Windows 2000 versus Windows 2003

[Conundrum]

I've been hearing a lot of conflicting stories from different people on this topic. So I figured I'd throw this out there in the forums to see what everyone here has to say. I know there's a HUGE difference between NT and 2000. I've experienced it by working with both operating systems. I've never had the opportunity to play around with 2003 though, so I thought I'd see if anyone could simply list some of the ways that they're different and/or similar. What advantages you would have by using 2003 versus 2000 etc etc..

 

[MrChad]

IIS 6 is about 8 billion times better than IIS 5, for starters.

 

[stash]

2003 improves upon 2000 in just about everything. There's no major changes between the two, just a huge amount of improvements to things like Active Directory, IIS, certificate services, etc, etc.

Basically Microsoft knew what they wanted to do with 2000, but there is only so much you can do before you need to ship. So 2003 contains a lot of the things that didn't quite make it or get enough work in 2000. And Longhorn will do the same over 2003, etc.

 

[RebateMonger]

I much prefer working with Server 2003 over Server 2000. Little things like the network icons in the System Tray, allowing me to quickly see the NIC properties and to change them. Also, Server 2003 has been REALLY reliable for me. Server 2000 tends to have more reliability problems.

Finally, I'm biased, but every recent Server 2000 I've run into seems to have problems:
1) The OS has been pirated (no need for Activation in Server 2000).
2) The person who did the pirate install didn't know what he/she was doing, and misconfigured the Server. Some things, like improper DNS naming, are near-IMPOSSIBLE to fix beyond re-installing the whole Server. I see that stuff a LOT on recently installed (past two years) Server 2000 Domains.

I've got a large medical practice client where the morons who did the initial Domain install (done two years ago, and, doubtless, stealing the OS) mis-spelled the owner's name. So, every time the owner logs into the Domain, she see's her name spelled wrong. That's plain idiotic!

 

[greylica]

Yeah, there area so much improvements, but the security scheme sometimes annoyed me when I worked with 2003R2 over 2000. 2003R2 refuses VPN when you don have already registered the domain, 2000 mounts the VPN by IP normally, the stack of the IP tables when you use more than a one NIC to internal traffic prefetches only one net nic, and the others do not respond to a ping refusing to respond. 2000 doesn't have this problem. It was solved putting a Gigabit Hub and only one net nic to internal net. It has stopped the problem, but the registering of the domain here in Brazil cost a lot compared to US. We Killed the VPN where 2003 is installed and we start to use another solution.
I really don'tknow if there is a problem with misconfigs with the VPN, but it has happened.
Another major problem that I've found on XP/2003 is the annoyance to be obligated to use the name of the machine instead of the IP Adress to wipe out the message to the users. ( Do you want to run the software from X.X.X.X ? ), the mapping to the name of the machine solves the problem, but if the IPtables or ARP entries is not givem, a broadcast is sent to all of the entire subnet to convert the names into IP address. I found it much more simple when 2000 + 2000 = map via IP and no bother, and no initial broadcast.
But when compared to 2000, 2003 R2 is a lot more secure under heavy attacks, there was a time when a hacker tried to log spuffing the IIS for 12 days and did not surpasses the IIS security. When we where on 2000, the system wasn't hacked, but stops to respond. 2003 R2 write a log of the mislogon and continues OK.

 

[Conundrum]

Thanks for all the input guys. It sounds like working with either OS would prove to have very little variation. That's good to know.