ms server 2003 vs. 2008.

atomiser · 19 Dec 2008 at 19:34

hi there,

i'm looking to try and start some discussion regarding the use of different versions of windows server. how many people are still using 2003? how quickly is 2008 being adopted? how long is 2003 likely to be around for? in terms of vendor certification, is it possible/worthwhile to still pursue mcsa/mcse in 2003? is there then an upgrade path for the 2008 certification?

how about other types of server, for example - exchange? same questions as above really - how many people are still using 2003, is 2007 widely adopted, certification options etc?

really want to get as many opinions as possible on this. i know some people will save dive straight in with 2008 as its the latest thing...but then im thinking along the lines of employment - surely only places starting from ground up would only have solely 2008 infrastructure, so there is likely to be a requirement for 2003 knowledge/experience too - this is the main reason why im interested in still pursuing 2003 as the 'foundation' and then just upgrading any certs to the 2008 variant.

in terms of setting up lab environments to dick around with...2003 i pretty much have covered - got access to trial copies of the software and have a pretty decent vmware box to play with. not sure how i am going to get on with 2008 though - is this available in both 32 and 64 bit flavour, or is it solely 64 bit now? (hope it's not the latter since i dont think my cpu supports the virtualisation instruction set, so vmware wont support 64 bit guests? anyone confirm?)

would really like to start some good positive discussion here, and would be more than happy to take input from this thread and perhaps even make up a sticky thread for others who are thinking along the lines of experience/certifications and not really quite sure where to start.

go!

m4cc45 · 19 Dec 2008 at 19:38

Well, depending on circumstances, we will be looking at 2008 next year. Most companies want it SP2 before they will touch it (no idea why - I guess they think the technology is more mature then).

The main reason for moving would be Exchange 2007 - sure you can implement it in a 2003 domain (we did this originally when it was first out and you weren't able to manage the accounts via AD you had to use exchange for it). I don't know whether this has changed (probably update the AD schema for it) but that's the main reason.

We also want to look at Softgrid (application virtualisation) and then vista on the desktops.

As I said depends on the financial markets and many other things.

There is a x32 and x64 bit though I wouldn't bother with x32 now - mainly due to the amount of ram we put into them.

M.

oddjob62 · 20 Dec 2008 at 02:42

We've started using 2008, just for the geo-clustering for Exchange 2007.

Ev0 · 20 Dec 2008 at 23:37

2003 will be around for a while longer, remember a lot of companies won't upgrade for the sake of it. Unless there's a reason or a benefit for them doing it they won't bother until they have to!

m4cc45 said:
The main reason for moving would be Exchange 2007 - sure you can implement it in a 2003 domain (we did this originally when it was first out and you weren't able to manage the accounts via AD you had to use exchange for it). I don't know whether this has changed (probably update the AD schema for it) but that's the main reason.

When I was on an Exchange 2007 course earlier in the year the chap was saying this is how it is from now on, account management is back to being handled in exchange and/or powershell.

mjd · 20 Dec 2008 at 23:58

I built my first 2008 server up a few weeks ago as a TS gateway.
All good so far, though I cant see a significant uptake for a while yet.

Ev0 · 21 Dec 2008 at 00:00

mjd said:
I built my first 2008 server up a few weeks ago as a TS gateway.
All good so far, though I cant see a significant uptake for a while yet.

We're planning on giving this a go, the TS stuff in 2008 is supposed to be pretty good.

paradigm · 21 Dec 2008 at 10:32

Ev0 said:
When I was on an Exchange 2007 course earlier in the year the chap was saying this is how it is from now on, account management is back to being handled in exchange and/or powershell.

Does this mean that the User is now a property of the mailbox (ala Exchange 5.5), or is it still an Active Directory object, and thus mailbox = user?

oddjob62 · 21 Dec 2008 at 13:24

paradigm said:
Does this mean that the User is now a property of the mailbox (ala Exchange 5.5), or is it still an Active Directory object, and thus mailbox = user?

Mailboxes are still connected to a user like 2003, but the Exchange 2007 admin is not part of ADUC. You can create new users within the 2007 EMC, but when you install it you get no exchange tabs in ADUC like you did in 2003.

Ev0 · 21 Dec 2008 at 13:55

paradigm said:
Does this mean that the User is now a property of the mailbox (ala Exchange 5.5), or is it still an Active Directory object, and thus mailbox = user?

Oddly (if I understand it correctly, and I'm not an exchange bod by nature) no, it's still an ad object, just that to manage the exchange side of it you need to use Exchange/powershell.

BoomAM · 22 Dec 2008 at 16:00

Asuming that your not using some very poorly coded software that doesnt like 2k8, then its a no-brainer for me.
2k8 is miles better.
The extra GP options alone makes it worth it for me.

m4cc45 · 22 Dec 2008 at 17:08

Ev0 said:
When I was on an Exchange 2007 course earlier in the year the chap was saying this is how it is from now on, account management is back to being handled in exchange and/or powershell.

I'm sure 2008 AD has the ability to make the mailboxes and integrates into Exchange (like 2003). I'll give it a whirl in the new year in a VM environment and see whats happening"

ethos · 22 Dec 2008 at 18:24

Interesting you bring this up actually. We are moving location next year and I was thinking about the benefits of moving from 2003 to 2008.

Ideally we'd like to have some redunancy built in for Exchange which I hear is a lot easier with 2007

I've got a few months to look into it. Might try and find a paper / article on it now actually...

Ev0 · 22 Dec 2008 at 23:50

m4cc45 said:
I'm sure 2008 AD has the ability to make the mailboxes and integrates into Exchange (like 2003). I'll give it a whirl in the new year in a VM environment and see whats happening"

Could well be the case, not played with them both together to see

BoomAM · 23 Dec 2008 at 14:31

Unless im misreading what you all mean, i dont recall seeing anything about 'making mailboxes' for Exch2k7 in Server2k8...

ThomP · 25 Dec 2008 at 10:48

We're moving to windows server 2008 in the new year.

s0ck · 25 Dec 2008 at 21:27

Is anyone else 'totally not arsed' with 2008? Perhaps I'm getting old.

datsunman · 26 Dec 2008 at 10:18

s0ck said:
Is anyone else 'totally not arsed' with 2008? Perhaps I'm getting old.

Unless it's in the 'required' specs then I'm not rushing to do it, have too much else on to worry about introducing another O/S.

I might be getting old too.

I've run up a test server and it just seems too complicated for what you're trying to achieve. Too many 'extra' bits that seem unnecessary IMHO. (As a for instance you seem to be able to setup the Windows Firewall from two different places, but the settings in each are different..)

BoomAM · 26 Dec 2008 at 11:08

If your doing a new install (as in entire network from scratch), then you'd be daft not too imo.
Lots little features that all together make admin stuff easyier.

But on an existing network, unless you were gonna replace all your DCs at the same time, its a little pointless. As half the features wouldnt work, and admin would be a little difficult, as the GPOs are vastly different.