Advantages of 2003 over NT4

[6666]

Hi,

Strange as it sounds I need some reference material on why 2003 is better than NT4, all the books have lots on better security, better gizmos etc. but this isn't what I'm after as every book I have on 2000 & 2003 has all this stuff in spades.

What I'm after is how for example 2000/2003 handles memory better, balances load over more CPU's better than NT4, why (and how?) 2003 handles more users without freezing up etc.

Why? Lots of systems still on NT4, IIS V4.0 SQL 7.0 etc and need a powerful argument to move and an argument NOT just based on reliability, supportability (i.e. NT4 aint got none, yes I know you can get it until end 2006!! ) but based on behnd the scenes technical information,

And hello everyone !! welcome me, my first post

6666

[Sarcasmatron]

I'm afraid i can't provide lots of technical info because of my little use of NT, but from what I've learned, NT 4.0 still goes more or less strong because of 3 rules:

1) If it's not broken, don't fix it

2) If it's newer, it'll cost more

3) If you change something, you can never be 100% sure what will happen.

In other words, NT 4.0 is tested many times, and many an admin has gained skills and experience using it, and know the tricks of their trade.

Also, if a piece of hardware, let's say a aerver machine in a small business is known to work well with 4.0, many admins rather use that than install newer os's, because you can never be sure if compatibility errors and whatnot occur.

This I have gathered from here and there, mostly from old and newer admins, please remember I'm just a student so if i'm horribly wrong, don't execute me.

As for myself, I installed win 2k3 server on my old pentium 3- based hardware, and it has no problems working at all, even a (very small, mind you) MySQL database worked on it smoothly, and it does not have a lot of memory. Also, it's a nice treat to have Active directory in-built in the os.

Hope I helped at least a little bit.

[Thunderbolt 2864]

I rather use 2003 because its more updated, and NT4 is a joke because it won't support partitions or hard drives over 8 GIG. Stupid.

And NT 4 has a lack of driver support as well. Worse post 95 OS ever. (Sorry)

if I were you, I'll upgrade to 2003, fast.

[os2fan2]

Windows NT relies on a NTFS that was updated in sp6 to 3.0 level (ie that found in Windows 2000). Even so, it does not allow things like quotas, spanning disks.

The NTFS 3.1 as found in Windows XP is faster than the 2k version, because the directory structure has been moved further back in the disk, so there is less head movement. XP also allows you to defrag NTFS disks as well (see zB Andrei Gracef's site: http://www.geocities.com/andreigaceff/DefragNT.html ).

I am not exactly sure what 2003 brings over XP, of if NTFS is superior as a file-system over some of the alternatives, such as OS/2's JFS or some of the UNIX/Linux stuff (which have long been server-based).

For the average user, the main attraction for the later windows is that they support more API than the earlier versions. Windows 2000 introduced a more powerful command prompt, but the 2k cmd.exe runs quite well under nt, an ascii-only version exists for free download (win95cmd.exe), and 4nt is quite a competant replacement for the limited feature set of cmd.exe. Regina Rexx completes the picture.

In the main, one can generally match much of the speed with 2000Lite or NLite, as well.

(i have been working fairly extensively on an NT4 sp6a disk, that simplifies installs).

W