The wait is over.
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition
Microsoft, microsoft.com/
|
 Consider 7.0 |
|
| criteria |
score |
| Ease-of-use |
8 |
 |
| Implementation |
6 |
|
| Innovation |
6 |
|
| Interoperability |
7 |
|
| Scalability |
8 |
|
| Security |
8 |
|
| Suitability |
7 |
|
| Support |
7 |
|
| Training |
7 |
|
| Value |
6 |
|
|
|
Business Case:
Windows Server 2003 is a solid performer that is a "must-have" for any shop relying on Microsoft products. The pricing structure
allows customers to buy exactly the size that fits their needs.
Technology Case:
Finally, there's a version of Windows for servers that comes in a secured default configuration and allows the granularity
of management that administrators of mainframes and Unix systems take for granted.
Cons:
- Domain controllers should be upgraded only where necessary
Cost:
Windows 2003 Server, Enterprise Edition (with 25 client licenses), $3,999; Standard Edition (with 10 client licenses), $1,199;
Web-server-only edition, $397
Platforms:
Intel-compatible 32/64-bit servers
Bottom Line:
Windows Server 2003 is a solid performer and a must-have for any shop relying on Microsoft products. Finally, there's a Windows
for servers that comes in a secured default configuration and provides the granularity of management that administrators of
Unix systems take for granted.
|
|
About our Reviews and Scoring Methodology
|
|
|
|
Microsoft is poised to release the long-anticipated -- and frequently renamed -- Windows Server 2003, almost a year and a half after the last beta version became available in November 2001. (See our previous reviews: "Whistler beta shows promise for a simpler Windows", "2002 Server impresses," "Microsoft casts server .Net, but will customers bite?" and "Serving up .Net") Our experiences with what we are assured is the gold code confirmed that this is indeed the best version of Windows to
come out of the gate. Improved performance, better management tools, and a rapidly maturing directory service give customers
something to look forward to when they take the plunge.
That does not mean, however, we advocate its immediate deployment in the enterprise; instead, we're going to stick with our
customary advice that customers hold off on using this latest iteration in production environments until they are able to
evaluate it with the first delivery of the inevitable bug fixes and slipstreamed enhancements, even if that means waiting
until the calendar reads 2004.
After all, it's one thing to roll out a new operating system for desktops, where compatibility issues may affect a certain
percentage of users without taking out the entire business. But given the central role of servers in any enterprise -- whether
its IT department uses exclusively Microsoft products on the one hand or if managers prefer a best-of-breed approach on the
other -- anything short of a thorough evaluation period with the final code is foolhardy, no matter what the experiences with
beta versions and release candidates may lead one to expect.
Deploy with care
Our own experience with the gold code for Windows 2003 Server was excellent. We tested it on new installations and upgrades,
in the roles of domain controller and application server, and ran into no serious problems. Even on hardware toward the bottom
end of the recommended range -- the suggested minimum being one 550MHz CPU and 256MB of RAM -- the software installs with
ease and performs well after setup completes -- seemingly better than Windows 2000 did on the same machine. Though shops performing
upgrades to current installations of Windows will find that the IIS (Internet Information Services) Web server is disabled
during the default installation, this feature can be changed by a simple registry tweak or modifying the script for an unattended
installation.
Windows Server 2003 is the first Windows server-oriented OS that installs in what we consider a locked-down configuration,
and deployment involves a less-dramatic architectural shift from its predecessor Windows 2000 than Windows 2000 did from Windows
NT 4. But it would be irresponsible for us to encourage a mass migration to the new Windows platform before Service Pack 1
is available, which we expect in late summer or early fall. As that would coincide with the end of many companies' fiscal
year, and the beginning of the Christmas rush for retailers and staff vacations, we expect that most companies choosing to
migrate to the new Windows will nevertheless defer that project until after the new year.
E-mail
Printer Friendly
Reprints
(InfoWorld) - In the litigious world we live in, deploying a unified communications platform in your enterprise could...
