which is the best microsoft server os

Discuss Windows 2000, NT, XP and Windows Server 2000, 2003, SBS 2003.

which is better

Windows 2000 Server (NT 5.0) (any)
9
21%
Windows Server 2003 (NT 5.2) (any)
19
44%
Windows NT Server 4.00 (any)
3
7%
Windows NT Advanced Server 3.1
0
No votes
Windows NT Server 3.50
0
No votes
Windows NT Server 3.51
1
2%
Other (state what it is in thread)
3
7%
Windows Server "Longhorn" (NT 6.0)
8
19%
 
Total votes: 43

Gnome
User avatar
Staff
Posts: 2671
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:10 pm
Location: Land of The Tea.
Contact:

which is the best microsoft server os

Post by Gnome »

hi which do you think is the best server os.
if thay are any more just tell me and i will add it

More options added by Beta Freak
Poll edited, Longhorn added by empireum
Last edited by Gnome on Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

What about NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, Longhorn? And again, you mean "Microsoft Server OS", right?
I personally wouldn't run Windows on a server anyway, but I like both 2000 and 2003 equally.
Last edited by empireum on Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Gnome
User avatar
Staff
Posts: 2671
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:10 pm
Location: Land of The Tea.
Contact:

Post by Gnome »

and them thanks im on the dumb side on the force

XDude
Donator
Posts: 1518
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:40 am

Post by XDude »

I love longhorn

idontknow
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:39 pm

Post by idontknow »

Server 2003 is the best Server OS (for now). It makes a good workstation (never used it for a server before). It sees to use less RAM than Windows XP when I look at it in Task Manager (after disabling services/hardware in both OS). It feels faster than XP as well.

This isn't a fair opinion as I have never used it for a real server role, I have no clue how well it performs under normal work.

Luckie
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am
Location: Germany

Post by Luckie »

idontknow wrote:Server 2003 is the best Server OS (for now).
agree
"Theory is when you know something, but it doesn't work. Practice is when something works, but you don't know why. Programmers combine theory and practice: Nothing works and they don't know why."

prx984
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:38 pm

Post by prx984 »

I'm using Windows 2003 on my FTP server, and I'll say its fast, easy, and reliable. I had never setup an FTP server before, but I found this really easy to set up.

So my vote is for Server 2003

I'm also using it as a workstation that I access from my laptop around my house and at school, and it works great for that too. It does feel a lot faster than XP to me too.
Asus F8Sn-D1, HP DV2-1044CA, Asus EeePC 1005HA, IBM ThinkPad X40

Gnome
User avatar
Staff
Posts: 2671
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:10 pm
Location: Land of The Tea.
Contact:

Post by Gnome »

i think that windows xp sp1 uses less than windows server 2003 win xp-89mb windows server 2003 125mb thats how much ram was used on server and xp at start up for me
i have not yet tryed longhorn what is it like??
ive got one server on windows server 2003 and one on win xp pro sp2 2003 worked better as an ftp server than xp pro

Windows NT
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:38 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by Windows NT »

NT Server 4.00 Enterprise or NT Server 3.51, but I chose NT 4.00, because more Support for newer programs.
Windows "2000" is the worst OS ever, followed by Windows XP.

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

NTS4/EE is unnecessary in most cases, the standard NTS4 is mostly enough IMHO. Unless you need the clustering, fail-over and >4-way SMP capability, of course...

___
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by ___ »

never had to use any server versions, so no vote for me

Frozenport
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 1022
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:04 pm
Location: The Ephemeral between existance and non-existance: AKA "being"
Contact:

Post by Frozenport »

I'd go for Windows Server 2003 because it is stable as a mountain, but i'd like to come out and say that I used Windows 98SE's Webserver for about three years ...
Therfore my vote is for "Other OS"
Image
Part Time Troll - HPC Enthusiast - Spelling Master - Old Fart

ppc_digger
Donator
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:25 am
Location: Israel

Post by ppc_digger »

MS-DOS 6.21. No annoying compression, and it's the only MS OS that gets near Linux' hackability (XENIX doesn't count).

EDIT: Whoops. I misread it as 'best Microsoft OS'. IMO the best MS server OS is Server 2003, but I'd never use it on a production server, unless it's absolutely necessary.
Last edited by ppc_digger on Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kidde
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:16 pm
Location: Sweden

Post by kidde »

ppc_digger wrote:MS-DOS 6.21. No annoying compression, and it's the only MS OS that gets near Linux' hackability (XENIX doesn't count).
How's the TCP/IP stack in 6.21?


As for myself, I'd never use anything else than *NIX for servers.

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

As for myself, I'd never use anything else than *NIX for servers. Smile
Same here

moonlit
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 514
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:02 pm

Post by moonlit »

Server 2003 I think, but I've only used it as a desktop (4 years of Server 2003 evaluations ftw!). It's nice and snappy, very stable and isn't too heavy on the ol' resources yet is up to date with hardware and software compatibility.

NT4's nice but getting too long in the tooth now for modern servers (though I don't doubt it's still very very usable for most applications) and 2000's just lacking that extra little something that makes it the XP of the server world.


Edit: Err... removed garbage text :/
Last edited by moonlit on Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

moonlit wrote:NT4's nice but getting too long in the tooth now for modern servers (though I don't doubt it's still very very usable for most applications) and 2000's just lacking that extra little something that makes it the XP of the server world.
What does 2000 lack compared to 2003 that it fails to be the "XP of the server world"? I'd say it's just as fast and reliable as 2003.
And I'd like to know how people can judge a server OS in its native environment when they've never used it there?

Frozenport
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 1022
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:04 pm
Location: The Ephemeral between existance and non-existance: AKA "being"
Contact:

Post by Frozenport »

I am a fan of 2000 Server because I own a legal copy

One of the issues I have encountered with 2000 is that php seems to kinda die when running some scripts

-=-=-=
Also 2000 does not as happily take advantage of multiple processors as 2003 does. For example when running 3DS Max I remmber having 2003 render notably quicker then 2000.
Image
Part Time Troll - HPC Enthusiast - Spelling Master - Old Fart

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

I own legal (MSDN) copies of Win2000 Server and Advanced Server as well. Can't confirm or deny the differences regarding SMP, though, but it can likely be the 2003 kernel is more optimized, at least if we're talking about dual/multi core processors....

moonlit
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 514
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:02 pm

Post by moonlit »

empireum wrote:
moonlit wrote:NT4's nice but getting too long in the tooth now for modern servers (though I don't doubt it's still very very usable for most applications) and 2000's just lacking that extra little something that makes it the XP of the server world.
What does 2000 lack compared to 2003 that it fails to be the "XP of the server world"? I'd say it's just as fast and reliable as 2003.
And I'd like to know how people can judge a server OS in its native environment when they've never used it there?
I'm not actually sure what made me say that about 2000... so... can I withdraw that?

I give my opinion on my experiences with certain OS' and even though I haven't used them in a server environment I've still used them... I've no doubt all the Windows Server OS' are still completely fit for purpose (in fact I wonder why more people don't think so) but for the most part newer is, in this case (and in my opinion), better...

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

@moonlit
Of course you can withdraw – I mean, it's a subjective opinion, no offense intended. I was just asking because I couldn't quite understand what your point was about, exactly.
And I asked about the value of judging a server OS when it's not been used in a server environment because... well, it's like comparing a Ferrari and a Corvette or something like that and saying the Ferrari is better because it's more suitable for buying breakfast in the morning, i.e. driving to the bakery at 20mph. Do you understand what I mean? Just as you have to test sports cars on a race track, you have to use server OSes as servers to form a valid opinion. Just my $0.02.

moonlit
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 514
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:02 pm

Post by moonlit »

Heheh, excuse my late response...

Totally understand what you mean though, it wouldn't make sense for me to say "Windows x is the bext OS for servers..." if I'd never used it in a server/networking environment... On saying that though, the question isn't so much that, more "Which is the best Windows server OS?"

betamaster
User avatar
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:07 pm

Post by betamaster »

Windows Server 2003 is very good Server

Gnome
User avatar
Staff
Posts: 2671
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:10 pm
Location: Land of The Tea.
Contact:

Post by Gnome »

you cant get any better the win server 2003 ive got 2 servers running it its the best

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

toshua123 wrote:you cant get any better the win server 2003 ive got 2 servers running it its the best
The best Microsoft server OS, maybe...
The best server OS altogether... No.
And don't forget Longhorn is about to appear... Or so I think.

Post Reply