9 out of 9 people found this review helpful.
Such and Improvement over 2000?
Date of Review: Mar 16, 2005
The Bottom Line: Not ready for prime time.
I was lulled into installing Windows Server 2003 by its great reviews. I intended to use it for just one personal computer in order to obtain some of its benefits regarding :
1. Security
2. Stability
3. Performance
I spent about a week on Server 2003. Everything started out famously. 2003 has a fast interface (in the beginning) some extra login features, and support for almost every software package I installed on it. I did run into some issues with video driver support, but I was able to work around that. It did have a problem recognizing one of my printers and one of my hard drives. I resolved to purchase a network adapter for each one. I use a Netgear hub at home, thus it would be easy to connect the print and NAS to the open ports on my hub.
However, while I used Windows Server 2003 more, I noticed a degrade in performance. Normally, I would use Norton System Works, however, my edition would not run on Windows Server 2003 and requires a server edition. I then looked into the Event Viewer and found roughly 150 errors. I check the Microsoft website, which had short cryptic explanations for each of the errors.
After playing with the system for few more days, I again, had to go back to Windows XP.
I can't speak for using Windows Server as an actual server, however, if it can't stay up as a simple workstation OS for more than a few days how good can it be. Also what shocks me is how much they charge for it. I had the Enterprise edition which is at least a $1000 item (I had it on a trial). I don't see how this price on such a mediocre product which requires a full time person to keep it up and running in even a small environment is justified. But those are the benefits of monopoly I suppose.
CompuVest
