Windows Server 2003 overtakes Solaris 9

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
The number of sites running Windows Server 2003 has overtaken Solaris 9, in spite of the fact that Windows Server 2003 does not launch until later on this month.

Solaris 9 launched in May 2002. However, Sun seems to take relaxed view about envangelisng new operating system versions; even www.sun.com is still running Solaris 8. www.microsoft.com is at the opposite end of the product advocacy spectrum and started running Windows 2003 last July.

That's pretty amazing. Good work Microsoft. Win2k3 is the best OS I've used yet.

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/04/13/windows_server_2003_overtakes_solaris_9.html

 

Saltin

Platinum Member
Jul 21, 2001
2,175
0
0
It's a server. You'd be better off using a desktop OS like XP for a home machine.
 

Mrburns2007

Platinum Member
Jun 14, 2001
2,595
0
0
Originally posted by: Saltin
It's a server. You'd be better off using a desktop OS like XP for a home machine.


I sorta disagree I found Server to be bit smoother then Windows XP, to bad there isn't a workstation edition.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
peopel are usually eager to test out betas.... i wouldn't pay too much attention to it.
Plus solaris is used on massttive multi-cpu systems where window can be loaded on yo grama's wallmart pc.
 

iamwiz82

Lifer
Jan 10, 2001
30,772
13
81
Originally posted by: halik
peopel are usually eager to test out betas.... i wouldn't pay too much attention to it.
Plus solaris is used on massttive multi-cpu systems where window can be loaded on yo grama's wallmart pc.

too bad solaris runs like crap on those massive multi-cpu/4GB RAM systems because its so badly coded.
 

m2kewl

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2001
8,263
0
0
i've ran the betas and it's good and solid.

but there's no reason to upgrade my servers from w2k to this, i'd just give more $$ for MS.
 

NogginBoink

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
5,322
0
0
Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
Originally posted by: Saltin
It's a server. You'd be better off using a desktop OS like XP for a home machine.


I sorta disagree I found Server to be bit smoother then Windows XP, to bad there isn't a workstation edition.

W2K3 Server is essentially XP Server. Same codebase.

You don't want to run it on your home systems. MSFT is starting to differentiate the server products from the workstation products and is cutting home-friendly features from the server products. For instance, by default, hardware video accelleration is not fully enabled on W2K3 server so your games won't run. (by default. it can be changed.)

I fully expect MSFT to continue this trend.
 

LikeLinus

Lifer
Jul 25, 2001
11,518
670
126
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Datacenter Edition
Maximum RAM: 512GB

:Q

- M4H

If you're running DATACENTER on anything less than a few gigs of ram, the problem is the moron behind the computer :)

I'm using Enterprise edition and I love it so far. My PowerEdge has yet to crash or bluescreen. Been perfectly stable.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
I have been running Win2K3 server for a while now and I like it much more then XP. Win2k3 seems to be less of a resource hog then XP.

Ausm
 

Ranger X

Lifer
Mar 18, 2000
11,218
1
0
Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
Originally posted by: Saltin
It's a server. You'd be better off using a desktop OS like XP for a home machine.


I sorta disagree I found Server to be bit smoother then Windows XP, to bad there isn't a workstation edition.
How is Windows Server 2003 smoother than XP? I don't see why anyone would want to run Win2k Server at home if he/she does not plan on using its features not available on WinXP.

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
I'm using Enterprise edition and I love it so far. My PowerEdge has yet to crash or bluescreen. Been perfectly stable.
What applications is your server running and what tasks is your server doing? The term 'stable' is relative, when it comes to computers.

One of the biggest change in Win2k3 Server is IIS6.0 (built from the ground up) so for those of you using IIS5.0, you may be pleasantly surprised.
 

LikeLinus

Lifer
Jul 25, 2001
11,518
670
126
Originally posted by: Ranger X
Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
Originally posted by: Saltin
It's a server. You'd be better off using a desktop OS like XP for a home machine.


I sorta disagree I found Server to be bit smoother then Windows XP, to bad there isn't a workstation edition.
How is Windows Server 2003 smoother than XP? I don't see why anyone would want to run Win2k Server at home if he/she does not plan on using its features not available on WinXP.

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
I'm using Enterprise edition and I love it so far. My PowerEdge has yet to crash or bluescreen. Been perfectly stable.
What applications is your server running and what tasks is your server doing? The term 'stable' is relative, when it comes to computers.

One of the biggest change in Win2k3 Server is IIS6.0 (built from the ground up) so for those of you using IIS5.0, you may be pleasantly surprised.

It's used mainly as ICS, File Server, it host my webpage and FTP, and my CS server. I had php and mysql on it before i moved from RC2 to ENT RTM, but I've gone with .asp since the rebuild. No problems so far.