Our shop is thinking about using a central server system. Only has 15 PCs connected, but we need 2-3 domains and different accessability for each user.

even though 2008 just came out, there were RCs that many people used. Could anyone recommend either 2008 or 2003 for my situation? Little bit of diggin got me some very good reviews for 2008 and recommendation over 2003, but I'd like to hear real users' feedback

Tia!

2008 brings a lot of features to the table that 2003 lacks, if you need them. If you plan these to be around quite awhile, and want to expand, 2008 is probably better long-term, but getting some training (in either) is always preferred. There's nothing wrong with a 2003 installation, but since you're going to have to forgo using SBS (it only supports one domain), I'd say you couldn't do wrong choosing either.

win2k8 RTM just cam out, betas and RCs are not to be compared with win2k3, even though MS for the first time ever, encouraged users to use win2k8 RC in their production environment. anyway, go for win2k8 license, and you still have right to use win2k3 and below should yuou decide that win2k8 is no good ATM.

DEFINITELY 2008. According to MS, they've been running Microsoft.com on 2008 servers since Beta 3. It's rock-stable, and super-fast. Plus, Hyper-V is awesome!

I just installed my first production 2008 (x64) system yesterday and so far the results have been overwhelmingly positive.

Don't forget to factor in $$$...I haven't seen any numbers on 2008, but I would imagine that 2003 is going to be cheaper.

Otherwise go with the latest and the greatest, it'll pay off in the long run since your new skills will be relevant longer. On the flipside, other than some graphical changes administering a 2003 box is about the same as administering a 2008 box...unless it's a core server, then things are a little tricker since there isn't a standard GUI.

Pricing should be the same, retail-wise. Perhaps a few dollars different (due to hyper-v), but pretty much the same.



Just because administering it the same doesn't mean it's not worth the upgrade. SMB 2.0, better clustering, a better IP stack, more secure code, a better firewall, and for x64 machines hyper-v hardware partition virtualization are all just the beginning. How about DFS for sysvol? Read-Only domain controllers?

Oh I'm with ya on that...guess I just worded it incorrectly. My intent was to point out that if you get trained in 2003 a lot of it will still apply to 2008, other than some things being in different places and some new tools to administer. So if he was hesitant to learn 2003 only to 'relearn' 2008 I was just trying to help him understand the two are very similar in that respect. It's Friday and my brain is scrambled so even that might not make as much sense as I think it does

lol

This sounds like a very complex setup for such a small environment, did you really mean 2-3 domains?
I would be very surprised if you needed more than 1 domain and security groups to allocate permissions.

Given that W2K8 does everything W2K3 does, only more and better, I'd go with W2K8

I just installed 2008 Enterprise x86 in a VM and It seems to be very clean and straight. No nonsense and locked down fairly tight You have to specifically add the roles and features you want. The installation is fast, though I will say the base installation seems to be quite large. It clocked in at 6.91 GB before any additions!! I've been using 2003 for years and have loved it because of the stability. 2003 doesn't have the same eye candy as Vista and just sports the classic squared corners and gray backgrounds we all know and love.

If it were me, I'd go with 2008. The real decision will be whether to go x86 or 64-bit. If you've got the hardware, I think I'd go for the latter.

the reason it is so big is that all the binaries for the roles and services are installed on the machine, just not enabled or configured until you do it yourself. makes for a slightly larger install but is worth it in the long run when you have to find out how to get a CD into a server out in costa rica

Slightly? lol! (a bit tongue in cheek, yes?) Seems Vista also comes in around ~6GB, though I've seen a modded one at around 2GB. I'm not sure how they got away with cutting out the Winsxs folder.

I understand the reasoning for including all the binaries, however, it would be nice if they allowed you to decide to leave them in or not. Remember the days whenthere was a nice little feature in the Add/Remove applet to include windows components or not??? I kinda liked that.

I think the next machine I build will have to have an additional hard disk specifically for all the MS caches!!! lol When they first came out with the hidden MSOCache, you used to be able to decide where it went or if you wanted it at all. Now they just stick it on C:\ whether you want it there or not. Because I want to keep my images down to a minimum, I like to keep it over on D:\. Sigh.

keeping image size to a mininmum is always nice, but i like have all my features and roles on the box, saves me the hassle of trying to figure out which server in the 48 racks we have has the server that Needs the windows 2003 cd so i can add a new feature

Did Hyper-V ship with this release? I thought Hyper-V wasn't going to be in the initial release, but would be released "within 180 days of RTM"?

It shipped on the DVD for x64, but it's still "beta".

Nice...that information was just posted on TechNet Edge. That's an awesome site, BTW.