Section 1.6. The Last Word: Assessing the Release

1.6. The Last Word: Assessing the Release

Two camps of people and their organizations will find compelling reasons to immediately upgrade to Windows Server 2003 and R2:

Those still running a version of Windows NT

The official Microsoft decree of end of life for NT Workstation 4.0 was on July 1, 2003, well before this book and this edition were published. NT Server 4.0 reached the end of its supportable life on December 31, 2004, so it's really not prudent to continue to bet your company's IT assets and policy on what is now a dead, deprecated, and fundamentally unsafe operating system. Windows Server 2003 provides a good jump, and it's a stable jump, too. A new server version of Windows will not be released at current estimates for at least two years, and more likely three. Upgrading nowas soon as possiblemakes sense if you're running NT, and as a bonus for waiting, you'll get Windows Server 2003 R2 as well with new SKU purchases.

Those with current Microsoft Select, Software Assurance, or Open License agreements that allow them to upgrade to the latest release at no additional cost

If there's no fee or additional monetary outlay for your upgrade, you can get the benefit of Windows Server 2003 R2 for little overall cost. Windows Server 2003 requires about the same hardware as Windows 2000 Server, so if you're currently on that level, you can keep the machines you already have and enjoy the fit, finish, and new features Windows Server 2003 R2 offers you.

If you are not a member of either group, the value of upgrading to Windows Server 2003 and R2 is less clear. Traditionally, Microsoft operating system upgrades offered at least somewhat compelling reasons to move to the newest edition: improved user interfaces, performance enhancements, the migration from 16- to 32-bit, and so on. That's not as much the case anymore, at least until the next paradigm shift at Microsoft, which again won't be for a couple of years. If you're happily chugging away with Windows Server 2003 and don't have an update agreement with Microsoft, you're forced to determine if the license expense is worth the added features and benefits that R2 brings to the table. It probably isn't worth it unless your organization has a lot of branch offices, has a critical storage resource management crisis, or requires the identity management improvements of ADFS.

For most corporations, it's a question of timing. Consider that the next radically different revision of Windows, codenamed Longhorn, is about a year and a half away on the desktop and two to three years away on the server. So, whatever you choose, you have some time to live with it before facing upgrade pressures again. For others, it's a question of finances: if you can't afford to upgrade to Windows Server 2003, you are not missing much. If you are satisfied with Windows 2000, and have secured it properly, nothing in Windows Server 2003 is absolutely mandatory. The same goes with those running the original release of Windows Server 2003 with Service Pack 1 without a complimentary upgrade route to R2. If you're on NT, however, it's (past) time to move to Windows Server 2003 R2. (Although I am familiar with several IT shops that have done so, it doesn't make practical sense to go to Windows 2000 from NT at this point.)