Which OS would you choose to use for your business NOW

[Rockhound]

Hi all,

I'd like to know if you were to pick an OS at this point in time which would you choose to run your corporation's servers, on NT 4.0 or Windows 2000/03 Server? This is just a question/poll to find out your opinions on the subject, not a flame or Windows vs. Linux vs. Other. Simply, if you had to choose between the two which would it be at the current time.

I was told that NT 4.0 is more stable and reliable than W2K and that an NT server will run for months and months at a time whereas a W2k Server system will need to be restarted or will crash much sooner. Now, I have my own opinion and technology has certainly progressed enormously the last few years, but some people will STILL prefer something that essentially became obsolete 5 years ago.

I'm sure this subject has been beaten to death all over the place, but I just wanted to hear some of your professional opinions and maybe reasons as to why you would choose one over the other. This is all hypothetical of course.

Thanks

 

[Kadarin]

If it were between those choices, I would probably choose Win2K or Win2K3 and make some use of AD.

 

[spyordie007]

Is there really a choice? Without a doubt 2003 server is the way to go (assuming you have a choice). You do realize that NT 4 server is almost a decade old right?

With the exception of one box running vendor software all of my windows servers are either 2000 or 2003.

-Erik

 

[daveshel]

NT4 is dangerous these days. Not easy to keep up to date.

 

[stash]

I was told that NT 4.0 is more stable and reliable than W2K and that an NT server will run for months and months at a time whereas a W2k Server system will need to be restarted or will crash much sooner.

This is backwards.

Additionally, support for NT server is essentially over and will be totally gone by Jan 1st 2005.

2000 will have mainstream support until June 30, 2005 and extended support until June 30, 2010.

2003 will have mainstream support until June 30, 2008 and extended support until June 30, 2013.

Look at the this webpage for the differences in mainstream and extended support.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh%3Ben-us%3Blifecycle&LN=EN-US&x=20&y=10

 

[LiLithTecH]

The only time Win2k Server crashes (and to some extent Win2k3) is when MS
releases their patches\updates\service packs.

WinNT Server 4 SP6 is not nearly as stable as Win2k Server SP3.

What type of Server do you want to run (App, File, etc..)?

 

[Zelmo3]

I don't know anything about it myself, but while speaking to a local Linux users' group John Terpstra, one of Samba'a developers, said he was very impressed with Windows 2003 Server. According to him, it was a major step up from 2000 Server, citing very good functionality and unparalleled ease/speed of deployment making it possibly the best thing out there.

 

[pitupepito2000]

What about Debian Linux or Fedora Linux? I know is not part of the choices, but it would be a great alternative. A lot of the things that you can do with Windows you can do with Linux? You just have to be willing to spend time learning how to do things

 

[mikecel79]

Does this even need to be debated. Windows 200x is leaps and bounds better than NT. I can't think of a single area where NT is better than 200x.

 

[kfranc9]

Personally, it depends on what type of server I'm deploying. If it was for resource management (users, groups, permissions, deployment, etc)...I would go for Server 2003. Samba on Linux can actually function as a domain controller. In Windows 200x and above, all domain controllers are primary...but I would only allow my Windows DC to do the master roles (schema master, etc).

In a smaller network I'd let a linux box do my DHCP & DNS, but Active Directory has integrated these features in depth. At the least, I'd let my linux box be my backup DHCP/DNS.

File Servers - Linux
Mail Servers - depends on app
Web Server - Linux

 

[gsellis]

What a choice. Let's see, I could buy W2K3 Server or buy NT and pay MS premium rates for fixes and have know that MS will quit making fixes at any price next year. Hmmm... hard choice, not.

 

[Bozo]

Windows Server 2003 hands down!
NT Server is a real dinasoar. And now it won't run on any of the newer hardware. Intel has not posted drivers for any of their chipsets in about two years. It doesn't do very well with DDR memory either.
Whowever told you that NT server was stable never administered one. They usually require monthly reboots just to release memory.

Bozo

 

[spyordie007]

Whowever told you that NT server was stable never administered one. They usually require monthly reboots just to release memory.

Or at least never been good at administrating one...

2000 can be made to be more stable than NT 4; it just requires that it is setup and maintained properly. And BTW I'm not sure why you're suggesting that they require monthly reboots, I've never had a regular reboot interval for my NT 4 servers. Generally services are doing their job if they use as much available RAM as possible (if you've got it than use it); it's only a problem when they take the RAM and they arent using it.

Besides, even if NT 4 were more stable than 2K (which it isnt) I would still rather have a secure and slightly less stable server than an insecure and unsupported one.

-Erik

 

[oniq]

Neither. FreeBSD for server.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: oniq
Neither. FreeBSD for server.

That wasnt an option; dont crap on people's threads.

 

[rbrandon]

Originally posted by: oniq
Neither. FreeBSD for server.

Yea, THAT is an unbiased opinion

 

[kfranc9]

Hi all, I'd like to know if you were to pick an OS at this point in time which would you choose to run your corporation's servers, on NT 4.0 or Windows 2000/03 Server? This is just a question/poll to find out your opinions on the subject, not a flame or Windows vs. Linux vs. Other. Simply, if you had to choose between the two which would it be at the current time. Thanks

Maybe you should read the original post spyordie...Why freebsd oniq?

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: kfranc9

Hi all, I'd like to know if you were to pick an OS at this point in time which would you choose to run your corporation's servers, on NT 4.0 or Windows 2000/03 Server? This is just a question/poll to find out your opinions on the subject, not a flame or Windows vs. Linux vs. Other. Simply, if you had to choose between the two which would it be at the current time. Thanks

Maybe you should read the original post spyordie...Why freebsd oniq?

Huh? Looks like spyordie got it right.

 

[oniq]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

Originally posted by: oniq
Neither. FreeBSD for server.

That wasnt an option; dont crap on people's threads.

Since when is stating my opinion crapping on people's threads?

 

[Armitage]

NOTA

 

[oniq]

Anyway, asshats aside, they've just "upgraded" our server for our register system at work. Before it was running *nix, powered by a 150mhz or so processor. We never had any issues with the server going down, crashing, or having our registers freeze. We've been upgraded beyond belief in the hardware department, P4 I believe, and they also changed over to Windows 2000 Server. This thing has crashed a dozen times at least in the past month and a half. We have to shutdown the server, thus making the registers useless and losing money.

 

[stash]

Reposting for those who have selective reading abilities...

This is just a question/poll to find out your opinions on the subject, not a flame or Windows vs. Linux vs. Other. Simply, if you had to choose between the two which would it be at the current time.

 

[n0cmonkey]

2k3 if those were my only choices. I'm using it at home. It's ok, but I don't do a whole lot of things that XP or 2k pro wouldn't be better.

 

[kfranc9]

Yea...well...it was a stupid thread to begin with. Its like asking to choose between dos and Windows 2000. Btw...oniq...thanx 4 the opinion...i may jus look into freebsd on my network.

 

[Sunner]

I'd go with Win2K, but mostly because I know it good enough.
I've used Win2K3 for like 1 hour total, so I have no strong opinion for or against it.