• RIP Windows Server 2003 - April 23, 2003 - July 14, 2015
    104 replies, posted
[QUOTE=~Kiwi~v2;48213464]uhh windows 8 is 4GB infact most isos are 4GB~ that are windows[/QUOTE] Ok...? But why must server version be that big?
[QUOTE=Obama Yo Momma;48213432]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?[/QUOTE] Good for business, though. I imagine IT companies across the world are experiencing a sudden boom in activity
[QUOTE=Velocet;48209249]I don't know how anyone could still be running 2003, 2008 R2 is so good. I actually used to run it as my primary desktop OS back when Vista was shit because it was basically Vista with optimization so I could run DX10 games easily.[/QUOTE] Across our enterprise where I work we have ~100 servers on Windows 2003, and a few on Windows 2000. We're starting to look into what it'll take to upgrade/rebuild our 2008 R2 servers to 2012 R2. 2008 R2 is good but support is ending in a couple years for that too. It's already 6 years old.
Most SMD around here went and bought new servers with 2012 R2 instead of just upgrading to R2. So that's a bit less job for us as the tech dept. usually just take the datas on the other server, ghost into the new one and config everything then it's all done, usually in a day or two. I just sold a bunch of servers this year, only a few of our end-users are on anything under 2012 nowadays.
[QUOTE=~Kiwi~v2;48213552]Because servers need to install roles and features and sometimes you need to do it all offline. If you think about it they've got some serious compression.[/QUOTE] Somehow linux can do that in under 1gb?
Newsflash: who gives a shit about what stuff someone's running for themselves at the comfort of their own home? If it were a business, you might have reason to whine. That said, some statements presented are stupid.
[QUOTE=pentium;48213341]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?[/QUOTE] Your personal problems aside, saying Linux is not a server OS is about as strange and far from the truth as you can get. Linux is, by and far, the OS of choice for the worldwide majority. Maybe an old IBM machine is fine for your personal home use, but using a system that old in an enterprise setup is just ridiculous. Your price quote for a replacement is also pretty far off.
[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] I have issues with Linux but I at least know that its taken over the Server world for a god damn good reason.
[QUOTE=Swilly;48215815]I have issues with Linux but I at least know that its taken over the Server world for a god damn good reason.[/QUOTE] What issues?
[QUOTE=UberMensch;48213402]You actually have a point considering this is personal stuff and a very specific application.[/QUOTE] But he doesn't when making wishes like [quote]I hope you don't have access to your children, you cockmongling child molester.[/quote]
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;48213023] 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] This is an important thing, sure using old stuff is fun to mess around but christ don't use it in anything you could remotely call "production". [editline]15th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=itisjuly;48213373]Why is windows server so heavy? Even just the iso is 3+gb.[/QUOTE] Well its the entire of windows, plus all the server stuff. I am surprised that it fits onto one DVD these days.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48213482]Ok...? But why must server version be that big?[/QUOTE] Server 2008 R2 is mostly Windows 7 and 2012 R2 is mostly 8.1. The only big differences are the licensing and optimizations each have, along with support for server roles. Unlike Linux, Windows Server actually installs everything to the HDD. It takes up more space, but its very convenient. Generally, in a Windows server environment, you aren't too concerned about how much space your OS is using. Otherwise, Windows server wasn't your best choice. :v:
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48215913]What issues?[/QUOTE] I've only ever had technical issues with everything not limited to, frying the motherboard.
[QUOTE=Demache;48216874]Server 2008 R2 is mostly Windows 7 and 2012 R2 is mostly 8.1. The only big differences are the licensing and optimizations each have, along with support for server roles. Unlike Linux, Windows Server actually installs everything to the HDD. It takes up more space, but its very convenient. Generally, in a Windows server environment, you aren't too concerned about how much space your OS is using. Otherwise, Windows server wasn't your best choice. :v:[/QUOTE] Depending on how you store unused roles, it doesn't actually take up all the space required. You can have them installed and not use them, keep the installation files in a partition (SXS I think it's called), or have to completely download them when you want them.
[QUOTE=Killuah;48216321]But he doesn't when making wishes like[/QUOTE] That's true but I just ignored that statement.
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;48215163]Newsflash: who gives a shit about what stuff someone's running for themselves at the comfort of their own home? If it were a business, you might have reason to whine. That said, some statements presented are stupid.[/QUOTE] It's better to stay out of an argument you dislike than to say that others aren't allowed to discuss it.
[QUOTE=Lord Fear;48210805]Linux is in a lot of cases a superior server os than windows. And what you mean absolutely no control of the code? The entire os is open source down to the kernel level, you could recompile the entire thing and know exactly what every little detail of the os does. Windows is closed source, you have zero control or knowledge of what Microsoft puts in it. How could you even come up with such a preposterous statement?[/QUOTE] Linux/Windows servers are solid, Windows is obviously the mainstream OS of servers and always will be, but some business use a bit of Linux in their servers. I prefer Linux more as a supporting role in a sense, but Pentium's stance is moronic, we're learning about Linux in my IT Networking course for fuck sakes! Oh and this is coming from someone who fucking hates Linux (me).
[QUOTE=AWarGuy;48220764]Linux/Windows servers are solid, Windows is obviously the mainstream OS of servers and always will be, but some business use a bit of Linux in their servers. I prefer Linux more as a supporting role in a sense, but Pentium's stance is moronic, we're learning about Linux in my IT Networking course for fuck sakes! Oh and this is coming from someone who fucking hates Linux (me).[/QUOTE] Linux is the primary server OS by far if you're looking at all the servers across the world.
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;48221044]Personally, I'd only ever use Windows in a server environment for two things: Exchange and Active Directory. That's it.[/QUOTE] And you don't even need Windows for Active Directory anymore
[QUOTE=Adam.GameDev;48221159]And you don't even need Windows for Active Directory anymore[/QUOTE] Or Exchange. You can use Office 365 for that.
I probably wouldn't actually recommend that someone use Samba for Active Directory considering it's probably easier to set up on Windows, but I think you can get Azure Active Directory now, not sure it's actually the same thing though
[QUOTE=Adam.GameDev;48221247]I probably wouldn't actually recommend that someone use Samba for Active Directory considering it's probably easier to set up on Windows, but I think you can get Azure Active Directory now, not sure it's actually the same thing though[/QUOTE] Yeah Azure has AD offerings, ties into Office 365 also.
[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] be a pirate then yar har? [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Suggesting warez" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=~Kiwi~v2;48222196]Why would you encourage Warez? When Pentium(or any of you) can pick evaluation copies of Windows Server 2012R2 for free? He only has to re-arm it every 179 days just to get a full year out of it.[/QUOTE] because he said hes strapped for cash, isnt that what most people resort to? but a thought does occur, if hes strapped for cash so bad that he cant upgrade, if this is for a buisness of some kind, how is the buisness still afloat when they cant afford to stay on top of things as simple as this? its like when i read peoples posts about how they cant upgrade their 32-bit OS to 64-bit cause they cant afford it. 100$ may be too much for a 8 year old average allowance, but for a late teen to adult such a purchase in this day and age is almost frivolous if they put the effort forth to earn the cash. like me, im planning on building the most expensive gaming rig i've ever had the privalge to put together, rather than go "this stuff looks like it should last 4-5 years based on this price." im doing in depth research on it, reading reviews, and looking into future support of the new technologies they use. if i upgraded my stuff based on pentiums ideology, i guess i'd still be on my copy of Vista ultimate 32-bit edition and still have my 560 GTX GPU on this board for the next couple years, and fall behind when it comes to compatability in gaming. so if he is running a buisness with the technology he claims to use, i sure hope the poor suckers dont know a damn thing about computers in general beyond how to use the mouse and keyboard or they'd be appalled at what they've got goin on, and probably figure out how to save themselves some cash so they can upgrade.
From personal experience: EOL of software does NOT mean jack shit for a corp whose core business is not IT. If you do not update in the first place, what damage does it do to you if the software is not supported anymore... I also happen to know that XP is still VERY common, as is Windows 2000 and NT4. Even OS/2 and DOS is not an uncommon sight in big companies. Now Windows 2003 will just add to that pile of IT headaches. Which sucks...
[QUOTE=drblah;48223114]From personal experience: EOL of software does NOT mean jack shit for a corp whose core business is not IT. If you do not update in the first place, what damage does it do to you if the software is not supported anymore... I also happen to know that XP is still VERY common, as is Windows 2000 and NT4. Even OS/2 and DOS is not an uncommon sight in big companies. Now Windows 2003 will just add to that pile of IT headaches. Which sucks...[/QUOTE] I think the argument isn't so much staying on the bleeding edge like IT companies do, but if you are even remotely using technology in your day-to-day operations, you should be able to spend a couple hundred bucks every 10 years to at least stay within widely supported standards.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;48223194]I think the argument isn't so much staying on the bleeding edge like IT companies do, but if you are even remotely using technology in your day-to-day operations, you should be able to spend a couple hundred bucks every 10 years to at least stay within widely supported standards.[/QUOTE] I totally agree. Big non-tech corporations, however do not.
[QUOTE=drblah;48223517]I totally agree. Big non-tech corporations, however do not.[/QUOTE] [del]Any size organization with any form of income (tech or non-tech) should. If you have something that is connected to the internet, you should afford the $200/15yrs to keep up to minimum standards. It's not a tech/IT thing.[/del] [editline]16th July 2015[/editline] (I completely misread the second sentence of your post, sorry... I thought you were exempting non-techs.)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.