Link to home
Start Free TrialLog in
Avatar of codevu
codevuFlag for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

asked on

Windows Server 2003 - support lifecycle

Hi all,

A quick question:
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3198

Windows Server 2003 - Mainstream support ends 07/2010
Windows Server 2003 - Mainstream support ends 07/2015

By all accounts complete support from MS ends 2015.

So if a supplier is using EOSL as an excuse for performance should they offer 2003 as a replacement when that excuse can be used in 3 years? Although Server 2008 is 2018.

Just curious, thanks.

They should be offering
Avatar of Alan Hardisty
Alan Hardisty
Flag of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland image

Can you please explain more about the excuse being used and the reasons / reasons behind it.

If you have 2003 server and are having performance issues, that may be because Windows 2003 Server can only use 4Gb of memory due to it being a 32-Bit OS, unless that is of course, you have the 64-bit version.

4Gb might run most things well, but I have some customers with 4Gb Windows 2003 servers and they are mildly painful at best.
Avatar of codevu

ASKER

Indeed there could be many reasons -

We have a few W2K servers - EOSL is used as the excuse and all they is we should upgrade them to 2003.

It is how it is, they should still try to figure out whats happening to the W2K systems when they are paid to support them.

However, this query is... there advise is to upgrade to 2003 - but that will be EOSL in a few years so how is that a good thing? Project could take to 2013 before they'd be installed etc.

Are people still offering 2003 as part of a refresh, or is it 2008 etc?
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Avatar of Alan Hardisty
Alan Hardisty
Flag of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland image

Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
Avatar of codevu

ASKER

Luckily, the support company covering these W2K servers were the ones who installed it.

It's becoming a tired excuse. They should still be supporting it - they get paid to :) Understandably things can be difficult but they should still offer checks if something goes wrong.

So if it not 2003, would you say 2008? (high level, compatibility items would be part of project etc)
SOLUTION
Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial