Talk:Windows Server 2003

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This article is part of the WikiProject .NET.
This project primarily focuses on the improvement of Microsoft .NET related articles.


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.

Contents

[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.

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)

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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. --soumসৌমোyasch 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.--soumসৌমোyasch 09:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/n/Talk%7EWindows_Server_2003_3663.html"