Is MS Server 2003 good or bad?
599028
Overall, it is a good product.  It's only drawbacks are pricing, and some security issues.\n\nIt is a high quality server product.  It's ease of use is it's greatest advantage over the other server products on the market.\n\nYou will find more resources to assist you with a MS 2003 Server, than any other server product on the planet.\n\nYou'll also find more applications written for a Windows Server than any other platform.\n\nNOTE:  The comment made by one previous answer about antivirus is false, it does not include any AV protection.  Also, the 2003 Server Backup software is weak.  I'd recommend getting a third part backup solution, like Symantec Backup Exec, or Arcserve from Computer Associates.
83690
Depends on what the server is going to do, to run, how much load, how many users, how much data and your budget.\n\nNo way to answer this otherwise. Contact an Intel Product Dealer, an MS Partner or maybe other businesses for references in your are.\n\nWith all due respect to skincarechick below you cannot blindly state that Dell makes great servers since if you take a look at Dell's "server" offerings they have a single HD, Celeron "SERVER" which would not qualify in anyone's book as a server other than Dell. Personally I've had good and bad servers from them. Each model and design is different so saying any one company makes great servers is far to broad of a claim.
65287
Hmmm not really... it depends on which applications you are gonna use with your computer, if you are gonna use it with newer applications then it may outweigh the benefits of it being a server computer. As the newer applications need more processing power. Which the new cheap pc's are available to do. But if you are going to use applications let say such as hosting for a simple dynamic website then it would still do the job. Also probably if it's a minor database... \n\nIt would be helpful if you know the specs too... that way you can know if it can handle the applications you bought it for
1066730
A good service provider who cares about the client should make sure the client DOESN'T have to upgrade under any circumstances.  This said, there are situations when the uprgade is required because some mission critical-piece of hardware or software that the client just acquired requires Windows XP.  However, in a situation like this (especialy it if involves expensive hadware) it may be better to replace the computer rather than to just upgrade the OS; for example, there may be issues with USB 2.0 support on older computers, and you won't even know you have them until you upgrade.  \n\nA related development is when the cilent needs the computer to perform some server functions (for example, serve ASP pages for the locat intranet).  Normally, this would require IIS, but IIS cannot be deployed on Windows 98.  In this case, however, there are alternatives; Windows 2000 Professional will do the job just fine, so there's no pressing need to run for XP.
660668
If you want a server to remain stable and have close to 24/356 uptime, you don't want a Windows server. If the Windows clients will be like dumb terminals, you might need to put some work into getting your clients to work with your non-Windows server, but for most purposes...\n\nLinux all the way.\n"Know-how" isn't even required if you use Fedora Core, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, or SUSE (among others), and their graphical server configuration tools.
96535
Active server pages.\n\nMicrosoft JIT compiler for server sider scripting\n\nhttp://www.google.com/search?btnI=I%27m+Feeling+Lucky&q=wiki+Microsoft+ASP
1134320
Not sure what info you are looking for, but Microsoft.com is a good starting place. Or for more info than you want to deal with, google "microsoft windows 2000 server". That should get you started.
415880
1. Added complexity (one more potential point of failure).\n2. Requires client to have JavaScript installed/enabled.\n3. Increased bandwidth useage. (This is more of a concern for your server than for you clients). \n4. The framework and tool support is still immature.
88460
For sure it's not highly recommended. As the past learns us, the first releases of new Windows OS are pretty faulty. Wait and see.
791238
DVD-RW: Good and pretty much standard \nCPU: 2 generations old and not the top of the line model of it's own generation either.\nLCD: Low resolution. So-So \nRAM: Minimum standard. 1 Gig is much better.\nHDD: Another standard. OK but not great.\nGraphic: BAD BAD BAD. You can't play serious games and it also slowes down the system by eating up memory (of which u have the minimum to begin with). However if u only browse, watch films, listen to music etc. it will be enough\nWireless: standard. \nOverall, a rather old system that will be good for basic tasks as I mentioned and general office productivity stuff. It will not be well suited for the upcoming Windows Vista. Price depends on brand and condition. If it is NEW and an average brand (hp, compaq, Dell, etc.) I'd say $500 sounds reasonable but I would not pay more than $300-400 for it personally.
617375
Go to the MS site and run an eval to see if your sysytem will work.\nSite also has instructions for the upgrade actions.
316290
Would you like that in Visio and/or Powerpoint?  How did you get a hold of a Windows 2003 server without knowing anything about DNS server configuration and simple networking technology. How many router do you have? Most importantly do you have licenses for all these goodies?
262076
windows xp professional with sp2 for small office or a home user for work use windows 2003 ... don't use xp media center or home edition it has problems ... windows 2000 pro is slower than xp
285949
this is the microsoft official source for improvement over various of features in windows 2003\nhttp://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/technologies/default.mspx
200217
Microsoft!!! No!!!\n\nthere are very cheap and relaible solutions in the market as compared to Microsoft here's what I am talking about\n\nMicrosoft Advance Server | Red Hat Linux 8\nMicrosoft IIS___________| Apache HTTP 2\nMicrosoft SQL Server____| MySQL\nMicrosoft ASP.NET_____| Java Server Faces\n\nand so on!\nbut one thing is for sure Microsoft is easy to use while the other technologies can provide with some trouble in installation.
761257
ok listen, a legal copy of windows 2000 server, is going to cost much more that a computer that is laying around... depending on the use that you want to give it at a server, you could even use windows xp pro and have a nice file server and configure it to be a web server... your limitations doing that from home are: windows xp pro (no home edition) can handle 5 clients at same time.\nwindows 2000 server or 2003 server, is going to cost you up to $1000 for the software.\nyou would have to have an internet connection with an static IP so it can resolve to http calls. This service is rather expensive... around 80-100 a month.\n\nto tell you the truth I would just use it for file server. Currently there are web hosting services that cost as little as 2.99 a month and includes a free domain name. so compare:\n\n$3 a month for a server already running a server class OS an already connected to an static IP.\n\nat least $500 for an OS that needs an expert to set it up, plus $80 for static IP. (no to mention the fact that you PC is just a pc that's laying around...)\n\nnow if you really need a aserver just to practice, start by using xp pro, it's very easy.
214579
If you want to download a 60-day free trial of MSP 2003, the link is below.\nThe other link is the general Project link.