server 20003 standard edition

[sonoma1993]

why would microsoft put 133mhz and 128mb of ram for minimum requirements for server 2003. By the time you setup active directory, dns and whatever else you need to run on the server. The system will be thrashing the whole time. very to little no response. You would think microsoft would at least recommend for minumum requirements a 733mhz processor and at least 512mb of ram.

 

[stash]

ok...?

The system requirements state that a 550MHz or faster CPU and 256MB or more of RAM is recommended.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/sysreqs/default.mspx#EJG

 

[GhettoFob]

It's probably not a good idea to put Active Directory, DNS, etc...on a system that barely meets the minimum requirements....

 

[kobymu]

minimum != recommend

 

[Brazen]

133 mhz and 128 mb ram would probably be tolerable for a low access file server, or just a dns server, or just a dhcp server.

 

[TC10284]

Agreed with Brazen. AD would be pretty much for a system with the minimum requirements. Also agree with kobymu =)

 

[spyordie007]

Also keep in mind the minimum requirements are for the OS, not for the services that run on top of it.

 

[Madwand1]

The lesson is again that you shouldn't read too much into minimum system requirements specs. You'd have to be an idiot in most cases to use that as a guideline for building your system. I wouldn't run a 133 MHz "file server". It's 2006. Even consumer NAS boxes come with up to 600 MHz Celeron-M's running GbE.

 

[Brazen]

I'm setting up a new domain for a client. I just called Dell and asked for a 133 Mhz computer with 128mb EDO ram. What?

 

[Brazen]

also

Originally posted by: Madwand1
I wouldn't run a Windows "file server". It's 2006. Even consumer NAS boxes come with linux.

fixed

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: Brazen
also

Originally posted by: Madwand1
I wouldn't run a Windows "file server". It's 2006. Even consumer NAS boxes come with linux.

fixed

There are good reasons to run Windows for a file server; how about advanced NTFS permissions and Volume Shadow Copy?

Yes there are plenty of good linux options out there, but what works in your house or a small business doesnt always translate for everyone else.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
Yes there are plenty of good linux options out there, but what works in your house or a small business doesnt always translate for everyone else.

Incorrect. For the Linux bigot, esp. in the OS forum, the answer is always "Linux", regardless of the question or the truth.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: spyordie007
Yes there are plenty of good linux options out there, but what works in your house or a small business doesnt always translate for everyone else.

Incorrect. For the Linux bigot, esp. in the OS forum, the answer is always "Linux", regardless of the question or the truth.

darn right. And I'm the biggest linux bigot there is. You can do advanced NTFS permissions and Volume Shadow Copy with a Samba file server. You can even have a recycle bin, and have files scanned for viruses, etc.

Really though, I was just making fun. No need to get all testicles over it. I even run a Windows file server at work (granted it will be replaced with a Samba server when I get time). And it's true that most NAS boxen run on linux, so who is the bigot irregardless of truth?

 

[stash]

so who is the bigot irregardless of truth?

A bigot in need of an english book, methinks.

 

[spyordie007]

Wot? an engrish book aint not needed when usin AT fourums!

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: stash

so who is the bigot irregardless of truth?

A bigot in need of an english book, methinks.

Indeed. Try looking it up first next time. :laugh::laugh:

 

[stash]

lol, seriously?

http://www.answers.com/topic/irregardless

ir·re·gard·less (ir'i-gärd'lis)
adv. Nonstandard.
Regardless.

[Probably blend of IRRESPECTIVE and REGARDLESS.]

USAGE NOTE Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir? prefix and ?less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: stash
lol, seriously?

http://www.answers.com/topic/irregardless

ir·re·gard·less (ir'i-gärd'lis)
adv. Nonstandard.
Regardless.

[Probably blend of IRRESPECTIVE and REGARDLESS.]

USAGE NOTE Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir? prefix and ?less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

Um, thanks? Here's another one showing it is indeed a word and it does indeed get used. Call me anal, I just prefer Merriam-Webster over answers.com:

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictiona...ourceid=Mozilla-search&va=irregardless

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[stash]

Uh ok. It also basically says you will sound like an idiot if you use it.

Writing and speech in the US has already degenerated enough, we don't need words like irregardless becoming accepted.

People judge you by the way you speak and write.

 

[spyordie007]

Use regardless instead.

Seems straight forward enough

People judge you by the way you speak and write.

True, just look at our current Commander-in-Chief (sorry, couldnt resist).

 

[Brazen]

I'm sure Noah Webster used the word "boxen," too. There are plenty of other perversions of the language used in forums and such (mostly for the sake of having fun with it), do we have to nitpick about actual words now?

 

[stash]

do we have to nitpick about actual words now?

yep.