difference between Server 2000/2003/2008

There's a *lot* of difference between them. Not so much between 2000 and 2003 (they are quite similar), but between 2003 and 2008 there's a crapload of new features, like Group Policy Preferences, Hyper-V capability, and lots of other new features. That's really a very large question to be answered on an interview, though, to be honest. And it would require some qualification to be properly answered. Are they speaking of base features, like server roles and such, or are they asking about Functional Level differences? For instance, Windows 2000 uses IIS 5 for web hosting, Windows 2003 uses IIS 6, and Windows 2008 uses IIS7.

That's just one difference. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc771132%28WS.10%29.aspx has info on functional level differences. And still loads more. From big things like Group Policy Preferences as I mentioned to little things like Terminal Services being renamed to Remote Desktop Services in 2008 R2.

> I was recently asked this question on an interview and wanted to know
> if I was remotely close, as far as asnwering the question properly.
Ok - so what was your answer?

I touched on the role differences and new features in 2008.  I basically separated 2000/2003 and pretty much placed in one category and 2008 on another...in short.

Sounds good... 2003 was a RELATIVELY minor update to 2000 but there were a couple of significant enhancements.... most noteably, Volume Shadow Copy in my opinion.

I would have passed you :)

Do you know the 5 FSMOs  unreal how many "AD people" in the DC area asking for over 100k don't know that  Ugghh.

I wouldn't have asked that question, but you're probably good with what you said.

And now I'm thinking about moving to DC. Only problem is that it's DC.