How does Windows 2003 fit into the grand scheme of things?

[leoblob]

With XP Pro currently available and the "professional/enterprise" version(s) of Windows Vista on the horizon, how does Windows 2003 fit in there? Is it just for the servers? ... Who would be using Windows 2003 if they have XP Pro now?

[marcos]

I think there might be a lot of reasons for professionals to use windows 2003 server on thinkpads, unless they can run Linux instead.
For example, one may have the need of providing server-based solutions in a mobile fashion, possibly in non-office environments. Some thinkpads would have in fact a 'role' usage rather being a personal machine.
They are also much better for availability and serviceability in the data room. Compare with rack machines, for example. A thinkpad you can dock it and always have a fresh replacement for whatever happens. Even better mount them in clusters in an N+1 redundancy.
Server code should be able to use dual cores efficiently and that another plus point.

[davidspalding]

With XP Pro currently available and the "professional/enterprise" version(s) of Windows Vista on the horizon, how does Windows 2003 fit in there? Is it just for the servers? ... Who would be using Windows 2003 if they have XP Pro now?

Windows Server 2003 IS a server OS. A lot of folks just drop the "server" on the assumption that everyone is a Microsoft parrot and knows all the product versions.

Some think it runs better than XP, though I think both of them, tuned and patched properly, run about neck and neck. Some well-informed MCSE might know of specific areas in which W2K3 is smoother in memory management and stability, but aside from that, my hands-on experience was that XP had the gewgaws you want for a personal computer. 2003 is more of a development and server workhorse.

[bill bolton]

[quote="leoblob"]how does Windows 2003 fit in there?[quote]

If the same general code base as XP, however, the delivery configuration is optimised in a number of ways (mostly but not solely related to network security/connectivity) for domain server applications.

Unless you have a very specific need one or several of the pieces of server level functionality, there is no reason to use Windows 2003 on a personal machine.

Cheers,

Bill

[leoblob]

Windows Server 2003 IS a server OS. A lot of folks just drop the "server"...

I think this explains a lot. My confusion was compounded by the fact that people use XP Pro as a personal computer O/S.

... and, since I use WIN2K ("Professional") as a personal computer O/S, I had wondered if Windows 2003 (with the "Server" name dropped out) was just the next iteration. Clearly, it's not.

[davidspalding]

Haha, add to that, that MS called the 1999 iterations Windows 2000 Professional and Windows 2000 Server, if I recall. Now we have XP Home, XP Professional, and ... Windows Server 2003.

Might as well just call the next ones Microsoft Windows Gisbourne, Ruprecht, and Guinevere.

[Kyocera]

FWIW i interface with IT people who run large networks and are happy with 2003 servers performance and stability.

Sorry for praising MS.

[leoblob]

Haha, add to that, that MS called the 1999 iterations Windows 2000 Professional and Windows 2000 Server, if I recall. Now we have XP Home, XP Professional, and ... Windows Server 2003.

Might as well just call the next ones Microsoft Windows Gisbourne, Ruprecht, and Guinevere.

Actually, if I remember correctly, there were/are 3 versions of WIN2K: Professional, Server, and Advanced Server (?)

So... if your place of business is running Windows Server 2003 on its server, what are likely choices of OS for the individual users (clients?) on the network?

[Kyocera]

Windows 2000 pro and XP pro. XP Home can't join a domain so for anything other than a workgroup it is out.

[leoblob]

Thanks to all, for explaining this to me.

[croooowe]

One more leoblob, the Datacenter Server that was only available from specific oem server vendors for some unholy price.