Talk:Windows Server 2003

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a WikiProject devoted to maintaining and improving the informative value and quality of Wikipedia's many Microsoft Windows articles.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on WikiProject Microsoft Windows's importance scale.

Contents 1 Disaster Edition 2 Storage Server Editions 3 Kernel 4 NMAP results 5 Comments on WS2K3 web edition 6 Windows 2000 TCO 7 Variants vs Flavors 8 No Sound and 3D in 2003 9 RIPREP and SYSPREP : Confusion 10 why don't windows 2003 server used a different interface 11 POV? 12 Maximum how many users does 2k3 std,ent,data center supports 13 New features List - Windows Server 2003 R2 14 Criticism 15 Web Edition Error? 16 Service Pack 2 17 Supported Hardware 18 infobox screenshot 19 Windows Server 2003 as Workstation 20 Features are not up to date 21 Important clarification to add: Processor vs Core Microsoft definitions 22 String Bean Software 23 10 Versions or 4?

[edit] Disaster Edition

Datacentre edition => Disaster edition. Why?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.13.253 (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Storage Server Editions

Sorry I was the first one to put up the table, now I see it's been removed and placed back again (with some more info). Where did I get this information? Well since Storage Server is an OEM only OS, it was from the tech at Dell. Because I searched the net for the info but I never found it. I have his email I guess I could give it to some one so you can directly ask?

I have also been searching around a little bit and the only place I have found is this one: http://www.wanshop.com/tech-corner/know_your_editions_of_windows_1.php Don't know if this could be used?

The wanshop.com info states the Express Edition supports up to two disk drives. Some vendors are selling 1U rack-mount NAS devices with four drives and claim the supplied OS is the Express Edition. Perhaps the 'two disk drive' limit refers to the number of logical disks, not physical ?
This ambiguity could do with clearing up. I've emailed Microsoft for more info, I'll update if they respond.
Sircompo (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kernel

The kernel and any differences from Windows 2000 aren't mentioned - I guess 2003 has GDI+ like XP, unlike GDI in 2000?. I encourage someone to add some info. --Widefox 00:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NMAP results

Does WS2K3 usually have ports 31337, 27665 and 12345 filtered? I guess this is to prevent BackOrifice, NetBus, etc running. Is there a firewall configuration dialogue?

A rundown of what the services that are running are, and what they do would be good.

• DNS 53 (also, e.g. MS DNS extensions)
• Kerberos 88 (also, e.g. something about MS' integration of kerberos with W2K)
• Windows file sharing 135, 139 and 445 CIFS
• LDAP 389 and LDAPS 636 (X.500, Active Directory and the relationship of the three)

The others I'm not sure about. Anyone else with a w2k3 server able to do a quick scan on it?

added 12/7: they are not open for me (running w2k3 no sp)... ps - i have no idea if this is the proper way to answer a question here or what, sorry!

normaluser@linuxhost:~$nmap w2k3host

Starting nmap 3.75 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2004-12-16 11:58 GMT
Interesting ports on w2k3host.example.com (163.1.136.22):
(The 1645 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)
PORT      STATE    SERVICE
53/tcp    open     domain
88/tcp    open     kerberos-sec
135/tcp   filtered msrpc
139/tcp   open     netbios-ssn
389/tcp   open     ldap
445/tcp   open     microsoft-ds
464/tcp   open     kpasswd5
593/tcp   open     http-rpc-epmap
636/tcp   open     ldapssl
1025/tcp  open     NFS-or-IIS
1026/tcp  open     LSA-or-nterm
1031/tcp  open     iad2
1234/tcp  filtered hotline
1524/tcp  filtered ingreslock
12345/tcp filtered NetBus
12346/tcp filtered NetBus
27665/tcp filtered Trinoo_Master
31337/tcp filtered Elite

I guess one could also state the default process list and describe what those processes are.

[edit] Comments on WS2K3 web edition

The following was commented out from the article by an anonymous editor, and perhaps should simply be removed, since Web Edition is mentioned further down, but in case anyone disagrees, I will preserve it here:

A workstation version of Windows Server 2003 was released called 'Windows Server 2003: Web Edition". This version is akin to Windows 2000 without XP's bulk. It is arguably better than Windows XP for the Internet, as it includes IIS, but capable replacements such as Apache are freely available for existing Windows XP users.

Web server edition is most certainly not a workstation product. It is a low end version of WS2K3 designed to serve webpages

- IMSoP 15:12, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) kl

[edit] Windows 2000 TCO

Why is this section on the Windows Server 2003 page rather than in the Windows 2000 Server Features section of the Windows 2000 page?

Whatever it was, it was inaccurate. I've read the report, and it states that hardware and software procurement is the LEAST cost to a business. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Variants vs Flavors

I agree with the Variants edit. Not only is it better for non-English speakers, but it's more appropriate since we are talking about a business OS, as such Microsoft, and people talking about the Operating System is more likely ti use the word variants or version versus flavors, unless he was an Apple guy. ;) PPGMD

Hmmm Apple guy, you say. Uhm... er...  :-) AlistairMcMillan 23:41, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] No Sound and 3D in 2003

Who came up with the BS that there was no sound or 3d acceleration in Windows 2003? Because not only are they available they work just fine. PPGMD

It was this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Windows_Server_2003&diff=2913429&oldid=2909399 by User:Bsoft Mr. Jones 12:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You have alot more time than I do, to go searching for that (then again it's been a couple of months). I was simply making my opinion of baseless edits known. PPGMD

If only that were so :-) It took me about one minute; I just used a binary chop. BTW, if you use four tildes, your comments are date stamped. Mr. Jones 20:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] RIPREP and SYSPREP : Confusion

hi i am saket . i want to know how to use riprep.exe to remotely install a 2003 server , and what is the difference between riprep.exe and sysprep.exe. [user:saket jha| india,bihar] --203.145.188.130 17:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why don't windows 2003 server used a different interface

Why don't windows 2003 server used a different interface than copying simply a XP like interface.Is MICROSOFT lacking new GUI -- [USER:DEEPAK KUMAR, EKWARI,BIHAR,PIN 802208]

The above comment has merit. But please note, the new user interface (Aero design) which is found inside Windows Vista premium editions has some outrageous graphics performance requirements (minimum AGP 8x or PCI-E bus card with muscular, DX9-capable GPU chip and 256MB of dedicated VRAM or more). In contrast, most server computers have meisly onboard VGA chips, usually two generations old DX7-limited ones, like the ATI Rage XL, with only 8MB of DRAM. If you tried to run Aero user interface on such hardware, opening a new window would take about seven weeks and it would hurt the performance of background services. That is why Windows 2003 has the "classic feel" Microsoft user interface. 195.70.32.136 18:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah bring back the command prompt interface with square mouse curser. Has slightly more overhad than the stone tablet GUI but safer to use. SIGNED RassHOLEjon

This is a server however and most users will never need a fancy interface The XP Stlye interface is overkill and the Aero Interface would be extreme overkill ^{lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ} 11:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it's basicly the server equivalent of Windows XP. Hence, the GUI is the same (except for some default settings, such as theme, being different). Josh 14:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

The following section sounds a bit like POV:

Notable features

Most versions of Windows Server include Terminal Services support (using the Remote Desktop Protocol), enabling multiple simultaneous remote graphical logins. This enables thin client computing on the windows platform, where all applications run remotely on the server. This feature was first introduced with a special "Terminal Server Edition" of Windows NT Server 4.0, but became more important when made a standard part of Windows 2000.

Internet Information Services (IIS) v6.0 - again, versions of IIS were available on Windows 2000 and earlier, but IIS is improved significantly in Windows Server 2003.

Active Directory - like Terminal Services, significantly improved since Windows 2000

Increased default security over previous versions, due to the built-in firewall and most services being disabled by default.

Message Queuing - significantly improved since Windows 2000

Manage Your Server - a role management administrative tool that allows an administrator to choose what functionality the server should provide.

All of this sounds like POV and Microsoft evangelizing. "significantly improved since Windows 2000" doesn't sound informative at all. Of course they improved it, they had years to do it. But WHAT precisely was improved?

And increased default security means nothing. It's definitely not a notable feature. Unless Microsoft admits that their 2003 is to be used by complete newbies, default security settings are meaningless as they are always overridden by more advanced users. And disabling services doesn't count as a security setting. If the services themselves have security holes, they should be patched, not turned off (with a notice: turn them on at your own risk).

Again: this seems like POV.

The above comment seems POV too. But yes, I agree needs criticisms otherwise we'll all feel like buying it! 86.143.234.64 23:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maximum how many users does 2k3 std,ent,data center supports

Maximum how many users does 2k3 std,ent,data center supports

Practically speaking, there's no limits on any edition if you're using a Windows Server domain. -/- Warren 12:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

To say something useful: you can buy a multi-million dollar zSeries mainframe from IBM which will handle 15.000 concurrent users with Lotus Notes/Domino easily. Good luck running more than 1.000 Exchange users on any Windows Server capable iron, it is said even the biggest 32-CPU Unisys ES7000 + Windows2000 does not scale much better, due to architectural faults of the basic Windows / Exchange design. 195.70.32.136 18:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New features List - Windows Server 2003 R2

States "Server Virtualization A new licensing policy allows up to 4 virtual instances "

This is only the case in Microsoft ® Windows Server™ 2003 R2, Enterprise Edition not Microsoft ® Windows Server™ 2003 R2, Standard Edition.

Does Windows Server 2003 with SP2 provide the same functionality as Windows Server 2003 R2 (maybe also with SP2)? I haven't found a clear explanation of this in the article.QuestPC 15:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

SP2 includes updates to R2 programs, but if an installation does not have R2, SP2 will not upgrade it to R2. --soum (0_o) 17:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Someone should add a section about criticism, like in many other articles in Wikipedia. It is not only important to know how it works, but also what problems and flaws it has. For example, what about the complexity problem: Making it avaliable with an integrated GUI will probably make it lose performance. What about the language it is written in? It will be much faster than Linux and other operating systems if written in assembler. What about the market impact of this operating system (and the reactions in the press and the GNU Community). If it is not fixed soon, i'll try to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.0.206.161 (talk • contribs)

Sure, we would really appreciate that. But things like "Making it avaliable with an integrated GUI will probably make it lose performance" and "It will be much faster than Linux and other operating systems if written in assembler" cannot be written until you can attribute it to some reputed source to back yourself up. You cannot claim anything by yourself in Wikipedia. --soum^সৌমোyasch 15:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it's written in assembly because it's available on more than one architecture.--12.165.52.130 21:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to log in.--CCFreak2K 21:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Parts of kernel, especially the lowest level parts that interact with the processor, schedulers in which performance is of greatest concern and bootstrapping code are generally written in assembly. For any OS, in general. At least, inline assembly is used extravagantly. However, that doesn't mean we can add it for Windows, since no verifiable source is saying this.--soum^সৌমোyasch 09:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Web Edition Error?

Quote: "In general, all variants of Windows Server 2003 have the ability to share files and printers, act as an application server, and host message queues, provide email services, authenticate users, act as an X.509 certificate server, provide LDAP directory services, serve streaming media, and to perform other server-oriented functions."

I might be wrong here, so feel free to correct me, but without Terminal Services, Web Edition can't act as an application server.

[edit] Service Pack 2

Why was the service pack 2 released edit removed? Its not in beta/RC anymore, its released.

[edit] Supported Hardware

Just noticed that it was said that the 64-bit Datacentre Edition of Server 2003 supports up to 512GB of RAM, however this MS link suggests that it supports 2TB of RAM.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-au/windowsserver/bb430827.aspx Scroll right down to the bottom.

I haven't checked the other figures yet - but I'll let someone else double-check this and make the edit.

Ryan R (M_3628905) 20:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] infobox screenshot

the screenshot of Windows Server 2003 in the infobox doesn't really illustrate Windows Server 2003. It could be Windows XP with themes turned off for all we know. If someone with Windows Server 2003 can take a new screenshot with some more illustrative windows open like Active Directory or even the about box, I think it will be better. Da rulz07 08:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots with windows open clutter the screenshot, and are not preferred as such. Btw, the screenshot iluustrates Vista. The first item in Start menu is "Manage your server". That is a Server 2003-specific feature. --soum ^talk 08:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Windows Server 2003 as Workstation

I've undone the changes by Josh the Nerd since modifying Windows Server 2003 is common enough to warrant a notice. If anybody disagrees please let me know. Perhaps common modifications of Windows Server 2003 should be put in an independent section? Dylansmrjones 01:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Features are not up to date

Page shall be updated according to updated max RAM, max # processor, etc. cf. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsserver/evaluate/features/compare.mspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.144.229 (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Important clarification to add: Processor vs Core Microsoft definitions

Page shall contain the exact definition of what a processor is, microsoftly speaking. Indeed, this concept is quite blur if we refer to the numerous pages from different Microsoft web sites.

For instance, at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsserver/evaluate/features/compare.mspx, we can find: Windows 2003 Server Standard x64 R2 (64 bits): - 4-way symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) support

Other example for the same Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard x64 Edition at http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/x64/standard.mspx - memory-bound applications that do not require more than four processors. - supports up to 32 GB of RAM on 1- to 4-way servers. - Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard x64 Edition supports up to four CPUs on one server)

If we refer to Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetric_multiprocessing, multiprocessor architecture or multicore processor are both SMP architecture. Thus, by speaking sometimes about 4 processors support, sometimes about 4-way SMP support, Microsoft confuses us all. Coming to a Quadri 4-cores based server (16 SMP), this leads to go from a Standard edition (4 processors support) to a DataCenter edition (4x4=16 SMP support), thus raising the license price as for no less than +700%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.144.229 (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] String Bean Software

I removed the line about Microsoft's acquisition of String Bean Software in the opening section as I'm not sure this is specifically relevant to the Server 2003 article, and almost positive that even if it is, the initial few paragraphs are not the place for this little nugget.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable on the relevance of SBS's SAN technology to 2K3 can re-edit appropriately?

Juux (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is not particularly relevant, especially in the first paragraph. It can possibly go in one of the sections. [1] — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 10 Versions or 4?

According to http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb429524.aspx, there are 10 different versions of Windows Server 2003, each with a different maximum RAM and CPUs that it can use. Shouldn't this page be updated to reflect those versions? 71.137.151.250 (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)