From: "Geo." 

"Ellen K."  wrote
in message news:0rn3909uiqcb70802b5lhtjvaf794950h9{at}4ax.com...

> What is your opinion about 2003?

Depends on the version. It tastes like 2000 with a nicer set of install
options to not install stuff by default. If the version requires activation
(like the web version) then it's a timebomb waiting to go off, if it does't
require activation like the server versions then it's very much like 2000+.
Personally I think it should have been a point release like 3.1 to 3.2
because it's not that different but since they use years now people seem to
think it's a whole new version, it's not.

I like ADS (automated deployment service) which is geared to making it easy
to admin server farms.

You would probably like that it includes the .net framework.

It also includes rights management services and sharepoint crap, stuff
neither of us probably would want or use. Here is the partial list
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/whyupgrade/top10w2k.mspx

Other than that, it's windows 2000 server.

The other difference is the license changes as mentioned. As for buying
2000 boxed on sale vs buying 2003 licenses and backgrading, the license
changes make all the differences there. If you are already committed to
move to 2003 then there is no issue with the license as it's already been
decided.

Geo.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5