Windows 2003 Server
- Thread starter Ninja
- Start date
I personally have recommended to all of my clients who think they'd like to switch to this platform, that they give it a little time to prove itself and work through bugs and initial patches that are inevitable. Don't become MS's free test platform. That's just MHO.
Baron
ET Founder
I would not recommend it. Running a server OS on a trading machine simply means that you are going to have a bunch of unnecessary services (programs) running in the background that would not normally be there using an OS like WinXP Pro. That means your machine will have a much greater chance of getting hacked. The only way to avoid this is if you lock down the machine by killing any unused services. But basically that means you would be taking a server operating system and killing everything that makes it a server, which if you're going to do that, you might as well run WinXP Pro from the start.
I agree with Baron. If you are simply running application software that is not really server software then why incurr the extra overhead - performance and administration - of the server OS ? Also, Server 2003 is much more costly in licensing terms that previous Windows server versions and offers little truly useful new technology in my opinion - better to use Linux/Apache/mySQL/Php combination for most new server applications unless required to go MS route.
Whether you run XPpro or server 2003 you will still need a hardware/software firewall and intrusion detection system - whether supplied by your company or configured and supplied by yourself ....
Whether you run XPpro or server 2003 you will still need a hardware/software firewall and intrusion detection system - whether supplied by your company or configured and supplied by yourself ....
The primary differences between the workstation version and the server version are the server-side services and apps that are activated by default and some internal system parameters that are configured differently.
The system parameter settings can produce better performance even when used as a workstation, but you can adjust many/most of them (e.g., working set size, time quanta, etc.) using various tweak programs that are available on the internet. You'll have to have some pretty hefty computing demands for it to become a material difference though - 99% of traders aren't taxing the machine's resources enough for it to matter though.
So unless you have some use for the server specific functionality or you're really placing serious demands on the machine's resources, don't waste the money on the server version.
The system parameter settings can produce better performance even when used as a workstation, but you can adjust many/most of them (e.g., working set size, time quanta, etc.) using various tweak programs that are available on the internet. You'll have to have some pretty hefty computing demands for it to become a material difference though - 99% of traders aren't taxing the machine's resources enough for it to matter though.
So unless you have some use for the server specific functionality or you're really placing serious demands on the machine's resources, don't waste the money on the server version.
Let me be clear here. I too say the server software is way too much overkill. I assumed that you had some valid, predetermined, specific reason for using it. Also, if this machine you're planning to use it on is not a major power throughput setup, don't even consider it. Stick with proven platforms (i.e Win98, Win 2000, WinXP) for your needs here. There's a ton of support and users with the ability to assist you. Not to mention all the software, especially when it comes to drivers, designed already to run on the setups. Stay close to the shore here. There's no reason to head out to the bleeding edge of technology.
There's no reason to head out to the bleeding edge of technology - absolutety agree with that. Until MS releases SP1 or SP2 (Service Packs) for 2003 Server I would not recommend it since there are surely bugs in this OS.
Stay with XP Pro!
However there are slight advantages if you are running a server: 1) you may use all networking components that come with operating system to monitor your network traffic/performance(you do not have to buy them from 3-d party)
2) if you are using remote connections to the machine (which is unlikely since you are probably sitting at the screen all day )Server OS can be set up with greater security.
ex-msft opinion
Stay with XP Pro!
However there are slight advantages if you are running a server: 1) you may use all networking components that come with operating system to monitor your network traffic/performance(you do not have to buy them from 3-d party)
2) if you are using remote connections to the machine (which is unlikely since you are probably sitting at the screen all day
)Server OS can be set up with greater security.ex-msft opinion
if you install any windows server realize some software will not work - you will have to get a more expensive server version. ie antivirus packages will know its a server and not install a workstation version.
2003 server comes locked down compared to 2000. tighter ntfs permissions, internet explorer permissions, less services by default
3rd party software could require software patches to work properly on 2003 server
for web apps 2003 web edition is priced nicely - .net, sql2000(msde), IIS for $345.
2003 server comes locked down compared to 2000. tighter ntfs permissions, internet explorer permissions, less services by default
3rd party software could require software patches to work properly on 2003 server
for web apps 2003 web edition is priced nicely - .net, sql2000(msde), IIS for $345.
Actually if you start looking at the license agreements you will find that 2003 is a poorer deal for most businesses than 2000.
Another point: its very hard to compete on price with something that is free AND for which you have access to the full source code, thus REDUCING risk in the event that you encounter a serious bug: We can go out and fix the bug in most cases MUCH faster than waiting for Microsoft to issue a patch/service pack/emercency hotfix AND we are not being hit with numerous additional fees. My staff can handle these issues directly.
windows admins cost less than unix admins - the price of the software is easily made up in this. open source - yeah but most businesses do not employ people who can write patches for mysql, apache, linux.
of course if your doing something high end i wouldnt be using mysql - oracle at $15k/processor or ms sql at $4k/processor i wouldnt care that linux is free.
small business server 2003 comes out in days - priced at $599 for 2003 server and exchange 2003. even at 20 employees the software licensing comes in around $2100 total. throw a linux based firewall/ids in front of it and done...