Talk:Windows Server 2003

message: Sorry I was the first one to put up the table, now I see it's been removed and placed back again (with some more info). Where did I get this information? Well since Storage Server is an OEM only OS, it was from the tech at Dell. Because I searched the net for the info but I never found it. I have his email I guess I could give it to some one so you can directly ask?
I have also been searching around a little bit and the only place I have found is this one:
http://www.vpnshop.com/2006/04/know-your-editions-of-windows.html.
Don't know if this could be used?
The wanshop.com info states the Express Edition supports up to two disk drives. Some vendors are selling 1U rack-mount NAS devices with four drives and claim the supplied OS is the Express Edition. Perhaps the 'two disk drive' limit refers to the number of logical disks, not physical ?
This ambiguity could do with clearing up. I've emailed Microsoft for more info, I'll update if they respond.
Sircompo (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storage Server Editions 

message: The kernel and any differences from Windows 2000 aren't mentioned - I guess 2003 has GDI+ like XP, unlike GDI in 2000?. I encourage someone to add some info.
--Widefox 00:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kernel 

message: The following was commented out from the article by an anonymous editor, and perhaps should simply be removed, since Web Edition is mentioned further down, but  in case anyone disagrees, I will preserve it here:
:A workstation version of Windows Server 2003 was released called 'Windows Server 2003: Web Edition". This version is akin to Windows 2000 without XP's bulk. It is arguably better than Windows XP for the Internet, as it includes IIS, but capable replacements such as Apache are freely available for existing Windows XP users.
:Web server edition is most certainly not a workstation product. It is a low end version of WS2K3 designed to serve webpages
- IMSoP 15:12, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on WS2K3 web edition 

message: Why is this section on the Windows Server 2003 page rather than in the Windows 2000 Server Features section of the Windows 2000 page?
:Whatever it was, it was inaccurate. I've read the report, and it states that hardware and software procurement is the LEAST cost to a business. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows 2000 TCO 

message: I agree with the Variants edit. Not only is it better for non-English speakers, but it's more appropriate since we are talking about a business OS, as such Microsoft, and people talking about the Operating System is more likely ti use the word variants or version versus flavors, unless he was an Apple guy. ;) PPGMD
: Hmmm Apple guy, you say. Uhm... er...  :-) AlistairMcMillan 23:41, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variants vs Flavors 

message: The following section sounds a bit like POV:
Notable features
 
: Most versions of Windows Server include Terminal Services support (using the Remote Desktop Protocol), enabling multiple simultaneous remote graphical logins. This enables thin client computing on the windows platform, where all applications run remotely on the server. This feature was first introduced with a special "Terminal Server Edition" of Windows NT Server 4.0, but became more important when made a standard part of Windows 2000.
: Internet Information Services (IIS) v6.0 - again, versions of IIS were available on Windows 2000 and earlier, but IIS is improved significantly in Windows Server 2003.
: Active Directory - like Terminal Services, significantly improved since Windows 2000
: Increased default security over previous versions, due to the built-in firewall and most services being disabled by default.
: Message Queuing - significantly improved since Windows 2000
: Manage Your Server - a role management administrative tool that allows an administrator to choose what functionality the server should provide.
All of this sounds like POV and Microsoft evangelizing. "significantly improved since Windows 2000" doesn't sound informative at all. Of course they improved it, they had years to do it. But WHAT precisely was improved?
And increased default security means nothing. It's definitely not a notable feature. Unless Microsoft admits that their 2003 is to be used by complete newbies, default security settings are meaningless as they are always overridden by more advanced users. And disabling services doesn't count as a security setting. If the services themselves have security holes, they should be patched, not turned off (with a notice: turn them on at your own risk).
Again: this seems like POV.
The above comment seems POV too. But yes, I agree needs criticisms otherwise we'll all feel like buying it! 86.143.234.64 23:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: States
"Server Virtualization 
A new licensing policy allows up to 4 virtual instances "
This is only the case in Microsoft ® Windows Server™ 2003 R2, Enterprise Edition not Microsoft ® Windows Server™ 2003 R2, Standard Edition.
::Does Windows Server 2003 with SP2 provide the same functionality as Windows Server 2003 R2 (maybe also with SP2)? I haven't found a clear explanation of this in the article.QuestPC 15:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SP2 includes updates to R2 programs, but if an installation does not have R2, SP2 will not upgrade it to R2. --soum (0_o) 17:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New features List - Windows Server 2003 R2 

message: Someone should add a section about criticism, like in many other articles in Wikipedia. It is not only important to know how it works, but also what problems and flaws it has.
For example, what about the complexity problem: Making it avaliable with an integrated GUI will probably make it lose performance.
What about the language it is written in? It will be much faster than Linux and other operating systems if written in assembler.
What about the market impact of this operating system (and the reactions in the press and the GNU Community).
If it is not fixed soon, i'll try to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.0.206.161 (talk • contribs) 
:Sure, we would really appreciate that. But things like "Making it avaliable with an integrated GUI will probably make it lose performance" and "It will be much faster than Linux and other operating systems if written in assembler" cannot be written until you can attribute it to some reputed source to back yourself up. You cannot claim anything by yourself in Wikipedia. --soumসৌমোyasch 15:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it's written in assembly because it's available on more than one architecture.--12.165.52.130 21:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, forgot to log in.--CCFreak2K 21:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Parts of kernel, especially the lowest level parts that interact with the processor, schedulers in which performance is of greatest concern and bootstrapping code are generally written in assembly. For any OS, in general. At least, inline assembly is used extravagantly. However, that doesn't mean we can add it for Windows, since no verifiable source is saying this.--soumসৌমোyasch 09:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Quote: "In general, all variants of Windows Server 2003 have the ability to share files and printers, act as an application server, and host message queues, provide email services, authenticate users, act as an X.509 certificate server, provide LDAP directory services, serve streaming media, and to perform other server-oriented functions."
''
I might be wrong here, so feel free to correct me, but without Terminal Services, Web Edition can't act as an application server.''
You are wrong. Confusingly, in the industry, application server does not mean a server for applications. IIS is an application server because it is an integrated suite for running Dynamic Web Applications and services. So is something like Sun GlassFish. 
If you actually go into Manage Your Server on server 2003, and install the Application Server role, it will install IIS and ASP support. 
Windows Web Server Edition is principally an application server platform.
134.36.92.18 (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web Edition Error? 

message: Just noticed that it was said that the 64-bit Datacentre Edition of Server 2003 supports up to 512GB of RAM, however this MS link suggests that it supports 2TB of RAM.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-au/windowsserver/bb430827.aspx   Scroll right down to the bottom.
I haven't checked the other figures yet - but I'll let someone else double-check this and make the edit.
Ryan R (M_3628905) 20:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That reference is outdated. Be careful too that R2 of Windows Server 2003 is different and CAN support more RAM than the initial release.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supported Hardware 

message: the screenshot of Windows Server 2003 in the infobox doesn't really illustrate Windows Server 2003. It could be Windows XP with themes turned off for all we know. If someone with Windows Server 2003 can take a new screenshot with some more illustrative windows open like Active Directory or even the about box, I think it will be better. Da rulz07 08:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Screenshots with windows open clutter the screenshot, and are not preferred as such. Btw, the screenshot iluustrates Vista. The first item in Start menu is "Manage your server". That is a Server 2003-specific feature. --soum talk 08:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox screenshot 

message: I've undone the changes by Josh the Nerd since modifying Windows Server 2003 is common enough to warrant a notice.
If anybody disagrees please let me know. Perhaps common modifications of Windows Server 2003 should be put in an independent section? Dylansmrjones 01:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Server 2003 as Workstation 

message: Page shall be updated according to updated max RAM, max # processor, etc. cf. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsserver/evaluate/features/compare.mspx  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.144.229 (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Features are not up to date 

message: Page shall contain the exact definition of what a processor is, microsoftly speaking. Indeed, this concept is quite blur if we refer to the numerous pages from different Microsoft web sites.
For instance, at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsserver/evaluate/features/compare.mspx, we can find:
Windows 2003 Server Standard x64 R2 (64 bits):
- 4-way symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) support
Other example for the same Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard x64 Edition at http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/x64/standard.mspx
- memory-bound applications that do not require more than four processors.
- supports up to 32 GB of RAM on 1- to 4-way servers.
- Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard x64 Edition supports up to four CPUs on one server)
If we refer to Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetric_multiprocessing, multiprocessor architecture or multicore processor are both SMP architecture. Thus, by speaking sometimes about 4 processors support, sometimes about 4-way SMP support, Microsoft confuses us all.
Coming to a Quadri 4-cores based server (16 SMP), this leads to go from a Standard edition (4 processors support) to a DataCenter edition (4x4=16 SMP support), thus raising the license price as for no less than +700%.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.144.229 (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important clarification to add: Processor vs Core Microsoft definitions 

message: I removed the line about Microsoft's acquisition of String Bean Software in the opening section as I'm not sure this is specifically relevant to the Server 2003 article, and almost positive that even if it is, the initial few paragraphs are not the place for this little nugget.
Perhaps someone more knowledgeable on the relevance of SBS's SAN technology to 2K3 can re-edit appropriately?
Juux (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is not particularly relevant, especially in the first paragraph. It can possibly go in one of the sections.  — Wenli (reply here) 02:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  String Bean Software 

message: According to http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb429524.aspx, there are 10 different versions of Windows Server 2003, each with a different maximum RAM and CPUs that it can use. Shouldn't this page be updated to reflect those versions? 71.137.151.250 (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The technet page actually only lists five versions, all of which are discussed on this page. For instance, the "Enterprise Edition" is repeated twice as "x64" and "Itanium" versions. — Wenli (reply here) 23:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: No, you're confusing R2 with the initial release.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  10 Versions or 4?  

message: "(also referred to as Win2K3 or XP Server[citation needed]"
Never heard of XP server but .NET server I have...
.NET Server was the codename during the beta (much like how vista is synonomous with longhorn)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.92.18 (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: Clueless Newbie question about sources... The Wikipedia docs about using primary, 
secondary and tertiary sources say that "Any material that is challenged or likely 
to be challenged" should rely on material from secondary sources.  May I assume that
statements like "A significantly improved version of..." need someone outside of
Microsoft saying that the alleged improvement exists but that statements like
"was released to manufacturing on 6 December 2005" or "...licensing policy allows 
up to 4 virtual instances.." or "Number of physical CPUs = 4" are things that are not
likely to be challenged (and not likely to be lies / exaggerated marketing claims) and thus
appropriate for a reference to a Microsoft document?
72.251.90.3 (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clueless Newbie question about sources 

message: DreamSpark lists Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard 32-bit in the products list, but there's no source confirming it's R2 not the initial release, and also there's no R2 symbol in the product logo on the Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition page at DreamSpark.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Need confirmation that DreamSpark gives R2 not the initial release

message: I am surprised there's no indication of RAM limitation for the different version in the "Editions" section.  Please include it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.45.231 (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAM limitations 

message: 'Support for iSCSI' is not limited to the storage server editions. Presumably, the storage server editions add support for creating iSCSI LUN's, the other editions only include the iSCSI initiator.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.18.240 (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  iSCSI 

message: This is another edition of win svr 2003 though one must install server appliance kit 3.0/3.1 and run sysprep -b.so where to put this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.106 (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The appliance kit ( http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa286528.aspx ) is used with Windows Embedded Server / Windows Server for Embedded Systems ( http://www.microsoft.com/windowsembedded/en-us/downloads/download-windows-embedded-server.aspx ). A little known edition that has not yet gone out of support -- embedded versions have longer support cycles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows 2003 appliance edition 

message: Human seems a little redundant with "computer programmer". Is there another kind? Animal? AI (yet)? Should we say just humans? Or testers? Or computer programmers?
The article says on "human" on the page referenced, but also on page one:
"Microsoft has testers and debuggers, too--they make up 60% of the 4,700 Windows programmers". That is an interesting factoid to me in itself. So 40% are "programmers". I wouldn't consider testers in general "programmers" (but it is what the (unreliable?) source says. Unit testing (and code debugging) is usually done by the programmers themselves. UI testing (eg.) might be done non-programmers. comp.arch (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "human computer programmers" 

message: Microsoft released Windows Server 2003 R2 in late 2005, about November or December, this same year! The Service Pack 1b fixes were released in the next year with minor bug fixed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.19.64.40 (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The timeline information is incorrect! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Windows Server 2003. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061118174117/http://www.microsoft.com:80/whdc/system/CEC/watchdog.mspx to http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/CEC/watchdog.mspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I checked the link. It is good. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Windows Server 2003. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141024141938/http://faq.10zigsupport.com/downloads/Distribution%20End%20Dates%20Table%2005262011.docx to http://faq.10zigsupport.com/downloads/Distribution%2520End%2520Dates%2520Table%252005262011.docx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: So everyone upgraded to Windows Server 2012. 2600:6C5E:6A00:7772:810B:55B1:D174:6B36 (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  WS2003 also known as Windows Server 2003 was discontinued in 2014. 

message: I can't find any reliable source, all microsoft links on the subject appear to have been taken down. Can anyone try to look for some? Thanks! Icehax (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  References on windows storage server 2003 not needing CALs