Microsoft has released the first beta of Windows Server 2003 R2. “Windows Server 2003 R2 release candidate software is available to download for evaluation in both x64 and x86 versions. Windows Server 2003 R2 RC0 software cannot be installed on anything other than software versions of Windows Server 2003 with Service Pack 1.” More information can be found here.
Quote:
Scale and performance. All R2 editions are available as x64 versions. x64 enables you to easily run both 32-bit and 64-bit applications and make the gradual shift to 64-bit computing at your own pace while preserving current investments in 32-bit applications.
Quote End.
Since when has the x64 platform been introduced? x86_64 maybe, but x64!
Since when has the x64 platform been introduced? x86_64 maybe, but x64!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X64
Quite common knowledge by now.
Some of us like using x86_64 or amd64 for giving subtle credit to amd. Other than that, it really doesn’t matter how you call it.
Not quite common knowledge to all of us, I didn’t knew Microsoft called it that… maybe it’s common knowledge in MS land…
To me, it will always be AMD’s x86_64.
But this got to be off topic. What’s important is that Server 2003 R2 RC0 (reminds me of Star Wars droids!) is available in both platforms immediatelly.
This would be a huge win for AMD, nad Windows Server 2003 came out in… 2003. But Intel managed to sandbag the whole issue with Microsoft until they had their own x86-64 CPU. Isn’t anyone else annoyed by such stuff?
BTW, how can Microsoft release, with a straight face, Windows Server 2003, in 2005 (or 2006)?
They are not releasing Windows 2003 in 2005.
R2 is a pack of addon software, like AD-Federated Servics, NFS stuff, and whole bunch of things.
It’s not a re-release of 2003.
You are right. I thought it was a re-release in fact.
My mistake, even though they make it sound *really* like it was.
Being a Unix developer, I admit I have lost track of MS’ server offerings, in the last two years. Apparently, some interesting stuff is happening there.
1.) Don’t we have 2005 in the meantime?
2.) Who would still want to use Windows Server anyways? If you are a serious about running a server, e.g. for a larger company, use a Linux or UNIX platform.
If you are a serious about running a server, e.g. for a larger company, use a Linux or UNIX platform.
Your statements reeks of ignorance. Windows 2003 is a very stable and useful platform and is worlds better than 2000 Server.
There are so many blind fanboys on the internet today, it scares me that many could be bringing these biases into the IT world for real. There’s a place for everything, and if you walked into a real company with a massive multi-domain AD deployment and tried to convince them that rebuilding their network in Linux was somehow a top priority, they’d laugh in your face.
I use almost all Windows at work now (with Linux web servers) and we are investigating Linux for the FIVE YEAR plan. But for right now, things chug along almost perfectly on 2k3. The only push for the move is the licensing costs.
I don’t use windows for anything really (gentoo and bsd here) but your remark is spot on. We use 2k3 at work and though I would like to see more use of linux… 2k3 works very well.
Use W2k3 for a couple of weeks and then try FreeBSD 6.0. w2k3 is on par with what Unix vendors were offering 10 years ago, but it still needs to come a very very long way before it can be considered for use in production environments. But again, we’re talking about the proprietary Microseft corporation, makers of the worst piece of shit ever known to man: Windows 95.
Or are they going to charge their customers twice for the same product? You know, kinda like the way they screwed the customers who bought the original Windows 98 (and all of its bugs), then had to pay again for Windows 98 Second Edition (the fixed version of Windows 98).
Next thing you know, MS will make its customers pay for service packs.
Windows98 users could get SE for $20, and what you got extra software for it. Or you could get just the updates for free from Windows Update.
R2 is extra software to add-on to 2003. You are not paying for 2003 again. It is not bug fixes, or anything of that nature.
Windows is good as long as you don’t connect it to the net and use no media that haven’t been heavily scanned for viruses and such.I’m “afraid” Windows can’t make server operating systems who endure extensive public services and never has.
Windows is only strong as a gaming console,but can’t even hold that position once the real consoles aka PSP3 and their in-house X-box start shipping.I feel sorry for all those who are vendor locked or don’t have a clue.
“or don’t have a clue”. You mean yourself, right? Windows 2003 is a very competent server platform.
Shhh. You’ve let the cat out of the bag.
I think one of MS’s best advantages is the delusion of OSS advocates that OSS can offer the quality of software experience that Windows can.
Yeah, we’ve seen how “competent” Windows Server is and what quality of software experience it offers… Our company could have even lived with some downtime and crashing once in a while but a frequently hacked Windows Server that’s infested by multiple resilient viruses that spread to other machines on the LAN is not fun.
In the meantime we have Linux on all our servers and desktops which got rid of the multitude of Windows problems we’ve been experiencing back then. Especially for a new x64 machine Linux is THE way to go.
If your company is having such problems, perhaps they need to examine the competancy of the person/persons running in the IT department.
yes, especially the “competancy”. we have four professinal sysadmins on staff and none of them wants to get his hands dirty with Windows issues again. since we got new Linux machines their jobs became a whole lot easier.
Did they happen to make themselves redundant, and are now looking for new work
I don’t mean to flame, but I agree with CPUGuy. Only God knows how you get viruses on your Win2003 servers. We never had in almost 2 years.
Getting hacked? Are you sure your server admins are working hard ? Depending on which services you’re running, you could just need to turn automatic updates on and that could be *almost all* you need to do.
If you use more applications/services, you could be in need to secure them but it might not having to do nothing with Win2003 itself. We had to update our MySQL servers far way more times than we did with our MS SQL installations… just an example…
If you expose your applications over the Internet, are they secured ?
I have to say that Win2003 is a totally different product than Win2000 was. We’re more than happy with that.
Shhh. You’ve let the cat out of the bag.
I think one of MS’s best advantages is the delusion of OSS advocates that OSS can offer the quality of software experience that Windows can.
And I find it funny that the people on both sides of the arguement are dumb enough to think that either is better than the other. Each have their own uses, and each are better than the other at certain things. When will people from either side get this through their heads?
When will people from either side get this through their heads?
When they finally get girlfriends! :p
If you’re on the Linux/BSD/open-source side, why not spend time in developing something new? Start a project that addresses or help improve a defficiency you may see. Help out in some way.
If you’re on the MS side…Well, why don’t you just spend more money on MS products. Bill will be very happy that you help fund his anti open-source campaign. Heck, he’s worth $48 billion…Why not try and help him reach his goal of $60 Billion. I’m sure he’ll appreciate it. :p
Either way, do something f*ckin constructive!
(I’m learning Python. While I’m taking short breaks, glancing at various web articles, and waiting for my AMD64 setup to arrive).
Constant debates like this doesn’t do anything.
If you wanna make a difference, stop reading comments, and really contribute something.
Windows 2003 is a very stable and useful platform and is worlds better than 2000 Server.
Just like their buggy stack-guard (compiler /GS switch).I prefer (PAX,PIE/SPP,Openwall)+Grsecurity,SElinux at any given moment over GS compiled w2k3.
Windows might do well on the corporate intranet but lacks severe stability to serve enormous public service network infrastructures.Forgot the MS-update server problems where MS themselves temporarily migrated to Linux and BSD?Just like the executives of skoda who drive private a Mercedes or BMW.
They did’nt switch over to Linux and BSD. Oh wait, you are just a little fanboy lemming that only pays attention to half the story.
The DNS servers, which isn’t Microsoft’s, were switched to BSD (and not Linux, actually) for a short period of time to help handle a widespread attack against WU.
Pull your head out of your ass. This site has to be filled with some of the most ignorant bunch of zealots on the internet.
Actually, both DNS and media content (images, movies, etc) of Microsoft are handled by Akamai, that has a worldwide network of automatic mirrors… and yes, runs on *nix (linux on the cache and BSD on the DNS, I think).
Quoted: “This site has to be filled with some of the most ignorant bunch of zealots on the internet.”
Ever read Slashdot?
It’s not in my nature to loose my temper and call people names so i will not make an exeception.
The DNS servers, which isn’t Microsoft’s, were switched to BSD (and not Linux, actually) for a short period of time to help handle a widespread attack against WU.
If the server w2k3 is so stable and good why didn’t they use it instead of moving to BSD dns-servers?
Pull your head out of your ass. This site has to be filled with some of the most ignorant bunch of zealots on the internet.
Whatever, i think you have got to find a (real) job, instead of living on other peoples money and time.
If the server w2k3 is so stable and good why didn’t they use it instead of moving to BSD dns-servers?
Ummm, maybe because like CPUGuy said, the DNS servers weren’t Microsoft’s and were therefore out of Microsoft’s control…
That’s like saying General Motors makes crappy vehicles because some of their suppliers deliver their parts to them using vehicles made by someone else.
>That’s like saying General Motors makes…
No, that’s like saying “some company had to switch to BSD because Windows servers suck and were being exploited. And by the way, look at the irony: that company was providing a service for Microsoft.”
They had to move the handling off-site, simple as that. This was not from an exploit in 2003, it was for protection during a DOS attack against the WU servers. In order to keep WU running, they basically moved WU so that the attackers would be hitting an unused address.
That’s like saying General Motors makes crappy vehicles because some of their suppliers deliver their parts to them using vehicles made by someone else.
Ummm, maybe because like CPUGuy said, the DNS servers weren’t Microsoft’s and were therefore out of Microsoft’s control…
So there’s something MS can’t control
Serious
That’s like saying General Motors makes crappy vehicles because some of their suppliers deliver their parts to them using vehicles made by someone else.
Well back in time GM used a BMW diesel engine to power it’s vauxal/Opel omega.How good the engine may be it still doesn’t make the omega an BMW.A very good car nonetheles but i would prefer the whole deal.IBM had that comercial where a man deliberately dropped his laptop and claimed it couldn’t hurt the machine as long as he didn’t drop from higher as o.5 meter.Well i would prefer the whole deal:http://www.gobookiii.com/ (itronix gobook).
W2k3 is compiled with /GS switch (somewhat stack-guard),now this would have been better for XP or Vista,yet i prefer the whole deal (PAX,PIE/SPP,Grsecurity,SElinux,Openwall) to implement on my servers if i have to really secure things.F88ck the GUI.
I remember the company I used to work for had alot of problems with Windows Server in addition to all kinds of Windows specific problems such as security breaches, worms, etc.
In my opinion there are not many arguments why someone would still run Windows and Windows Server and spend alot of money for that instead of moving to a Linux system and having a choice of quality server software and a secure system.
Sounds like they had personnel, not Windows, problems to me.
We’re a Windows shop, and I’d agree that W2k3 seems much more polished and stable than W2000.
I have yet to see a W2k3 blue screen.
We looked at Linux for our DB server and found that the learning curve was way to steep.
Nix geeks may proclaim that ‘real men don’t use GUI’s’, but for the harried SysAdmin I don’t have time to read the man pages for various commands when I can just click on a few checkboxes in a GUI.