No third service pack for Windows Server 2003

[cookie_monster]

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

[SC-UK]

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.

[john]

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

[FN-GM]

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...

[leco]

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.

[cookie_monster]

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.

[gshaw]

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

[User3204]

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.

[HodgeHi]

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

[cookie_monster]

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.

[maniac]

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.

[PiqueABoo]

as 2003 is supported until at least 2013

 

They've had July 2015 published as the end of the extended support phase for ages.

[browolf]

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. Edited September 17, 2009 by browolf

[garethEds]

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

[somabc]

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-systems/3201403/microsoft-windows-2000-too-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.

Edited September 17, 2009 by somabc

[cookie_monster]

They've had July 2015 published as the end of the extended support phase for ages.

 

Mistype I apologise, my point still stands though it’s ‘ages’ away.

 

@ maniac

 

and we're running an exclusive XP environment so there was no point in the additional expense of Server 2008

 

There are quite a few good features for managing XP clients, Group Policy Preferences for one. It would also give you time to get the hang of 2008 before taking on Vista/7 as well.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

rumors circulated that Microsoft contracted with Cisco Systems to write that operating system's TCP/IP stack.

 

They also sent the source to the NSA for a code review to ask if they had suggestions where they could improve it. I don't think getting in outside help to make sure you get it right is a bad idea it's better than continuing to get it wrong. As long as the NSA didn't slip in any back doors

Edited September 18, 2009 by cookie_monster