Windows 2003 Server Release 2

[wesleyw]

What is the difference between this and Windows 2003 SP1? Looking at LNM which by the sounds of it cannot be used with R2 is there any good reasons to upgrade past SP1?

 

Wes

[ChrisH]

I have a new R2 file server to deploy in the holidays and the feature I most like is the ability to stop them saving certain files in their home folders etc.

[Norphy]

Improved file and print server management are the main benefits you will see. They really are vastly improved over what was there and long overdue.

 

See here for the other differences.

[plexer]

I'm moving to R2 over the summer for the same file type blocking reason.

 

Ben

[ChrisH]

Off topic slighly but do you need to update the schema if your introducing just a member server or is that just the case if your introducing a DC?

I think with introducing a 2003 a 2000 domain you always had to but not sure in this case.

[tosca925]

Can you upgrade your current 2003 sp1 machine?

[ChrisH]

Can you upgrade your current 2003 sp1 machine?

 

Are you asking me or is that a general question?

 

As far as I can see the media for R2 is a 2003 SP1 disc with a second disc with all the R2 gubbins on.

[DMcCoy]

Can you upgrade your current 2003 sp1 machine?

 

Are you asking me or is that a general question?

 

As far as I can see the media for R2 is a 2003 SP1 disc with a second disc with all the R2 gubbins on.

 

Indeed it is.

 

Just a quick reminder for people going to R2 and not aimed at anyone in particular (not a moan, ms licensing is complicated!)

 

Just remember the license is different too, so you only get to use R2 on servers with R2 licenses (unless you had software assurance on your original license - schools agreement to the rescue again for me).

[Norphy]

Off topic slighly but do you need to update the schema if your introducing just a member server or is that just the case if your introducing a DC?

I think with introducing a 2003 a 2000 domain you always had to but not sure in this case.

 

I don't think you need to update the schema in that instance. Adding a 2003 member server to a 2000 domain is just like adding an XP workstation to one.

[kingswood]

We have been using R2 for about 2 months now- it's pretty good. The file/storage management features are pretty good improvements over 2003 SP1- worth the investment alone for the file screening ;-)

[edie209]

We have been using R2 for about 2 months now- it's pretty good. The file/storage management features are pretty good improvements over 2003 SP1- worth the investment alone for the file screening ;-)

 

Same here, have had our since feb and the printer and file management are great

[woody]

In terms of cost then, can you simply buy an upgrade from SP1 to SP2 or do you need to purchase new CALS as well?

 

Also, does anyone know whether with SP2 you can limit the length of filenames that the pupils save files with? I can't see a way of doing this currently and that would be great.

[DMcCoy]

There is no upgrade path from server 2003 to server 2003 r2.

 

It is classed as a new product and needs a new license unless you had active software assurance at release

[woody]

Well I dont think I had active software assurance at release. I find it highly infuriating if it is the case that there is no upgrade path. I mean the cheek! Bring out an updated version of server software, with functionality that the first one should have had in it, and then make people pay all over again for the new version?

 

It's like having to buy a whole new car if you want to have a muli Cd player in it.

[Geoff]

Really now, come on, this is Microsoft! What did you expect? They'd give it you for free?

[DMcCoy]

It is unfair, I agree. That is however the way it is. Imagine if you paid full price for enterprise? Although I suspect if you pay that much you would include the assurance.

[woody]

Put it this way, if it is a new product, then they should have called it something different. 'Server 2006' would have been a good example.

 

But then, they probably realise that they haven't really changed anything too radical. So then why charge everybody for a full product again?

[Geoff]

But then, they probably realise that they haven't really changed anything too radical. So then why charge everybody for a full product again?

 

Sounds like Vista.

[bossman]

Don't know why everybody rushed to get Server 2003, I still run 2000 and it works perfectly ok for our needs. Obviously I reasoned that server 2003 would need a few updates before it became fully seasoned for use in an educational environment and MS would reap all the benifits from no upgrade path so would need new licenses so thought i would wait at least another year before migrating to 2003 at least.

 

P.S If it ain't broke don't try to fix it!

[Geoff]

But it is 'broke'. There's no support from MS for it any more.

[plexer]

£50 for a R2 licence that's not exactly expensive and I would still it more like an upgrade than a full product because it is a bunch of bolt ons to a 2003 server.

 

Your 2003 cals are fine for 2003 R2.

 

Ben.

[woody]

Ben, where did you get that price from?

[Guest]

£48.00 quid here from our LEA. Any you say current 2K3 Cals are still valid?

[plexer]

£49 from Ramesys.

 

This is taken from Microsoft:

 

Q. I currently have Windows Server 2003 Client Access Licenses. Will I need to purchase new Windows Server 2003 R2 CALs?

 

A. No. New CALs are not required for Windows Server 2003 R2. Existing Windows Server 2003 CALs will work with Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2003 R2.

 

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobuy/licensing/priclicfaq.mspx

 

Ben

[woody]

So does anyone know if you can limit filename legnths with the new file screening feature?