Why still use Windows Server 2003?

[surreality]

I'm not as familiar with Windows servers or just general Windows hosting as perhaps I should be, I figured I might as well start now. Basic question: why do people still use Server 2003 when 2008 is available? Is there any real advantages to using server software that's around 6 years old?

[angelad]

Originally Posted by surreality

I'm not as familiar with Windows servers or just general Windows hosting as perhaps I should be, I figured I might as well start now. Basic question: why do people still use Server 2003 when 2008 is available? Is there any real advantages to using server software that's around 6 years old?

Acceptance, familiarity and tested and known standard. Probably a bit cheaper too.

[Prowess]

From what I've been reading, most people have chosen not to upgrade due to the high expense. Many others say they haven't upgraded because they are still perfectly satisfied with 2003 and do not intend to upgrade until they do actually need the upgrade. Most who have already upgraded to 2008 say that it is anywhere from 40-50 times faster than the older 2003. That absolutely must be a huge bonus to upgrading!

[MattBarthorp]

Switching from 2003 to 2008 might defer from individual to individual. Some don't upgrade because of the cost, while some are happy with 2003 and dont feel the necessity to upgrade to 2008, whereas some don't want to try any thing that is new due to the misconception that they would have to start learning the new edition from the grass root level.
Some wants to keep themselves updated with the latest in the market, probably these might be some of the reasons for people using 2003 and 2008.

[gazzie]

People don't upgrade from Server 2003 to 2008 for pretty much the same reason some Linux users don't upgrade from CentOS 4 to 5 (except for the cost, of course, since CentOS is free). Or from XP to Vista. Microsoft Server 2003 still works pretty well, and after all, most folks would say that if it "ain't broken, don't fix it".

[MattBarthorp]

Originally Posted by gazzie

People don't upgrade from Server 2003 to 2008 for pretty much the same reason some Linux users don't upgrade from CentOS 4 to 5 (except for the cost, of course, since CentOS is free). Or from XP to Vista. Microsoft Server 2003 still works pretty well, and after all, most folks would say that if it "ain't broken, don't fix it".

Yeah thats what I actually mean't.

[Windac]

Most people probably don't switch because the advantages of 2008 isn't worth the cost. Microsoft should realize that they need to cancel old services so it forces people to upgrade to a similar system. Also, newer services have less support available due to lack of people with experience.

[bluetrance05]

It depends on every user. Probably the Windows 2008 could be expensive to most clients out there. If you check the features of Windows Server 2003 you will notice that some of them were improved over the earlier Windows server platform 2000. But the Windows 2003 server still needs room for improvement as some of the tools for managing Active Directory and other Administrative tools are not working properly.

[geeksworld1]

Microsoft Windows Server 2003 R2 (SBS 2003 R2) is an advanced solution for productivity and security, designed to help you keep businesses like yours up and running, so you can do more with less and connect with customers more effectively. SBS 2003 R2 provides many of the features used by large companies, all in one affordable, integrated solution.