Stueyb

Hi peeps,

Im in the process of creating a PHP/MySQL server, and is more or less ready to go live but I have to choose between Win2K and Windows 2003.

All I want is a nice stable server so im edging toward 2000 as I did play with 2003 but it sucked huge donkey ***** imho. What features is it supposed to have over Win2K ?

Any advice/info appreciated.

Stuey

GaryK

Ouch! now that sounds painful! Not too sure, M$ always do a good job of selling upgrades that people dont really need and dont offer much improvement (IMHO), I still use Win2k servers and they do a fine job as does win2k on a workstation. Certainly for PHP/MySQL then Win2k would be more than adequate.

Gary

dv8

Stueyb,

2k is (was?) a rework of NT4, with a much improved interface. 2003 like its desktop version XP is pretty much a ground up rewrite. It does run faster, and is more stable. However most of the good features (much improved Active Directory, Terminal Services, Clustering etc) are only really useful in a corporate environment. There are very few reasons not to deploy on 2k with the possible exception of longevity, if that is what you are more comfortable with.

I'm surprised no-one has replied with the obvious answer though, for a PHP?MYSQL server you really should use Linux!!

Hope this helps,
DV8

TopBanana

Either would be fine. 2k3 would be my first choice though simply because it's more secure out of the box.

Stueyb

I suppose really its a case of better the devil you know isnt it. So Win2K here I come

ozzy

Linux is nice and user friendly Depends on size of project IMHO and whether you're concerned with performance (given volume of processing). Scoobynet could do with running under Linux perhaps?

Never had any issues with the W2K or 2003 servers here in over 6 months since our roll-out. Give it some decent hardware and install it correctly and it should be as good as 2000.

Print Server on 2003 can be a little flaky with 3rd-party drivers, but that's the only annoyance I've had with it.

Stefan

Miles

Are you sure about that? Everything I've ever been told is that Win2K was fresh and Win2k3 is a rework of 2k. In fact if you look at the internal versions, W2k is NT 5.0, XP is NT 5.1 and W2K3 server is NT 5.2.

I'd go for Windows 2003, Windows 2000 is getting old now and 2K3 is maturing. Indeed mainstream support ends on 31st Mar 2005 for 2000 server. (from http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;[ln];LifeWin)

GaryK

Miles,

Yep you're right XP wasnt a re-write, in fact XP was the first M$ OS release in a while to be based on the Win32 kernel, up to that point Win9x and WinNT had different codebases. WinNT was written from the ground up while Win9x had Win32s which was a subset of the Win32 API. Any Win32 OS is pretty good although depending on waht you're running not bullet proof.

gary
[Takes anorak off now]

Nog

Why Windows? If you'd said IIS and SQL Server, then I'd say Win2k3 without hesitation (IIS 6 is in a different league to IIS 5).

However, PHP and MySQL - both ported to Windows - go for Linux?????


Just a thought.

Nog

Stueyb

Nog,

In an ideal world I would do Linux, but I dont know enough to repair a panicking kernel for instance. However im an old hand at W2K and can fix most probs fairly quickly.

The other issue is that I know how to secure an MS OS (f*ck knows Ive had enough practice sitting on the end of a few multi megabit pipes.) I wouldn't know where to begin securing a Linux OS whereas I can fix and deploy Windows pretty quickly.

Also MySQL is like 100% cheaper than a nice phat MS SQL licence. I hate M$ for their greed. I am using as much GNU etc programs as possible. It decreases my costs and allows me to do what I want to do. Also I can easily install/config the system at the config file level. I am not a lamer but i aint 133t either, just a humble sysadmin

Basically the way I look at it is that its cheaper to install several systems using the above config than to use 1 linux server and pay someone else to administer it.