| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 95510 | 2008-12-09 01:52:00 | Windows 2003 R2 Standard vs Windows 2000 SBS | aidanmaz (7180) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 726832 | 2008-12-09 01:52:00 | which one is more better suited for a fairly tech savvy family at home? The machine i will dedicate is a P4 2.8gHz, 2.5GB RAM 3 hard drives (40, 160, 200 GB) and a gigabit NIC. It used to be a ESX Virtual server, but what home needs 4 servers?? | aidanmaz (7180) | ||
| 726833 | 2008-12-09 03:09:00 | What are you doing in a home setup that requires Windows Server at all?? :waughh: |
nofam (9009) | ||
| 726834 | 2008-12-09 03:22:00 | nothing really, its more cos i can. | aidanmaz (7180) | ||
| 726835 | 2008-12-09 03:47:00 | SBS will give you exchange mail server, share-point services and ISA!..... However you could install ESX3i on it and then you can run both...... edit - you could try windows home server...... |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 726836 | 2008-12-09 03:50:00 | i was part of the beta testing for WHS, and got rid of it in a flash. I used to use esx3i, but i thought it was overkill to hav like 6 servers EDIT: I have exchange server 2007 somewhere, and ISA 2006, not that i have a urgent need for either of them |
aidanmaz (7180) | ||
| 726837 | 2008-12-09 03:52:00 | Try SBS2008 then...very cool.....ish! | SolMiester (139) | ||
| 726838 | 2008-12-09 03:58:00 | was looking at that, though i dont have that kind of money | aidanmaz (7180) | ||
| 726839 | 2008-12-09 08:18:00 | I would go for 2003 R2 as Win2k SBS had lots of issues and wasn't very user friendly. Just add a free mail server if you want to replace exchange. |
CYaBro (73) | ||
| 726840 | 2008-12-09 08:42:00 | Fair enough. I already own SBS 2000, and Windows Server 2003 Enterprise / Windows 2003 R2 Standard. I was just seeing if its better to go sbs or "go it alone" with the regular versions of 2003 | aidanmaz (7180) | ||
| 1 | |||||