+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16
Windows Thread, No third service pack for Windows Server 2003 in Technical; I get the feeling MS know they face a massive battle getting people off of XP and Server 2003, they'll ...
  1. #1
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,196
    Thank Post
    392
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    74

    No third service pack for Windows Server 2003

    I get the feeling MS know they face a massive battle getting people off of XP and Server 2003, they'll be sticking the knife in soon just wait for those new apps that aren't supported on 2003. I remember the disappointment when Office 2007 wouldn't install on Windows 2000. I know that people have to move off of the platform eventually but as 2003 is supported until at least 2013 I think it's a bit soon to start the big push.

    No third service pack for Windows Server 2003 ? Channel Register

  2. #2
    SC-UK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    569
    Thank Post
    36
    Thanked 85 Times in 71 Posts
    Rep Power
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by cookie_monster View Post
    I get the feeling MS know they face a massive battle getting people off of XP and Server 2003, they'll be sticking the knife in soon[/url]
    I think you may have hit the nail right on the head there unfortunately.

  3. #3

    john's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    10,498
    Thank Post
    1,488
    Thanked 1,049 Times in 918 Posts
    Rep Power
    301
    But then again I am not really finding any issues with 2008 R2, but do agree it should have had a SP3 so at least it levelled with XP. Then again that needs an SP4 as well. They clearly don't want another Windows NT4 style with SP6a etc

  4. #4

    FN-GM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    15,779
    Thank Post
    865
    Thanked 1,665 Times in 1,450 Posts
    Blog Entries
    11
    Rep Power
    442
    I fell 2003 is nearly at the end of the road now. Its time to move on. We only have 3 Server 2003 servers now...

  5. #5
    leco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    West Yorkshire
    Posts
    2,026
    Thank Post
    595
    Thanked 125 Times in 119 Posts
    Rep Power
    41
    Unfortunately for me moving to 2008 server from 2003 would mean also moving to Exchange 2007. Both at the same time may be one move too far. I already have one 2008 server which I've just about got the hang of. Although I still have to create my users on the 2003 server to get an automatic mailbox.

    Working towards a deadline of 2013 seems fair enough.

  6. #6
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,196
    Thank Post
    392
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    I fell 2003 is nearly at the end of the road now. Its time to move on. We only have 3 Server 2003 servers now...
    No way consider the amount of NT4 (shouldn't be in use but is) 2000 and SBS 2003 boxes out there Server 2008 is just starting to make inroads, Server 2003 has a massive installed base I wouldn't bat an eyelid if I ran into a box running 2003 in 2015 there will be millions of them still running and I’m talking about big companies here. These companies should be planning a move but that costs big money in business, also corporate IT have SLA’s to meet and hate replacing a stable system for pretty much no benefit.

    What 2k3 needs is at least a hotfix role up. 2008 R2 isn't really next gen it's just a feature role up so counts as 2008 really, 2003 and 2003 R2 will expire from support at the same time, imagine the amount of hotfixes to apply by 2013.

  7. #7
    gshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    2,648
    Thank Post
    164
    Thanked 217 Times in 200 Posts
    Rep Power
    66
    Hmm yeah it's a force you over move but a lot of places won't... 2003 is stable and if 2008 doesn't offer a major reason to change many places won't

    I'm stuck at the mo until I get a virtualised environment as the current hardware won't support 2008 (stupid SuperMicro and Adaptec stuff with no updated drivers) but 2008 only appeals to me as I like the look of TS RemoteApp, BitLocker and a few other goodies... plus the "shiny shiny" effect

    Out of interest did MS fix the GPO Print Management Console in 2008 so you can set the default printer... now that would be amazing

  8. #8
    User3204's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    769
    Thank Post
    55
    Thanked 66 Times in 62 Posts
    Rep Power
    34
    We're still using Windows 2000 on some servers, the main file server for the students uses it. I've yet to see anything in Windows 2003 (never mind 2008) that makes me think I need to upgrade it.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    West Bromwich
    Posts
    2,190
    Thank Post
    299
    Thanked 215 Times in 185 Posts
    Rep Power
    56
    Am i wrong in thinking that if you upgrade either xp or the server then you also look to upgrade the cals to connect to the newer server/from the newer client. I'm sure i read that somewhere or dreaming of MS rip-off schemes

  10. #10
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,196
    Thank Post
    392
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    We're still using Windows 2000 on some servers, the main file server for the students uses it. I've yet to see anything in Windows 2003 (never mind 2008) that makes me think I need to upgrade it.
    We moved from 2000 to 2003 as soon as it came out pretty much because of shadow copies they saved so much time when restoring student work.

  11. #11

    maniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    3,037
    Thank Post
    209
    Thanked 425 Times in 306 Posts
    Rep Power
    144
    We've just rebuilt our domain onto new hardware, but I stuck with server 2003 purely because I know it's stable, and we're running an exclusive XP environment so there was no point in the additional expense of Server 2008, and all the associated licensing.

    We will probably upgrade next year, when I invisige having to introduce some Vista/windows 7 clients to the network on account of not being able to obtain XP licenses anymore, but until then Server 2003 does me absolutely fine, it's quick, effiecient, reliable and I know all its quirks and features pretty well.

    I haven't even used 2008, Vista or Windows 7 yet, and I won't until I absolutely need to.

    Mike.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Surburbia
    Posts
    2,178
    Thank Post
    74
    Thanked 307 Times in 243 Posts
    Rep Power
    115
    as 2003 is supported until at least 2013
    They've had July 2015 published as the end of the extended support phase for ages.

  13. #13
    browolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    1,524
    Thank Post
    106
    Thanked 88 Times in 74 Posts
    Blog Entries
    46
    Rep Power
    40
    ZERO vista's (never mind win 7) I was going to leave vista on the last desk pc I got to see how it worked (with the domain and stuff) but I was told to take it off and put xp on.
    Last edited by browolf; 17th September 2009 at 10:58 PM.

  14. #14

    garethedmondson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Gowerton, Swansea
    Posts
    2,259
    Thank Post
    962
    Thanked 324 Times in 192 Posts
    Blog Entries
    11
    Rep Power
    164
    If our LEA upgraded all their servers from 2003 to Server 2008 would they need to pay for updates to all of their CALS?

    Would that price be a barrier to then upgrading? If you think there are 15 comprehensives in Swansea - lets say between 300-400 PCs in each. Then you have the primaries, special-ed schools and various other establishments that come under the curriculum network.

    GJE

  15. #15
    somabc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,337
    Thank Post
    83
    Thanked 388 Times in 258 Posts
    Rep Power
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by User3204 View Post
    We're still using Windows 2000 on some servers, the main file server for the students uses it. I've yet to see anything in Windows 2003 (never mind 2008) that makes me think I need to upgrade it.
    2003 is leaps and bounds ahead of 2000 which has more security holes than the hole'iest holes hole.

    http://news.techworld.com/operating-...old-to-update/

    "The architecture to properly support TCP/IP protection does not exist on Microsoft Windows 2000 systems, making it infeasible to build the fix. To do so would require re-architecting a very significant amount of the Windows 2000 SP4 operating system, not just the affected component. The product of such a re-architecture effort would be sufficiently incompatible ... that there would be no assurance that applications designed to run on Windows 2000 SP4 would continue to operate on the updated system."

    "Oh, my goodness," said Andrew Storms, director of security operations at nCircle Network Security. "[That's] more proof that Windows 2000's network stack was not in good shape," he added, noting that when Windows XP was released, rumors circulated that Microsoft contracted with Cisco Systems to write that operating system's TCP/IP stack.
    Last edited by somabc; 18th September 2009 at 12:14 AM.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Install Windows Server 2003 admin pack on Windows Vista
    By FN-GM in forum Wiki Announcements
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27th March 2008, 04:19 PM
  2. Windows XP Service Pack 3 Release Candidate
    By cookie_monster in forum Windows
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 14th December 2007, 08:44 PM
  3. windows 2003 server service pack 2
    By Andi in forum Windows
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 4th May 2007, 11:22 AM
  4. Office 2003 service pack 2 expired?
    By E1uSiV3 in forum Windows
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 19th October 2005, 09:29 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 19th August 2005, 07:49 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •