Windows 2003 or Windows 2008 based on server specs & nee

[ST Dragon]

Hello,
I have a network of 13 workstation clients (WinXP SP-2 PRO) and a server with the following specs:
Intel Pentium 4 640 (Prescott Hyper-Threading) 3.2GHZ FSB800MHZ 2MB L2 Cache (Not multi-core CPU!!)
DDR 2GB 400MHZ Dual Channel (PC3200 200MHZ)
300GB HD
ATI Radeon X330/X550/X1050

I want to setup a Domain and so I have to choose from the following two operating systems to install in this server:
Windows 2003 Standard R2 DSP License
Windows 2008 Standard Sngl OLP NL GOVT (Government License)

From my previous experiences, I know that Windows 2003 will work perfectly on the above setup:

Windows 2003 Requirements
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/wind ... 30827.aspx

But the Windows 2008 government license is far better than the Windows 2003 DSP which can only be used for one PC/Server. (It gets tied to the motherboard & CPU, where as government license can be carried to the next server in case I buy a new one in the future)

I checked the Windows 2008 system requirements and it should work fine on my server:
Windows 2008 Requirements
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows ... 96364.aspx

But I know that these requirements by Microsoft are never accurate and since I have never actually seen it in action I can’t judge how well it would work on my specific server. (My CPU is not Multi-core)
The services I’m interested in installing are: Active Directory / Domain Controller (With 13 Domain users), DNS service, DHCP service (The Server will give Internet to the Domain PCs via the DSL/Router) & File Sharing service. (Possibly even setting up a VPN tunnel via the DSL / Router in the future to connect to another workgroup via the Internet)

So based on my setup and needs, how well would I expect Windows 2008 Standard to work on my server? I would rather avoid upgrading the hardware at the moment, but I don’t want a slow/jerky server & Domain either!
Should I get Windows 2003 Standard R2 instead?

Any suggestions will be highly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.

[Ed Oscuro]

Recently I read about MinWin, which is at the heart of Windows 7 - which, if things go as planned, will be to Windows what OSX (or was that 8 and 9 as well?) was to Mac operating systems.

Anyway, this is relevant to your case because MinWin is a name used for an idea in Server 2008 - unneeded functionality was stripped out (though not all dependencies) and so the OS image is "only" 1.5 GB or so, which compares pretty favorably to Vista (4 GB) and even XP (something like 3 GB on a fully-patched newly installed system).

Lately I had been thinking about getting an updated system, but between my hesitancy to go for one of the less power-hungry quad core CPUs, the generally unbalanced market situation for CPUs (AMD still shitty, Intel still stuck with horrible FSB performance and all the 1600 MHz FSB CPUs being horribly expensive), uncertainty about the GPU situation (AMD/ATI seems to be the clear winner there, but...), general hatred of Vista's approximately ten thousand variants (there are easy charts to look at features, and it seems you need the expensive Ultimate to get the ability to easily change language settings), I was being cautious.

Then I read that Windows 7 is coming in 2009. I think I can hold out!

At the moment, prices on hard drives and ESPECIALLY on memory are doing well - memory prices have fallen dramatically lately, and I think that a year from now we'll have better stuff for not much more.

To summarize:

Solid - PSU, case, GPU, memory, hard drive
Flaky - Windows OSes, high performance CPUs

There also is talk about motherboard manufacturers building higher-performance GPUs into all their boards for economies of scale, and many buyers should soon be able to take advantage of native Crossfire or SLI if they don't mind buying a lower-spec GPU to put in tandem with the one built in. Hopefully there's some thought going into extended multi-GPU capaibility so that people who buy a better GPU don't have to shut down that second one entirely...maybe use it as a form of PhysX or whatever that processing-only nVidia card is called.

Anyway, back on topic - I think you'll find that Server 2008 will be the better choice, if you can find it for a decent price, and if there is enough documentation on it. The reduced footprint of the installation doesn't mean so much for hard drive space (especially on a server) but it should help troubleshooting.

[gabe]

Anyway, back on topic - I think you'll find that Server 2008 will be the better choice, if you can find it for a decent price, and if there is enough documentation on it. The reduced footprint of the installation doesn't mean so much for hard drive space (especially on a server) but it should help troubleshooting.

Agreed.

Furthermore, I can't in my right mind see "upgrading" to a 5 year old OS in a production environment. From what I gather, your budget is somewhat thin... This would lead me to believe that you probably have a long life expectancy for both your hardware, and software. Save yourself some headache further down the road. Go with the newer OS. It should run fine on your hardware.

[trivial]

For no good reason, let's compare this to a new NT4 server from 2002.

It was rock-solid and terribly fast on a dual PIII mobo, notwithstanding its Dell branding.

I never had the slightest luck getting NT4 Workstation stable on one of my home machines. Fast, yes. But my home installation of Server 2003 x64 has been very stable.

[Stormwatch]

A random toss here... how about Linux instead? Or BSD, or any other free system?

[ST Dragon]

I can't install Linux Server because we have a database shared on the server that is only compatible with Windows O/S...


By the way, is Panda Antivirus for business compatible with Windows 2008 server?
It is stated in their home site that it’s compatible with Windows 2003 but what about Windows 2008?
http://www.pandasecurity.com/enterprise ... /business/

Thanks in advance.

[gabe]

By the way, is Panda Antivirus for business compatible with Windows 2008 server?
It is stated in their home site that it’s compatible with Windows 2003 but what about Windows 2008?
http://www.pandasecurity.com/enterprise ... /business/

Thanks in advance.

If you can't find the answer on Panda's site, I would contact someone at Panda directly.

[ST Dragon]

I checked this Windows 2008 Server Hardware Compatibility list:
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmac/archive/2 ... 8-x64.aspx
http://www.windowsservercatalog.com/res ... 25&ready=0

How ever, my Server mother board: “ABIT AG8 Motherboard”
I can't even find it in the compatibility list?!

I checked the ABIT Driver site and there are no Windows 2008 Server drivers available by ABIT!
http://www.abit.com.tw/page/en/download ... YPE=LGA775

Does this mean that it will not work at all with Windows 2008 Server?
Will the current Windows 2003 Server drivers work with Windows 2008 Server?

[ST Dragon]

I used the: "Microsoft Assessment and Planning Solution tool" on the Server.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/deta ... laylang=en

The results showed that all my current Server devices (Including the M/B Intel 915 chipset) are compatible with Windows 2008 Server. It says: "No action required. Driver is available on the Windows Server 2008 DVD" for all the devices.

It also recommends installing Windows 2008 based on my current setup and system requirements.

So, is this accurate?

Thanks in advance.

[gabe]

So, is this accurate?

I would be perfectly comfortable proceeding with the install if I were you.

[Warp_Rattler]

Can you run Vista on the target hardware?

If so, you can run Server 2008, as they're--in a very sweeping generalization--essentially the same Windows, only one's loaded with every possible piece of crap the end user might need on their system, and one's a lean piece of optimized software built with stability in mind.

Also, I would make the conjecture that should you run into a driver problem on Server 2008, you could just substitute a Vista driver in lieu of a Server 2008 specific one. I don't have Server 2008 so I can't verify this and could just be talking out my ass, but the laptop I'm typing on has Server 2003 installed (thanks, Microsoft academic programs!) and I've found that an XP driver works flawlessly where a Server 2003 specific one doesn't exist. Obviously, I wouldn't try it if you've got any data you couldn't stand to lose or client computers which depend on the server, but if you've got time to fiddle around before making the commitment (it's pretty sweet that Microsoft provides trial editions of both OSes) it might be worth looking into.

I wouldn't, however, try a Server 2003 driver for Server 2008, as they are built on different versions of the Windows NT kernel.