Desperate Microsoft PAYS Win Server 2003 laggards to jump ship Microsoft is paying customers to dump Windows Server 2003, The Register has learned. The software giant is so desperate for the thousands who missed its July 14 extended support cut-off date to get off the legacy server operating system, it’s decided to start eating the costs. Microsoft is giving away Windows Server 2012 …
Fortunate then that Windows Server doesn't have a GUI unless you choose to add one.
Unfortunate then that some "cowboy coders" think that a server application is a GUI application running on the server's desktop, thus requiring the GUI.
I needed more popcorn, so I bought a popcorn maker ;-) now I only need more beer!
So buy a beer maker!
"and now Windows server for free"
Errm no. They are giving customers a small amount of benefit back from the stupendously large extended support fees being charged for Server 2003.
Nothing is being given away for free here.
Microsoft are still charging vastly more than the value of any discounts in support fees if you keep Server 2003 after EOL.
I guess my single Win2003 server with 5 CALs doesn't qualify. Even if it did, the cost of the work required to upgrade far exceeds the cost of a PC and fresh licences.
Our server is a business tool. Now virtualised and fully fire-walled, it works perfectly for us so why do we need to change it just because U$oft say so? The answer is less about giving us an "immersive experience (yuk)" and more about needing our money on a subscription basis. They want a direct debit from my bank account.
Who believes that Win10 will be free forever? Take the free upgrade and then, in a year, we will get some form of paid option.
Microsoft just don't get it.
DC?
WSUS?
Databases?
Backups?
Plenty of reasons that even a small business would want a professional setup because of the benefits to be had.
However, once that system is in and working then from the businesses view there is no benefit in switching to a newer system at significant expense if they receive no benefit from doing it.
"If all they needed was NAS why were they running a Windows server OS anyway?"
For starters lots of features not available on many other NAS solutions - like SMB 3, compression, dedupe, encryption, tiering, replication, DLP categorisation and selective rights management, active active clustering, etc, etc, etc...
"For starters lots of features not available on many other NAS solutions - like SMB 3, compression, dedupe, encryption, tiering, replication, DLP categorisation and selective rights management, active active clustering, etc, etc, etc..."
Yeah, like a small biz with a server or two cares (or should care) about most of those things. It's not worth the extra maintenance burden that Windows Server entails compared to a purpose-built NAS appliance, many of which do the more important things (e.g. encryption) anyway.
For bigger orgs with dedicated admins then sure, Windows Server is one of many good options that would suit.
"Microsoft is keen to help pay them [customers] to move. They want shot of it – they are committed to getting Microsoft customers off an unsupported version of Windows. "
But when I installed these Windows 2003 servers in 2003, Microsoft assured me it was the bestest, most reliablest, securest, awesomest Windows that could be had and that none of my children or my children's children would ever get cancer or grow old. Now it's something they "want shot of" ? I've been lied to...plain and simple.
"The Reg’s integrator source told us: “Microsoft is keen to help pay them [customers] to move. They want shot of it – they are committed to getting Microsoft customers off an unsupported version of Windows. They don’t want to support it.”"
That is well fully understood. Who would want to support it ? Costs arms and legs ...
However:
- They don't have to. Ever. They stated years ago when they'd stop doing anything on 2003. They just DON'T have to support it. In other words, the ressource burden is something of the past.
- Why on earth, given what is above, would they pay transformation fees ? There has to be, as some other commentards have already stated, some other reason (crap W10, fear of migration to other platforms ?)
MS is totally insecure, here.
"If Microsoft, or indeed anyone else, could tell me what the appropriate replacement for 'Gateway for NFS' is, I'd be grateful."
The replacement is to migrate your legacy file systems to a Windows Server (or NAS) which can then provide both NFS and SMB sharing capabilities.
Or you can install Services for Network File System (NFS) on the Windows clients and access your old systems that way.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
