Microsoft sounds 100-day DOOM KLAXON for Windows Server 2003

Microsoft's sounded the 100-day warning bell for Windows Server 2003, which exits supported status on July 14th. Redmond's rolling out the usual arguments for making the move to anything other than Server 2003: you're going to be insecure; you're missing out on the joy of virtualisation and automation, and the savings they …

[Mark 85]

Why replace it indeed....

Small businesses and even some big ones will resist just like they're resisting XP. There's a lot of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." mentality. Small places, such as doctor's offices and even accountants feel they're locked into legacy stuff and/or just don't want to spend the cash. I suspect that at some point down the road apiece, life is going to get very 'interesting' for them and the panic phone calls will start.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Why replace it indeed....

Why migrate away from it when it's last version of WIndows that supports NTBackup Tape Backup?

[big_D]

Re: Why replace it indeed....

It depends on industry and regulation. If it is no longer supported and you are in an industry where financial or personal data is being held on those old servers, you could start facing fines for putting them at risk, unless they are properly isolated.

[deadlockvictim]

well, let's see...

It runs 64-bit software nicely and it runs on 64-bit hardware well. Indeed, Windows 201x will almost certainly be slower on comparable hardware.

It don't need no new drivers. What it runs, it runs well and our consultant tells us that it's pretty much secure behind the firewalls and proxies he's set up.

Damn, new software and hardware is expensive. Tell me again why I need to splash out 30K for a new version of the server software (and the hardware, of course, required to run it).

Our technical person (read DBA-Support-Sysadmin-etc) has finally mastered Windows 2003. He doesn't really have the time to start on a whole new server. And he has exams coming up soon.

[Lee D]

I performed my last 2003->2012 upgrade a while back. Three years? I thought I was being the stalwart on it.

Sorry, people, as much as you might say that you can continue with 2003 (of course you can, you could continue with DOS if you wanted to), there's a point at which it just doesn't make sense. When I transitioned it was hard to find 2003 drivers for RAID cards and things like that. I'm sure you have them.... for your current hardware.

When that RAID card breaks and you can't get a replacement (or you can, but a replacement server with RAID card is actually cheaper!), you'll struggle to get it across. And then you're into a 2012R2 install anyway, and virtualising what you have onto it. If you're bright enough to still have the full up-to-date system state to start from (Oh, you can rebuild the server you have with your data? Then on your head be it).

And then when you recreate your config on 2003, you'll find that much of it is obsolete and you could just use the built-in stuff in 2008/2012 to do what it does. In 2003 much of the useful stuff didn't really work well or at all. In later versions it's a core part of the OS.

I'm sure you can struggle on for another few years, with some IT guy that doesn't want to learn, with some users that don't want to transition, without spending a penny. And sometimes you can get away with that. When you can't, though, it's just embarrassing. I'm far from the "let's deploy cutting-edge just because" crowd, but there's a point at which the world has tested the software for you and written down all the quirks and workarounds and you should move forward.

As someone who's worked for schools with little money to spend on IT (including one that could not afford textbooks one year), done disaster recovery and freelance "consultancy" (yuk, hate the word) on places that are in dire need of IT help (and at least once said "I'm sorry, you need men on the ground each day, not consultants coming in and taking shots at what you haven't got, no charge for me telling you this"), I can tell you that IT is NOT a one-off expense. It never has been. If you put off the annual cost of it, you'll pay it in the future (plus interest!) in one lump sum, it's as simple as that.

And if you are large enough to have a permanent IT guy, then you're large enough to make him do his job (including professional development, future strategy for the IT, budgeting, costing and speccing out a new network every now and then), and large enough to afford an annual expense. Smaller than that, well, that's your business. But if you're running "servers" (plural) then there's really no excuse.

I'm sure 2003 will serve you well for years to come. And then the crunch point will cost you twice as much as it would have done to do regular maintenance. No different to never taking your car for service, not going to the dentist, or just leaving that leak dripping in your house because you "can't afford" a plumber.

[SecretSonOfHG]

Your reasons are sound, but you're forgetting a couple of points

First, for small and middle sized business: the problem is usually not the cost of the OS upgrade itself, but the cost of the whole application upgrade. If your server app working in W2003 works under W2012, then it may be fine, but there's a difference between "works" and "is supported" I remember having to run some parts of the Oracle 8 installer on the command line because it did not "work" under W2003, when in fact it worked but was not supported (as the install failed) Vendors usually support only a specific matrix of OS/database/application versions, and nothing else. So it is not simply a matter of installing a fresh OS and the app components again.

So what starts being an OS upgrade usullay ends up being a database upgrade, middleware upgrade and application upgrade. That is if you're lucky and the vendor is still around after 12 years. If not, then it is an entire rewrite of the whole app. This is usually too costly and avoided unless there's no other means of keeping things running.

Second, for large business and corporations: your point about hardware drivers is spot on, but in these places deploying a stand alone physical server is becoming a rare event. They have alredy virtualized most of its servers or are in the process of doing it. So they don't lose any sleep over the thoughts of hardware failure, and at the same time can avoid the very same costs that small and middle sized business avoid, but much safely.

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you are large enough to have a permanent IT guy, then you're large enough to make him do his job

Make him do his job? In my experience it's the business which keeps putting off the warnings about increasingly out-of-date h/w and s/w, insisting that a succession of the latest and greatest high-profile initiatives must take priority.

(I don't normally post anonymously, but I am doing so for this one.)

[Anonymous Coward]

This is very true. And not always just small businesses.

I did a brief stint at a company who's owner I knew beforehand.

Never will I work for 'friends' again.

He thought it was fine to expect his IT staff to:

Download and use illegal software;

Act as general dogsbodies and gophers;

Act as his and other managers' personal IT/Electricians/Drivers/Valets;

Do everything on a shoestring and expect the world from it;

Force random changes to their website (main point of business) on a Friday afternoon and then expect IT to be around all weekend unpaid to remediate (no change control/test/dev);

Expect IT to be on call 24 hours a day with no proper rota's or payment terms;

Refuse to invest in hardware or software;

And so on

It destroyed our friendship in the end because of the changes I wanted to force through. I won out for most of them but ultimately the fight was so taxing that I walked away after a few months and got another contract elsewhere.

Now to be fair some of his incumbent staff were - for most of them, lazy is wrong; seriously demotivated. Damned if they did and damned if the didn't so they took the didn't route more often than not.

But some were bone idle (his brother in law, for example, who thought he was untouchable).

It didn't help that he paid them peanuts.

So...it's not always, or even solely, the IT staff.

[hplasm]

"As someone who's worked for schools with little money to spend on IT ..."

...(including one that could not afford textbooks one year)

Microsoft's licencing costs will do that.

[Anonymous Coward]

@ Lee D

I wish the Preventers of Information Services would STOP upgrading everything where I work. You can go on about security and drivers and new shinyshiny all you want but it is possible to upgrade yourself right into unusability - years of upgrading Word, Excel, Outlook, IE, Server This and Thingamabob That have have insured that all our business-critical data management systems are held together with Christmas Wishes and Unicorn Farts.

[neozeed]

virtualize!

who isnt virtualizing these days?

Hardware becomes pretty moot. Run it in esxi, or even windows tablet server + hyperv.

Heck, nt 4 and exchange 5.5 work just fine, smtp is still smtp. And its system requirements are microscopic compared to 2012.

Why upgrade inside servers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Applications fail to work

The biggest challenge is that applications installed on windows cannot easily be extracted and migrated to newer platforms. Even if you have the original media it does not mean the configuration or data can be ported.

It's not laziness - it's a failure to constantly invest in the Software Development Life Cycle usually due to cost. App development - to make your apps work exactly the same but just on a newer o/s - is a bitter, but necessary pill to swallow.

[ben_myers]

Time to consider a Linux server?

If it's only plain old file and centralized email services plus data backup, like some small companies, maybe it's simply time to move to a Linux-based server?

[Anonymous Coward]

To remain OK, just disconnect your business from t'interwebs. Simples.

[neozeed]

best server since nt 4.0

2003 was the last version that had humans qa the product, and boy, does it show!

What should i "upgrade" to? Server tablet edition?

Lol, thanks but no thanks.

[azaks]

The answer, as always, is...

it depends.

There is a lot of milage in "if it aint broke, leave it the hell alone". But realize that it wont be getting patches for security vulnerabilities. If its an internal server that is isolated from untrusted code (esp. the internet), there may be no need to upgrade. The problem is that those guarantees of isolation are typically more imagined that real, and as others have mentioned, there will come a day (maybe in the distant future) where it becomes impractical to stay on an obsolete platform (need support for some new issue, need to replace hardware etc.) Your all grown ups, consider your personal circumstances and choose accordingly...