Windows Vista SP1 Will Install XP

[RadioPatrol]

The 'internet security' per se, is obtainable on prior versions of Windows (especially Windows XP). This is for the number of users who use IE - XP is not limited to just IE 5.5 and users can upgrade to IE 6 (the same as Vista). In fact, really, I've had more problems out of XP than I have with Vista [within the same time span, anyways]. Vista's more stable overall; just takes a level of getting used to some of the changes.

Any sane business would be using Windows Server 2003 - it outranks even most LInux distro out there. FreeBSD might still have a few perks that W2k3 doesn't have; but there's just not enough not to use Windows 2003.

XP Users an upgrade to IE 7

CAL Cost ..........

Windows Server 2003, Client Access License 5-pack $199 5 additional Windows Server 2003 CALs (User or Device, chosen at time of purchase)

Windows Server 2003, Client Access License 20-pack $799 20 additional Windows Server 2003 CALs (User or Device, chosen at time of purchase)

Windows Server 2003, TS Client Access License 5-pack $749 5 additional Windows Server 2003 Terminal Server (TS) CALs (User or Device, chosen at time of purchase)

Windows Server 2003, TS Client Access License 20-pack $2,979 20 additional Windows Server 2003 TS CALs (User or Device, chosen at time of purchase)



Mac OS X Server 10 Client Ver. $499 / Unlimited $999


redhat.com | Lower TCO

Lower TCO Client Access Licenses: Linux doesn't charge you a license fee for every user accessing the server. Security: Linux is built up with the ground up with security in mind. This results in a more secure solution out-of-the-box, eliminating the need for third-party security products.

 

[RadioPatrol]

Naturally, I use FreeBSD and Debian for most online-based hosting or OS-usage. Most of the customers I've had in the past requested Windows due to the ability to use a VM to connect (once they load VM Server) and manage the environment like a normal desktop. Obviously, the same can be done on linux - but most prefer the command line or a BASH shell for them to manipulate data with.

VM ?? huh like VMare ??

Windows Server 2003 / SBS 2003 comes with 2 user RDC for Administration

and that gives you full control with out installing 3rd party apps

if you run mstsc /console from the run box, It spawns the RDC connection window, and when you connect you get the desktop like you were sitting @ the keyboard and monitor physically connect to the server ....

 

[2ndAmendment]

More of the recent studies and statistics show that Windows Server 2003 is offering more speed and dependability than its precessors: NT and 2000. For file hosting and hosting, Windows Server 2003 will be faster than Linux - just at a cost of RAM. Plus, you'd have to manage things reasonably; you wouldn't host your MSSQL or mySQL on the same box as the actual domain. Normally, I would have Server 2003 as the primary host (apache, php, perl, etc) and then have another box on Slackware or a debian-distro with the mySQL on it (or postgre, depending on what the customer wants for their database management). Any linux distro is more secure because there's a less likely varient for viruses and exploits similar to the most notorious Windows ones (nimda, code red, etc). However, Linux will always have its downsides too - as most proper 'hackers' are aware as to how to get their way to root with the right amount of work. Of course, this falls true for Windows as well - but that's just saying a personal preference.

Naturally, I use FreeBSD and Debian for most online-based hosting or OS-usage. Most of the customers I've had in the past requested Windows due to the ability to use a VM to connect (once they load VM Server) and manage the environment like a normal desktop. Obviously, the same can be done on linux - but most prefer the command line or a BASH shell for them to manipulate data with.

You're right otherwise; but some people will always prefer a Windows environment over a Linux one. Windows will consume your memory in matter of moments if you don't know how to manage it properly. For instance, with 512mb of RAM on each of my servers, I only use about 100mb out of it for running windows, apache, and most other simple services. Of course, I'm not crazy enough to try to use IIS and think it's useful ;p

Better than its predecessors is relative. A brick may be better than a rock in some circumstances, but they both sink in water.

I'll take Linux any day over any Windoze stuff I have had to work with.

Yes. Customers can be stupid and insist on Windoze. I try to educate them, but too many people have fallen for the MS hype. And - "The customer is always right." Even when they are wrong.

512 MB is pittance for RAM. RAM is cheep. Most servers are IO bound and not RAM or CPU bound anyway.

IIS is a hackers play ground as are all Windoze OSes.

Any one that knows how to properly configure a Linux server stands a far better chance of keeping the hackers out than anyone running a Windoze server. It goes to the original premise of the operating system. Windoze was created to be easy to use and exchange data easily between users; open shares and all that. Unix/Linux was built to isolate user space. With the perms set to 700 for users by default, Unix/Linux makes fairly secure individual sandboxes for users to play in. Tripwire and loads of other things keep a Unix/Linux os relatively clean from intrusion and intrusions are quickly detected. Running Selinux on top of Linux makes the OS even more secure keeping each demon in its own sandbox. Plus using change rooted demons prevents hackers from having access to the root even if they manage to hack the demon. And with reasonable RAM, CPU, and IO, it is not unreasonable to run a good database on the same server as Apache, DNS, and Sendmail or Postfix. If the server gets bound, then throw more hardware at it but no need to before then. And there are VMs for Linux. Windoze is a single user OS dressed up/patched up to be multiuser. Unix/Linux was designed from the start to be multiuser. It also goes to maturity. Unix was around before DOS and has continued to improve. Linux is a newcomer, but is very robust and has grown quickly since the development community is so large. Yeah. I'll take Linux.

 

[RadioPatrol]

2A - What do you think of Ubuntu - I am running the LTS 6.06 LAMP Server ......