Hmmm

[Justintime]

Windows 2003 Server should be renamed to Wewantallyourmoneyindows 2003 Server, no support for Exchange 2000? c'mon! From what i know active directory can be run if sp3 is installed but it can't run fully on the machine?

 

[Luis G]

haven't seen win2k3 yet, but after XP i don't have much high expectations for MS products.

 

[chcr]

haven't seen win2k3 yet, but after XP i don't have much high expectations for MS products.

I'm with you there, Luis.

 

[rrfield]

I kinda like server 2003. It's installed on 5 systems so far, 0 crashes (over a month), with one system being Very High End machine (PII 400, all PC desktop hardware).

rrfield

 

[Justintime]

with one system being Very High End machine (PII 400, all PC desktop hardware).

rrfield

Being saracastic there aren't we?


Nothing against the OS itself, just the policy of not supporting exchange 2000 when it probably can bloody well run on it, but they wanna sell 2003/enterprise/standard instead of making it compatiable with 2000.

 

[rrfield]

Being saracastic there aren't we?

Naaah

Nothing against the OS itself, just the policy of not supporting exchange 2000 when it probably can bloody well run on it, but they wanna sell 2003/enterprise/standard instead of making it compatiable with 2000.

Yeah, I could see that. I never thought about it; until a month ago, we were running an NT4 domain with exchange 5.5. Made a huge leap, Server 2003 domain, exchange 2003 (currently in a "testing" phase since the final version hasn't been released, only the evaluation and RC versions). I never used exchange 2000, but ex2003 is pretty neat, much more robust and fault tolerant then 5.5. OWA actually works as intended and looks almost exactly like Outlook 2003.

rrfield