Windows Server 2003 vs. Windows Server 2008

Windows Server 2003 vs. Windows Server 2008 — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:40:37 GMT

Pingback from Windows Server 2003 vs. Windows Server 2008

re: Windows Server 2003 vs. Windows Server 2008

Waethorn — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:59:27 GMT

Also, I'd like to point out that the new Windows Essential Server Solutions (SBS and WEBS) also have high system requirements, making migration the most likely path where upgrades are infeasible.

re: Windows Server 2003 vs. Windows Server 2008

Waethorn — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:19:40 GMT

Really? No comments yet?

Not even a pingback!

Anyway, here's my take on Server 2003 vs. 2008:

You can do a lot with 03, and certainly much of the platform functionality has been backported or just not updated in 08 (WDS, WSUS, Sharepoint 3, Microsoft Deployment, Exchange 2007, etc.) but 08 just has a much slicker interface, and several of those components integrate nicely into the new management console. It's a hard sell to get someone to upgrade at the present time if most of their workstation fleet is XP, but purchasers of new hardware shouldn't get 2003 anymore. Overall, it's easier to deploy, manage, and maintain 2008. Hyper-V is one of the most unique features (even though it's not RTM - YET!), and I can see a lot of merit to it.

That said, I can see this as some people see Vista: It's not something that many people will upgrade on current hardware - they'll likely just get it on new OEM hardware and reap the benefits that way.

When Vista becomes very mainstream in the corporate world (the way XP is now), Server 08 will also become the norm.