Whats the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows server 2003
Diff: Windows 2000 Vs Windows server 2003
There are lots of differences - too many to list even.
2003 has an XP-like interface. Windows Server 2003 Enterprise changes clustering a bit by having the software installed by default. With Windows 2000 Advanced Server, you had to install Windows Clustering.
2003 is supposed to be more secure than 2000.
2003 manages resources better than 2000.
The list goes on and on. Check www.microsoft.com/windows for more differences.
2003 has an XP-like interface. Windows Server 2003 Enterprise changes clustering a bit by having the software installed by default. With Windows 2000 Advanced Server, you had to install Windows Clustering.
2003 is supposed to be more secure than 2000.
2003 manages resources better than 2000.
The list goes on and on. Check www.microsoft.com/windows for more differences.
I hear that there's many exploded security hole on windows 2000 server 
. and there's no terminal services on windows 2000 server also.
at least compared to windows 2003 server, the price is more cheap than windows 2003 server hehe
. and there's no terminal services on windows 2000 server also.
at least compared to windows 2003 server, the price is more cheap than windows 2003 server hehe
2003 server is more security than 2000 server
----
----
Windows 2000 and Windows 2003 both have Terminal Services. TS must be installed for Windows 2000. If you want to use TS just for remote administration, you select the appropriate option when prompted. Under Windows 2003, you do not need to install TS for remote administration. Instead you enable remote administration by right-clicking on My Computer and going to the Remote tab.
windows server software is very very expensive! it's more than 2000$ for 25 clients or so, mac osx server you can buy for 999$ with the possibility to add unlimited clients, what would you choose:p
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 is costlier than Microsoft Windows Server 2000....
and Microsoft Windows Server 2000 is out dated.... :p
and Microsoft Windows Server 2000 is out dated.... :p
| Philip wrote: |
| I hear that there's many exploded security hole on windows 2000 server . and there's no terminal services on windows 2000 server also.
at least compared to windows 2003 server, the price is more cheap than windows 2003 server hehe |
That's funny because Microsoft's servers are run by Windows 2000.
he asked about 2000 and 2003 server
windows 2000 is client
Windows 2003 server is a server
in server we can DNS, Active directory, DHCP, etc..
difference between 2000 server and 2000 advanced server is..
in 2000 server we can use up to 4 processor in 2000 advanced server we can use up to 8 processor and 2 way clustering...
windows 2000 is client
Windows 2003 server is a server
in server we can DNS, Active directory, DHCP, etc..
difference between 2000 server and 2000 advanced server is..
in 2000 server we can use up to 4 processor in 2000 advanced server we can use up to 8 processor and 2 way clustering...
Basicly, 2003 server is much much more linux-like.
Expecialy in the security and stability areas; they do some copycating of unix file permissions and kernel (, which gives it better stability: if 2003 gets a bsod, it's almost certainly a hardware failure).
Don't get me wrong; it is still very much a windows OS, but hardcore linux-users would find less to complain about in it.
Expecialy in the security and stability areas; they do some copycating of unix file permissions and kernel (, which gives it better stability: if 2003 gets a bsod, it's almost certainly a hardware failure).
Don't get me wrong; it is still very much a windows OS, but hardcore linux-users would find less to complain about in it.
 |