server 2003, we really need to upgrade it...
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;48211008]Just a heads up here, but there is an Appletalk daemon for Linux, and there has been one for quite some time now. As for Linux not being a legitimate server OS, I'm not even going to touch that one, its just plain trolling.[/QUOTE] Yeah it's probably best that we all just leave that where it is... despite my urges.
I worked as a sales rep selling googles cloud products for work, you would not believe the number of HUGE companies that are still using 2003.
[QUOTE=fragger0;48211686]I worked as a sales rep selling googles cloud products for work, you would not believe the number of HUGE companies that are still using 2003.[/QUOTE] Yes and as a matter of fact just about every IT guy I know that works in contract IT are basically part of a mad rush of small and medium businesses upgrading to server 2012 at the last minute.
We've still got a couple client servers here and there that we're trying to get them to migrate to 2012, but it's tough. One of them has this fucking ancient COBOL program.
[QUOTE=pentium;48210584]Linux is not an alternative OS, nor is it a suitable server OS. It's a lab OS. It's designed for classrooms and facilities which want machines customized for temporary applications and use. Its use in enterprise with absolutely no control of the code that makes some modules run is not only reckless but dangerous. If you were educated otherwise then I recommend you go back to school because your teacher was a joke. For the NFS and Appletalk integration AND the [url=https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc759742%28v=ws.10%29.aspx]Remote Storage Service[/url], plus why the hell are you using a desktop OS for server applications? If you wanna be insecure do it with that way.[/QUOTE] Running Linux in enterprise is reckless and moving to Windows Server 2003 in 2015 is a good idea? Before I thought you are just autistic but this is just plain stupid.
Our business server is still running Windows Server 2000 :vs: Running like clockwork though, not having any real issues with it (apart from running newer software which is kinda annoying). Still, the plan is to replace it next year, hopefully when server 2016 comes out. [QUOTE=pentium;48210584]Linux is not an alternative OS, nor is it a suitable server OS. It's a lab OS. It's designed for classrooms and facilities which want machines customized for temporary applications and use. Its use in enterprise with absolutely no control of the code that makes some modules run is not only reckless but dangerous. If you were educated otherwise then I recommend you go back to school because your teacher was a joke.[/QUOTE] That's a pretty bold statement considering everyone and their mum knows that Linux basically runs 2/3 of web servers on the planet
[QUOTE=pentium;48210584]Linux is not an alternative OS, nor is it a suitable server OS. It's a lab OS. It's designed for classrooms and facilities which want machines customized for temporary applications and use. Its use in enterprise with absolutely no control of the code that makes some modules run is not only reckless but dangerous. If you were educated otherwise then I recommend you go back to school because your teacher was a joke. For the NFS and Appletalk integration AND the [url=https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc759742%28v=ws.10%29.aspx]Remote Storage Service[/url], plus why the hell are you using a desktop OS for server applications? If you wanna be insecure do it with that way.[/QUOTE] You weren't just born too late, you were born in the wrong fucking dimension. Update your crappy old shit already and stop whining.
We used to have a 2003 server a few years ago. I was tasked with rewriting the last bit of software that was running on it, which broke under 2008 and for which no support or source code was available. This was almost 5 years ago. We saw the EOL on the horizon and upgraded in advance. If you're STILL running 2003, you've got no excuse. You've had plenty of time to make arrangements. Hell, you could've probably re-written whatever critical piece of software that was holding you back. Twice even. Funny little tidbit related to that upgrade: A month after it officially went live and was running in stable production, the 2003 server died. Someone panicked because they thought it was still running mission-critical stuff, saw the "server-down" message and made a high-priority / major impact ticket. They weren't aware the 2008 server was buzzing along, with the old 2003 server essentially running idle, apart from being there to allow access to legacy-format data.
[QUOTE=paul simon;48212190]You weren't just born too late, you were born in the wrong fucking dimension. Update your crappy old shit already and stop whining.[/QUOTE] He's just stuck in the past. I've dealt with plenty of IT guys who are basically dinosaurs and don't even wanna listen to anything to do with updating because they're scared of admitting they don't know enough about the newer systems
[QUOTE=fragger0;48212437]He's just stuck in the past. I've dealt with plenty of IT guys who are basically dinosaurs and don't even wanna listen to anything to do with updating because [b]they're scared of admitting they don't know enough about the newer systems[/b][/QUOTE] I think Pentium has confessed to not knowing much about new technology before. If you wanted an explicit and not an implicit confession as this thread has shown at least.
[QUOTE=pentium;48210282]You need to learn that the latest sometimes ain't the greatest. I've bowed to your stupid demands once before and not even a year later I'll have assholes pushing me yet again to start over. It's a fucking file server used almost exclusively on a LAN. It has a single FTP server that is actually accessible through the internet. [b]I have zero fucking reason to upgrade other than to waste more process cycles running the core OS instead of monitoring share quotas RAID capacity, and losing valueable disk cache.[/b] Plus, much like an American bureaucracy, I'm strapped for cash.[/QUOTE] but that's not the case unless you are using shit parts, new oses should run better than the last why is it that my old computer from 2007 ran better with 7 than vista? vista was a little bit of a trainwreck, ok, sure -- but why did it run 8 better than 7?
[QUOTE=pentium;48210584]Linux is not an alternative OS, nor is it a suitable server OS. It's a lab OS. It's designed for classrooms and facilities which want machines customized for temporary applications and use. Its use in enterprise with absolutely no control of the code that makes some modules run is not only reckless but dangerous. If you were educated otherwise then I recommend you go back to school because your teacher was a joke.[/QUOTE] Linux is not a suitable server OS? What planet are you posting from?
[QUOTE=rilez;48212771]Linux is not a suitable server OS? [B]What planet are you posting from?[/B][/QUOTE] uranus
We just updated our 2003 enterprise servers at the office recently. One of them to 2008 R2 and the rest to 2013 To be honest 2008 R2 is my favourite to work with.
[QUOTE=pentium;48210584]Linux is not an alternative OS, nor is it a suitable server OS. It's a lab OS. It's designed for classrooms and facilities which want machines customized for temporary applications and use. Its use in enterprise with absolutely no control of the code that makes some modules run is not only reckless but dangerous. If you were educated otherwise then I recommend you go back to school because your teacher was a joke. For the NFS and Appletalk integration AND the [url=https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc759742%28v=ws.10%29.aspx]Remote Storage Service[/url], plus why the hell are you using a desktop OS for server applications? If you wanna be insecure do it with that way.[/QUOTE] well shit guys i guess google has no idea what they're doing oh wait yes they do pentium, if you want to use hopelessly outdated tat, be my guest, but don't bitch about it or call actually up to date software useless
[QUOTE=pentium;48210182]I hope you don't have access to your children, you cockmongling child molester. I just fucking finished migrating from Server 2000 six months ago. I refuse to migrate that RSM database again, especially if its only access from beyond the firewall is FTP, and some schmuck says to change, "just cuz'".[/QUOTE] Wh...what? I have never seen anyone so angry over an OS.
[QUOTE=pentium;48210584]Linux is not an alternative OS, nor is it a suitable server OS.[/QUOTE] :tried: Seriously though, it's used by people and corporations worldwide for that exact reason, how can you even try and claim that it's not suitable?
[QUOTE=Sand Castle;48212707]but that's not the case unless you are using shit parts, new oses should run better than the last why is it that my old computer from 2007 ran better with 7 than vista? vista was a little bit of a trainwreck, ok, sure -- but why did it run 8 better than 7?[/QUOTE] Lets apply this to the machine that is the host for the library. Bear in mind it is one of IBM's Xseries 220 machines (it's narrow, looks great, quiet and consumes very little power and they're pretty much free) which assumed you ran 2K server and fell within these requirements: [quote]133 MHz or more Pentium microprocessor (or equivalent). Windows 2000 Professional supports up to two processors on a single computer. 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM recommended minimum. 32 MB of RAM is the minimum supported. 4 gigabytes (GB) of RAM is the maximum. A 2 GB hard disk that has 650 MB of free space. If you are installing over a network, more free hard disk space is required. [/quote] Because we can, we'll throw in an 8gb disk for the system disk. The size of the RAID doesn't matter here. Now, because of limitations put on by IBM where the only available 2K drivers for generation 3 Ultrium drives [i]without a valid service contract[/i] is both the wrong version and you are in fact given a previous driver with a major bug that will cause operations to randomly fail due to the drive falsely requesting a cleaning cycle, it is recommended both for your sanity and the life of your cleaning cartridges to upgrade to Windows Server 2003. Lets look at those specs: [quote]One or more processors with a recommended minimum speed of 550 megahertz (MHz). The minimum supported speed is 133 MHz. A maximum of four processors per computer is supported. Processors from the Intel Pentium/Celeron family, AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processors are recommended. 256 megabytes (MB) of RAM (recommended minimum). 128 MB is the minimum supported, and 4 gigabytes (GB) is the maximum supported. A hard disk partition or volume with enough free space to accommodate the setup process. To ensure that you have flexibility in your later use of the operating system, we recommend that you allow considerably more space than the minimum required for running Setup, which is approximately 1.25 GB to 2 GB for x86-based versions of Windows Server 2003, and 4 GB for x64-based versions of Windows Server 2003. The larger amount of space is required if you are running Setup across a network instead of from a CD-ROM, or if you are installing on a FAT or FAT32 partition (NTFS is the recommended file system). [/quote] You need a CPU four times the speed, four times the ram and the same amount of space on the disk. Still within the limits of what the server will support but you better up the CPU and especially add more ram. While a cached RAID controller is nice, you will eventually need the extra ram to help with particularly large files. For the hell of it we will max this machine out. Add two 1.4ghz PIII's and two gigs of ram. You're a fileserver. That's plenty and these days that's $60 of your money. Now lets in theory assume we COULD upgrade to server 2008 without problems: CPU [quote]• Minimum: 1 GHz (x86 processor) or 1.4 GHz (x64 processor) • Recommended: 2 GHz or faster Ram • Minimum: 512 MB RAM • Recommended: 2 GB RAM or greater • Maximum (32-bit systems): 4 GB (Standard) or 64 GB (Enterprise and Datacenter) Disk • Minimum: 10 GB • Recommended: 40 GB or greater[/quote] CPU barely makes requirements. Ram is within the recommended amount but forget disk caching. Meanwhile the hard disk is too small to hold the OS before we add probably another five gigs of updates and patches. That's a rather retarded amount of overhead for a machine whose job is mainly to move files to and from a RAID and a libray. That's a pretty massive step form the last version and if indeed the newer OS is going to run better, we won't see it with these specs. Oh yeah, one other thing. [quote][Removable Storage Manager is no longer available as of Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2.][/quote] Hmm, yeah. Sooooooo at the advantage of upgrading to server 2008 simply for security updates for a few more years (that again, probably will not matter as this isn't doing much of anything outside the LAN) we lose not only a critical communications protocol but also the critical component that makes the entire server operate and the library function. The solution will of course be to upgrade everything however I sure hope I have deep pockets because 24tb of redundant and offline storage isn't at all cheap. Also, don't forget to buy that new server just to run that beefy new OS on because as we saw above....you can just forget any idea of performance. At that point there, why bother? v:v:v $2000 for a car is a lot. $400 for a camera is a lot. $5000+ for a high capacity fileserver makes absolutely no sense to me when I already own something that can do the job fine right now, tomorrow, next month and into 2020. It's not even like it's a fucking 486 or IBM 3480 or something from the 80's or the 90's like you expect from me. It's actually something somewhat modern in the enterprise world. That linux shit aside you're all flipping shit simply because of ONE thing that to me is irrelevant to how my system was deployed is bugging you and the only way to fix it is to perform an extremely expensive replacement of EVERYTHING. You guys wonder why I call [i]you[/i] crazy when you are rebuilding your machines every year or two? Where do y'all pull this money out of? [QUOTE=xVENUSx;48213218]Wh...what? I have never seen anyone so angry over an OS.[/QUOTE] It's not out of nowhere. Again, truth to the insanity. I've used Linux since as early as 2004. Or at least tried. I could go on forever on how it made my life and everyone else I knew who tried it (Ubuntu, Mint, Corel and Arch) absolute hell. After that fiasco, why should I fucking trust it again, let alone recommend its use?
When I was in high school I had windows server 2003 on my gaming machine just because it was all my dad had lying around :v:
Why is windows server so heavy? Even just the iso is 3+gb.
[QUOTE=pentium;48213341]words[/QUOTE] You actually have a point considering this is personal stuff and a very specific application.
Why did so many things shut down on July 14th? Is there something significant about it?
I work for a MSP and I've had about 9 small-medium sized business clients (one with 15 rack servers...) call for help in upgrading their server to 2012 this week. Some even said they just want to put 2012 on the machine that has 2003 currently on it. :vs: Why must everyone do this so last minute?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.