Upgrading Windows Server 2000 to 2003

[dgg]

our firm has just received a proposal from our external technical support group to updated our office server to windows 2003 server. we are currently using windows 2000 server small business edition. we are a small office running thirteen computers into the server. every once in a blue moon is there a need for someone to gain remote access.

i have read that win 2k server support is about to be discontinued, is this true?

I am true believer that in the business world, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

spare time world at home, tear it apart and try and put back together, but that's another thread i have on here.

any opinions or feedback would be appreciated, plus if you need any further information i will do my best to provide.

thanks

[Menace]

The upgrade part of it is relatively painless. Backup and Backup before any major upgrade, then you will be fine.

As far as the licensing part of it, you have check your current plan vs the new plan.

[supernerd]

I thought all MS operating systems have at least 7 years of support available. For win2k, i think they plan to stop supporting it in 2010 or something...

But, do you ever use the support? If not, then theres probably no real reason to upgrade to 2003. My machines run 2003 only because I got it for free (MSDNAA). I felt a slight improvement in responsiveness, faster boot times, and proper file/printer sharing with winXP machines (when I ran win2k, file/printer sharing with winXP machines was flaky... maybe it was just me). I've also noticed improved stability. My win2k3 systems have also NEVER crashed except when I had bad memory modules...

[Jaytee]

We have a number of servers at work running Win 2000 and 2003 and IT usually asks me what OS I want when we get a new server. Honestly, I dont care, Im sure 2003 has some improvements, but as far I can tell, they are insignficant.

I would stick with 2000.

[bionicbadger]

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=7274

windows 2000 Server mainstream support retired: 30/06/2005

[Absolute]

For Windows 2000 support, their mainstream service already ended: http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/support/lifecycle/


According to that page you will also need to pay for new security hotfixes, since June 30th.

More info for all MS products: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh%3Ben-us%3Blifecycle&LN=EN-US&x=20&y=10

[sleepyguy]

yup... probably cheaper to go Windows 2003. our corporation is HUGE so we stayed 2000 on some of our servers and paid the support cost. i do prefer 2003 much much better though... volume shadow copy is awesome :)

[deep]

I was just going to add that, sleepy. Volume shadow copy is almost worth upgrading for on its own.

[IceMan77]

Question in regards to Volume Shadow Copy. If a user deletes a file on a shared folder. Can the user go back to a previous version or do the previous "snapshots" versions get deleted also?

[sleepyguy]

Yes.. restores to the folder... but you can setup other styles of configuration.

Remember that you setup the "limit" or you can remove limits... ie... if they take too long before restoring, the snapshot will take what they already removed and their outta luck. That is why you due offsite daily storage as well.


Question in regards to Volume Shadow Copy. If a user deletes a file on a shared folder. Can the user go back to a previous version or do the previous "snapshots" versions get deleted also?

[dgg]

thanks everyone.

we don't actually use any of the windows support features. in fact our off site tech company manages the server.

we have a full backup of the server done every night, and don't suffer from the deletion problems that shaddow copy appears to solve (but it is neat :))

either way, no one in our office would have the combination of time and skill to be able to work the server, we would have to call in the tech guy.