• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What new OS for an NT 4.0 server?

kranky

kranky

Elite Member
Although our server is running fine, we're being pressured to upgrade from NT 4.0 because Microsoft no longer offers support. I haven't been supporting the server myself for a couple of years and I'm not current with migration issues.

We're trying to decide between Windows 2000 and Windows 2003 Server. I hate to go to a brand-new OS like 2003 Server without waiting for the first couple of service packs to squash serious bugs, but if we go with 2000 Server we'll just be facing the migration issue a lot sooner.

We don't do anything fancy except store files and manage accounts for about 50 people, so features are of little interest to me.

Any thoughts?
 
Originally posted by: kranky
Although our server is running fine, we're being pressured to upgrade from NT 4.0 because Microsoft no longer offers support. I haven't been supporting the server myself for a couple of years and I'm not current with migration issues.

We're trying to decide between Windows 2000 and Windows 2003 Server. I hate to go to a brand-new OS like 2003 Server without waiting for the first couple of service packs to squash serious bugs, but if we go with 2000 Server we'll just be facing the migration issue a lot sooner.

We don't do anything fancy except store files and manage accounts for about 50 people, so features are of little interest to me.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

2k3... after all you are upgrading because of support, so if you choose this brand new one, you will need the support you are paying for... 😀

If that is all you do with it, store files and manage accounts... then it's a damn shame you have to upgrade at all and especially to another MS OS...

I would still choose 2k3 though... for the same reason you mentioned, won't be long before support for 2000 is out the door...
 
I just attended a 2 day M$ 2k3 server migration seminar. 2003 server is nice, altho I wont go to it for another 6mos to a year either (same service pack thing I am waiting on).

They do have a nice, new AD migration tool u can use (even for 2k server) to help with the migration. I did it with VM ware yesterday during the seminar( nt 4 to 2003).
I am running nt 4 domain troo and wont make the jump until A) my company pays for it and a service pack or 2 comes out.

BTW M$ is still supporting NT 4 for a little while longer, they were supposed to drop it this month, but decided not too since 57% of their Server customers still run NT 4 servers (that is from M$ themselves).
 
I just attended a 2 day M$ 2k3 server migration seminar. 2003 server is nice, altho I wont go to it for another 6mos to a year either (same service pack thing I am waiting on).

They do have a nice, new AD migration tool u can use (even for 2k server) to help with the migration. I did it with VM ware yesterday during the seminar( nt 4 to 2003).
I am running nt 4 domain troo and wont make the jump until A) my company pays for it and a service pack or 2 comes out.

BTW M$ is still supporting NT 4 for a little while longer, they were supposed to drop it this month, but decided not too since 57% of their Server customers still run NT 4 servers (that is from M$ themselves).
 
Originally posted by: mboy
I just attended a 2 day M$ 2k3 server migration seminar. 2003 server is nice, altho I wont go to it for another 6mos to a year either (same service pack thing I am waiting on).

They do have a nice, new AD migration tool u can use (even for 2k server) to help with the migration. I did it with VM ware yesterday during the seminar( nt 4 to 2003).
I am running nt 4 domain troo and wont make the jump until A) my company pays for it and a service pack or 2 comes out.

BTW M$ is still supporting NT 4 for a little while longer, they were supposed to drop it this month, but decided not too since 57% of their Server customers still run NT 4 servers (that is from M$ themselves).
Click to expand...



This is where most system admins will go... Linux or *BSD... because a provider that tries to discontinue support because TOO MANY are using their OS are mad...

I can understand MS reasoning, screw the customers, lets make more money...

You can stick with MS and spend more money on an inferior OS... or... you can go OSS...
 
Originally posted by: mboy
I just attended a 2 day M$ 2k3 server migration seminar. 2003 server is nice, altho I wont go to it for another 6mos to a year either (same service pack thing I am waiting on).

They do have a nice, new AD migration tool u can use (even for 2k server) to help with the migration. I did it with VM ware yesterday during the seminar( nt 4 to 2003).
I am running nt 4 domain troo and wont make the jump until A) my company pays for it and a service pack or 2 comes out.

BTW M$ is still supporting NT 4 for a little while longer, they were supposed to drop it this month, but decided not too since 57% of their Server customers still run NT 4 servers (that is from M$ themselves).
Click to expand...
We are running a mixed OS enviroment with NT4 and 2k3 server for testing (since RC1). So far 2k3 has been working good for us. Load balancing and other strong improvements specially for the webserver does work better then NT4 or 2k! And also ofcourse security is much improved with 2k3. Just make sure that your current system is compatible for 2k3 (if you got old software you might have to upgrade some of them. CHECK FIRST!). If it stands between 2k or 2k3 then I say go with 2k3.

 
Well, if it's really just files and accounts, you could set up a Linux Samba PDC and save yourself a couple buckets of money. But if you need Windows-only features or politics demand MS, I'd go with 2003 - for simple services, I doubt you'll run into any major bugs, and that puts the next upgrade further in the future.
 
Originally posted by: HarryAngel
Originally posted by: mboy
I just attended a 2 day M$ 2k3 server migration seminar. 2003 server is nice, altho I wont go to it for another 6mos to a year either (same service pack thing I am waiting on).

They do have a nice, new AD migration tool u can use (even for 2k server) to help with the migration. I did it with VM ware yesterday during the seminar( nt 4 to 2003).
I am running nt 4 domain troo and wont make the jump until A) my company pays for it and a service pack or 2 comes out.

BTW M$ is still supporting NT 4 for a little while longer, they were supposed to drop it this month, but decided not too since 57% of their Server customers still run NT 4 servers (that is from M$ themselves).
Click to expand...
We are running a mixed OS enviroment with NT4 and 2k3 server for testing (since RC1). So far 2k3 has been working good for us. Load balancing and other strong improvements specially for the webserver does work better then NT4 or 2k! And also ofcourse security is much improved with 2k3. Just make sure that your current system is compatible for 2k3 (if you got old software you might have to upgrade some of them. CHECK FIRST!). If it stands between 2k or 2k3 then I say go with 2k3.
Click to expand...

but this guy does NOT NEED the improvements of 2k3, you think a fileserver and account server is gonna run faster on a simple job of 50 users? nah, the improvement can probably not be measured and if it can it will go with NT4 being a lot faster...

This is just MS trying to impose their new os onto old customers that are perfectly happy with the old os... this is just MS trying to make more money...

If you could choose... oh boy, i would help you set up that BSD or Linux server for free... just to put a cap in MS's mouth to stop them from screaming upgrade...

Bottom line, your system will be slower whatever you choose, but still, you should choose 2k3 just because it will put off the support ending...
 
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: HarryAngel
Originally posted by: mboy
I just attended a 2 day M$ 2k3 server migration seminar. 2003 server is nice, altho I wont go to it for another 6mos to a year either (same service pack thing I am waiting on).

They do have a nice, new AD migration tool u can use (even for 2k server) to help with the migration. I did it with VM ware yesterday during the seminar( nt 4 to 2003).
I am running nt 4 domain troo and wont make the jump until A) my company pays for it and a service pack or 2 comes out.

BTW M$ is still supporting NT 4 for a little while longer, they were supposed to drop it this month, but decided not too since 57% of their Server customers still run NT 4 servers (that is from M$ themselves).
Click to expand...
We are running a mixed OS enviroment with NT4 and 2k3 server for testing (since RC1). So far 2k3 has been working good for us. Load balancing and other strong improvements specially for the webserver does work better then NT4 or 2k! And also ofcourse security is much improved with 2k3. Just make sure that your current system is compatible for 2k3 (if you got old software you might have to upgrade some of them. CHECK FIRST!). If it stands between 2k or 2k3 then I say go with 2k3.
Click to expand...

but this guy does NOT NEED the improvements of 2k3, you think a fileserver and account server is gonna run faster on a simple job of 50 users? nah, the improvement can probably not be measured and if it can it will go with NT4 being a lot faster...

This is just MS trying to impose their new os onto old customers that are perfectly happy with the old os... this is just MS trying to make more money...

If you could choose... oh boy, i would help you set up that BSD or Linux server for free... just to put a cap in MS's mouth to stop them from screaming upgrade...

Bottom line, your system will be slower whatever you choose, but still, you should choose 2k3 just because it will put off the support ending...
Click to expand...
You have to look at the big picture here. Weigh in all the variables (security, speed, updates, future support, more clients etc..) It's Always nice to know that you improved features under the hood 😉 Does NOT NEED is like someone saying "who is going to need a faster computer?" argument. 😉

[Swedish]Du missade bodybuilding-kosttilskott tråden i offtopic. Hadde varit kul att höra från dig eftersom du har tävlat![/Swedish]

 
It's Always nice to know that you improved features under the hood Does NOT NEED is like someone saying "who is going to need a faster computer?" argument.
Click to expand...

Not if the features don't apply to you and you're paying out the ass for them. And for a fileserver you don't need a faster computer, 99% of the time the bottleneck is either the network or the disk systems.
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
It's Always nice to know that you improved features under the hood Does NOT NEED is like someone saying "who is going to need a faster computer?" argument.
Click to expand...

Not if the features don't apply to you and you're paying out the ass for them. And for a fileserver you don't need a faster computer, 99% of the time the bottleneck is either the network or the disk systems.
Click to expand...
Sure I agree, BUT in this case, as i understand it, quote from originall poster "We're trying to decide between Windows 2000 and Windows 2003 Server. I hate to go to a brand-new OS like 2003 Server without waiting for the first couple of service packs to squash serious bugs, but if we go with 2000 Server we'll just be facing the migration issue a lot sooner." the choice has to be made between 2k3 and 2k so i don't think that it would be a bad Idé to go to 2k3 directly for reasons already mentionend. Ofcourse if the choices was any type of server or soulution, then there are other solutions that could suit the bill easily, but then again we don't know if they plan to extend the fileserver duties to other stuff in there windows enviroment?
 
Thanks for the insightful replies. Good guys in this forum. Indeed, our choice is between 2000 and 2003.

We have a couple of CAD applications that run on the server so we are stuck with a Windows OS. Believe me, I'd use Linux/Samba in a heartbeat because we had a Unix system for years (running PC-NFS for file sharing with Windows clients) before going to NT 4 when the CAD vendor dropped support for Unix. I think I still have some email archives that came from elm. I still prefer a command-line driven OS but it's not going to happen.

We have a domain separate from the "corporate" domain (still running NT4 also) with a one-way trust established where we trust their domain users. Anyone know if there would be any problems if we upgraded our server first?

It's encouraging to hear that 2003 is running well in beta and there are some migration tools to help. Maybe I'll scrounge a PC to use as a small server for testing/eval of 2003 so we can play around a little.
 
Originally posted by: HarryAngel
Originally posted by: SnapIT
Originally posted by: HarryAngel
Originally posted by: mboy
I just attended a 2 day M$ 2k3 server migration seminar. 2003 server is nice, altho I wont go to it for another 6mos to a year either (same service pack thing I am waiting on).

They do have a nice, new AD migration tool u can use (even for 2k server) to help with the migration. I did it with VM ware yesterday during the seminar( nt 4 to 2003).
I am running nt 4 domain troo and wont make the jump until A) my company pays for it and a service pack or 2 comes out.

BTW M$ is still supporting NT 4 for a little while longer, they were supposed to drop it this month, but decided not too since 57% of their Server customers still run NT 4 servers (that is from M$ themselves).
Click to expand...
We are running a mixed OS enviroment with NT4 and 2k3 server for testing (since RC1). So far 2k3 has been working good for us. Load balancing and other strong improvements specially for the webserver does work better then NT4 or 2k! And also ofcourse security is much improved with 2k3. Just make sure that your current system is compatible for 2k3 (if you got old software you might have to upgrade some of them. CHECK FIRST!). If it stands between 2k or 2k3 then I say go with 2k3.
Click to expand...

but this guy does NOT NEED the improvements of 2k3, you think a fileserver and account server is gonna run faster on a simple job of 50 users? nah, the improvement can probably not be measured and if it can it will go with NT4 being a lot faster...

This is just MS trying to impose their new os onto old customers that are perfectly happy with the old os... this is just MS trying to make more money...

If you could choose... oh boy, i would help you set up that BSD or Linux server for free... just to put a cap in MS's mouth to stop them from screaming upgrade...

Bottom line, your system will be slower whatever you choose, but still, you should choose 2k3 just because it will put off the support ending...
Click to expand...
You have to look at the big picture here. Weigh in all the variables (security, speed, updates, future support, more clients etc..) It's Always nice to know that you improved features under the hood 😉 Does NOT NEED is like someone saying "who is going to need a faster computer?" argument. 😉

[Swedish]Du missade bodybuilding-kosttilskott tråden i offtopic. Hadde varit kul att höra från dig eftersom du har tävlat![/Swedish]
Click to expand...

Yeah well, this guy needs no new features as he is doing nothing with the server that he could not do before, if anything, the new services open up for new security holes... in this case, his server is secure and in order, MS are forcing him to upgrade anywah...

I'm not saying that NOBODY will use the new functions, but this guy clearly will not... and that is my point...

He is FORCED to pay for something he does not need or want...

Och jag antar att det var tråden angånede proteintillskott? isåfall har jag svarat, on det inte var den så vore det kul om du kunde länka mig till den... tack... 🙂

 
I can understand MS reasoning, screw the customers, lets make more money...
Click to expand...
No, it is because the NT4 Support Cost is running too high for Microsoft now.
For every programmers that microsoft wasted on NT4 service pack, is a programmer not being use
to create the Window 2000/XP service pack. While I detest Microsoft's licensing policy, I do believe that
NT4 is getting too old to support. By the way, just How old is NT4 anyways?

Window 2000 is vastly superior to NT4, still on the fences about XP-Pro.
From what I read, Window 2003 is like a Window 2000 with all the Service Packed Install and ready to go.
There are several Linux sites who evaluate W2K3 and were actually impressed by it.
I say check out the Window 2003, and use its "NT4 Virtural Server" application to extend the life of your NT4 server.

Just a reminder, if you still hate Microsoft. Please Give Linux a TRY! - don't forget NOVELL!
 
Yeah, Windows NT 4 is getting REALLY old. It first came out back in 1996, back when OS/2 was still popular and most people didn't even know what Linux was. Hell, the CD came with IE 2 as an installation option, for pete's sake!

Nobody should really be all that angry at Microsoft for canceling support for what is a patheticly outdated product. Both Mac OS 7.5 and RedHat 2.x became unsupported years ago, even though they were also released around the same time.
 
Nobody should really be all that angry at Microsoft for canceling support for what is a patheticly outdated product. Both Mac OS 7.5 and RedHat 2.x became unsupported years ago, even though they were also released around the same time.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for MacOS but migrating from an earlier release of Linux to a newer one is a lot less hassle than going from NT 4 to Win2K, especially the migration from NT 4 domains to Win2K AD (i.e. flat schema directory).
 
I'd say stick with NT4 until you have a real reason to upgrade.... you only sharing files and authenticating users... your not running IIS or any other nasty app, I dont see why you should upgrade at all.

neither do 57% of MS's customers apparently ;-)
 
Do some research into your current licensing. You may have to purchase new CAL's if you go to 2003 which could make this a very expensive upgrade. As far as in general whether you should do it or not, I would look at how many times you have had to contact MS for support in the past. The operation you have seems about as small as they get. Worst case scenario you could probably wipe the box and restore shared files from backup in < 1 business day. I say if it's not broke, don't fix it.
 
As far as in general whether you should do it or not, I would look at how many times you have had to contact MS for support in the past.
Click to expand...

Support doesn't just mean calling for help, it means software updates. IE 6.5 (or 7 or whatever the next revision is) probably won't work on Win9X or NT 4, I wouldn't be surprised if it only works on XP and up, and sadly lots of apps use IE components so depending on what all is on that box a new IE may be required which won't be possible. I have no idea what CAD system he's using, but he may run into a situation where an update of that software is required and that update requires something newer than NT 4, I'd personally hate to be in that situation 6, 9, 12 months down the road. It would be better to do a well thought out, planned upgrade now with downtime scheduled way in advance, than to have to do a rush job in the middle of the night later.
 
If it ain't broken, don't fix it . 🙂

Save some money and prepare for a 64bit os..

Regards,
Jose
 
Does it realy matter w2k or w2k3? From what I seen they are pretty much the same OS.

I'd personally go with w2k, just because MS has shown a history of releasing pretty much beta OS's and waiting for a few months for customers to find all the bugs for them and releasing service packs.

It just depends on how long you are going to stick with this partiticular server, If you plan on holding on to it for a as long as you held onto the NT server, I'd make the leap to w2k3 just to save money on the future thousand dollar "upgrade" when MS decides it needs more money and inflicts rising service charges/dropping support for w2k in order to force their customers to buy a new OS. It would then be worth suffering thru the first few teething problems of a MS OS. W2k3 IMO is mostly just to get people to get out of NT, and that's it. Most people are willing to stay with older computer, unless they are made to feel that it is completely obsolete. They don't want customers to be left behind and think about using a Unix-type OS, when they decide to put their .NET stuff into full gear. Which would entail high speed internet connections and realying on MS owned and operated databases, and getting rid of traditional file and folders stuff. To much of a leap for NT'ers. (correct me if I am wrong)


Anyways, don't toss out that old NT server unless you have to. Install linux on it and SAMBA and use it as a backup server incase you have problems with the new hardware or OS. Then you have a nice little computer to fool around with. Anyways you might find something usefull to do with it, like making a little intranet website for posting information, or a e-mail server or whatnot. Of course if it is a older computer, stick with debian or something like that, because new Redhat or whatever "mainstream" OS's are as hard on hardware as XP is in a lot of ways. (unless of course you choose to forgo the X windows GUI... webmin is a nice app that can replace that function easily, then you don't have to waste a monitor or deskspace for that old computer.) ...just a thought
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
As far as in general whether you should do it or not, I would look at how many times you have had to contact MS for support in the past.
Click to expand...

Support doesn't just mean calling for help, it means software updates. IE 6.5 (or 7 or whatever the next revision is) probably won't work on Win9X or NT 4, I wouldn't be surprised if it only works on XP and up, and sadly lots of apps use IE components so depending on what all is on that box a new IE may be required which won't be possible. I have no idea what CAD system he's using, but he may run into a situation where an update of that software is required and that update requires something newer than NT 4, I'd personally hate to be in that situation 6, 9, 12 months down the road. It would be better to do a well thought out, planned upgrade now with downtime scheduled way in advance, than to have to do a rush job in the middle of the night later.
Click to expand...

Point taken about support not just meaning phone support, but it certainly appears that his current situation is providing all the functionality he needs and upgrading an OS to gain unneeded features (like later versions of IE/IIS/etc) doesn't seem logical. If he had the need to run IIS6 or needed RRAS or was planning on migrating to AD I can see the benefit, but his end users won't notice the difference the benefit to the admins is present but not worth the cost IMHO (in time and dollars).

And this is coming from a technojunkie who always has to have the latest and greatest of everything just because. People shouldn't fall into the M$ game of upgrading just because your software has last years date on it. Why do you think they went with the date naming convention?
 
Originally posted by: SoulAssassin
Originally posted by: Nothinman
As far as in general whether you should do it or not, I would look at how many times you have had to contact MS for support in the past.
Click to expand...

Support doesn't just mean calling for help, it means software updates. IE 6.5 (or 7 or whatever the next revision is) probably won't work on Win9X or NT 4, I wouldn't be surprised if it only works on XP and up, and sadly lots of apps use IE components so depending on what all is on that box a new IE may be required which won't be possible. I have no idea what CAD system he's using, but he may run into a situation where an update of that software is required and that update requires something newer than NT 4, I'd personally hate to be in that situation 6, 9, 12 months down the road. It would be better to do a well thought out, planned upgrade now with downtime scheduled way in advance, than to have to do a rush job in the middle of the night later.
Click to expand...

Point taken about support not just meaning phone support, but it certainly appears that his current situation is providing all the functionality he needs and upgrading an OS to gain unneeded features (like later versions of IE/IIS/etc) doesn't seem logical. If he had the need to run IIS6 or needed RRAS or was planning on migrating to AD I can see the benefit, but his end users won't notice the difference the benefit to the admins is present but not worth the cost IMHO (in time and dollars).

And this is coming from a technojunkie who always has to have the latest and greatest of everything just because. People shouldn't fall into the M$ game of upgrading just because your software has last years date on it. Why do you think they went with the date naming convention?
Click to expand...

Except his softwre is dated 1996 😉
 
Ya'll missed his post about running some kind of CAD tools on it too. The CAD vendor already dropped Unix support, so when whill they drop NT or 2k support? I'd do the 2k3 upgrade (with a new dual xeon box of course) and run with it.

This may be an option: Put 2k3 on the new box for the CAD stuff and wipe the old box and make it a *nix fileserver. 😉 Best of both worlds! Your CAD users will get much better response, and so will you file clients. Everybody happy! Plus you git a *nix box to play with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top