>>All of my servers are 2003, but I have had seen some small stability >>issues >>with 2003 where I didn't with fully patched 2000. Also, I'm see >>10-20% >>higher average CPU on 2003 with all other software the same.
I agree that I have also seen a CPU jump with 2003 - but I suspect its partly attributed to things like DEP etc. >>I'm also seeing issues with IMail and Declude on 2003 that I did not see >>at all >>on 2000. This I have not ran into yet myself. >>I agree that it's more secure by default (though I had locked 2000 down >>just >>as tightly), and that 2003 should be the choice over 2000, but >>there's no >>question in my mind that it is more bloated and not as >>stable. While 2003 is a great jump out of the box - there is something to be said about a previous platform (i.e. 2000 sp4) knowing that it is tried and true. I would think you would get a bit more stabability out of it than 2003 out of the gate simply because it has been around longer. However, the big factor that pushes me is that I know in the long run 2003 is more secure even if I have to adjust to the growing pains of 2003. However, I do have to say I have not had any issues with 2003 (standalone). We have had a few 2003 issues with in an AD environment. Darrell --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
