You are certainly not running any high value production servers (Windows 2000 would be owned in a heartbeat if so).
My answer would be 2008 R2 and beyond. Anything before hand is largely out of support and poses a massive security risk.
Then again my answer in most use cases would be no version of Windows. The vast majority of my servers run *nix - the AD and VDI servers are the only things running Windows (2008 R2). I would also accept Exchange as a Windows role. Everything else is best left to Linux.
This also belongs in Software, not Random Crap. Moving
It's actually sad to think of the number of clients that I've run into that are still running Windows 2000 Server. Also, still quite a few 2003 boxes rocking around.
As for any new deployments, I use 2012 R2. 2008 R2 is also acceptable.
2012 (not R2), however, is not. The lack of a start button is made even more annoying when connecting to the server over RDP in windowed mode instead of full screen.
Upgrade to Windows Server 2003 from Windows 2000 Server. Then, upgrade to Windows Server 2008. And (if you want), Windows Server 2012 R2 or R1 AKA Windows Server 8. I hope i helped!
Upgrade to Windows Server 2003 from Windows 2000 Server. Then, upgrade to Windows Server 2008. And (if you want), Windows Server 2012 R2 or R1 AKA Windows Server 8. I hope i helped!
While it's theoretically possible to make several chain upgrades (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WP7AkJo3OE ), it's not the brightest idea. It would require you to have all those installation discs (in the ideal case, legally), spend a lot of time and potentially lose data partially or completely.
Upgrade to Windows Server 2003 from Windows 2000 Server. Then, upgrade to Windows Server 2008. And (if you want), Windows Server 2012 R2 or R1 AKA Windows Server 8. I hope i helped!
Why the hell would you do that, unless your end goal was to create something terrible?
Also, btw, if you were to follow that upgrade path, you couldn't do an actual upgrade install to 2012. The highest you could go is 2008 since that was the last Windows Server version to come in both 32 bit and 64 bit and you can't upgrade from a 32 bit OS to a 64 bit OS. Your only choice would be a fresh install.
As a side note, I have done an upgrade path from NT Server 3.51 to 2008. The result was surprisingly stable, but I would never do it for a production environment.
Upgrade to Windows Server 2003 from Windows 2000 Server. Then, upgrade to Windows Server 2008. And (if you want), Windows Server 2012 R2 or R1 AKA Windows Server 8. I hope i helped!
Why the hell would you do that, unless your end goal was to create something terrible?
Also, btw, if you were to follow that upgrade path, you couldn't do an actual upgrade install to 2012. The highest you could go is 2008 since that was the last Windows Server version to come in both 32 bit and 64 bit and you can't upgrade from a 32 bit OS to a 64 bit OS. Your only choice would be a fresh install.
As a side note, I have done an upgrade path from NT Server 3.51 to 2008. The result was surprisingly stable, but I would never do it for a production environment.
Lol here's my question, what server would you have that has all the drivers all of these OS's? As far I know none exist.
Yeah, the Ethernet card in my P3 has drivers from NT 3.51 all the way to XP, which still work in 32-bit Windows 7. (It''s not bad performance-wise.) An RTL-8139 is supported by almost every OS.
Upgrade to Windows Server 2003 from Windows 2000 Server. Then, upgrade to Windows Server 2008. And (if you want), Windows Server 2012 R2 or R1 AKA Windows Server 8. I hope i helped!
Why the hell would you do that, unless your end goal was to create something terrible?
Also, btw, if you were to follow that upgrade path, you couldn't do an actual upgrade install to 2012. The highest you could go is 2008 since that was the last Windows Server version to come in both 32 bit and 64 bit and you can't upgrade from a 32 bit OS to a 64 bit OS. Your only choice would be a fresh install.
As a side note, I have done an upgrade path from NT Server 3.51 to 2008. The result was surprisingly stable, but I would never do it for a production environment.
Lol here's my question, what server would you have that has all the drivers all of these OS's? As far I know none exist.
It was a VM. Specifically a VM running on ESXi 5.0. I had to use an ESXi 4.1 box to generate a .VMX config that NT 3.51 would work with. I can't remember if it was 2003 or 2008, but once I got that high, I had to upgrade the virtual hardware version before I could install.
I did it mainly as a test to see if it could be done and how craptastic the result was. I was pleasantly surprised to see that it was actually quite usable. The 2008 upgrade was practically like a fresh install with how many changes it made.
Also, I wound up skipping NT 4 and jumping right to 2000. I did have newshell installed though.
EDIT: Also, it was domain joined and once I got to 2008, I had to rejoin it to the domain due to the odd way that NT creates computer accounts.
Upgrade to Windows Server 2003 from Windows 2000 Server. Then, upgrade to Windows Server 2008. And (if you want), Windows Server 2012 R2 or R1 AKA Windows Server 8. I hope i helped!
Why the hell would you do that, unless your end goal was to create something terrible?
Also, btw, if you were to follow that upgrade path, you couldn't do an actual upgrade install to 2012. The highest you could go is 2008 since that was the last Windows Server version to come in both 32 bit and 64 bit and you can't upgrade from a 32 bit OS to a 64 bit OS. Your only choice would be a fresh install.
As a side note, I have done an upgrade path from NT Server 3.51 to 2008. The result was surprisingly stable, but I would never do it for a production environment.
Lol here's my question, what server would you have that has all the drivers all of these OS's? As far I know none exist.
It was a VM. Specifically a VM running on ESXi 5.0. I had to use an ESXi 4.1 box to generate a .VMX config that NT 3.51 would work with. I can't remember if it was 2003 or 2008, but once I got that high, I had to upgrade the virtual hardware version before I could install.
I did it mainly as a test to see if it could be done and how craptastic the result was. I was pleasantly surprised to see that it was actually quite usable. The 2008 upgrade was practically like a fresh install with how many changes it made.
Also, I wound up skipping NT 4 and jumping right to 2000. I did have newshell installed though.
EDIT: Also, it was domain joined and once I got to 2008, I had to rejoin it to the domain due to the odd way that NT creates computer accounts.
Sorry, I'm not very familiar with ESXi or really any Type 1 Hypervisors in general. I thought it was on a physical system. However those results are very surprising.
Lets back pedal here. I always hear about upgrading a existing OS install is bad yet nine times out of ten the install replaces all system files and also doesn't change the file system unless you're converting from say FAT32 to NTFS. The only issue I would see is existing software that wasn't supported by the newer OS or a registry issue that can be fixed by re-installing said program.
My job still uses Windows Server 2003 but it runs VMWare with OpenServer 5 that has the main software we use. Only time we need something done in windows is to run MS-Office Excel, Word and OutLook.
I myself when it comes to server use for say my home or any other I always use Linux. It's free and has better support then Microsoft and Apple combined due to a huge Open Source community. Run into a problem and just google it and get your answer. Run into issues with Windows Server and you're stuck watching some ten year old on youtube going on and on while studdering on how he fixed it or end up with a generic answer from Microsoft's message board. Apple is always going to the "newest/greatest" thing and dropping support on the previous version. "Oh you're running mavericks? I'm sorry we only support Yosemite now.".
Doing an upgrade install is always hit or miss. In my experience, I've found that it usually works ok, but maybe has an odd quirk that happens once in a while.
And if I have to reinstall a program anyway, I might as well do a fresh install.
I've seen quirky issues doing upgrades even on Linux. I had a Debian firewall that stopped NAT'ing after an upgrade. I wiped it, did a fresh install and copied the configs over to the new install. It worked perfectly.
Only issues I have ran into with upgrading Linux and even updating typical software in Linux is when APT leaves a old configuration file and the updated program doesn't use the same layout anymore.
Debian is certainly a lot easier to dist-upgrade than RHEL/CentOS. I've had usual success whenever I've done a dist-upgrade of Debian.
That said I still recommend everyone do migrations to fresh installations regardless of the operating system. It's far cleaner. With Windows 2003 going out of support in July I sense we'll be doing some extra migrations in the up coming months at work.
Comments
My answer would be 2008 R2 and beyond. Anything before hand is largely out of support and poses a massive security risk.
Then again my answer in most use cases would be no version of Windows. The vast majority of my servers run *nix - the AD and VDI servers are the only things running Windows (2008 R2). I would also accept Exchange as a Windows role. Everything else is best left to Linux.
This also belongs in Software, not Random Crap. Moving
As for any new deployments, I use 2012 R2. 2008 R2 is also acceptable.
2012 (not R2), however, is not. The lack of a start button is made even more annoying when connecting to the server over RDP in windowed mode instead of full screen.
That was supremely stupid.
Why the hell would you do that, unless your end goal was to create something terrible?
Also, btw, if you were to follow that upgrade path, you couldn't do an actual upgrade install to 2012. The highest you could go is 2008 since that was the last Windows Server version to come in both 32 bit and 64 bit and you can't upgrade from a 32 bit OS to a 64 bit OS. Your only choice would be a fresh install.
As a side note, I have done an upgrade path from NT Server 3.51 to 2008. The result was surprisingly stable, but I would never do it for a production environment.
It was a VM. Specifically a VM running on ESXi 5.0. I had to use an ESXi 4.1 box to generate a .VMX config that NT 3.51 would work with. I can't remember if it was 2003 or 2008, but once I got that high, I had to upgrade the virtual hardware version before I could install.
I did it mainly as a test to see if it could be done and how craptastic the result was. I was pleasantly surprised to see that it was actually quite usable. The 2008 upgrade was practically like a fresh install with how many changes it made.
Also, I wound up skipping NT 4 and jumping right to 2000. I did have newshell installed though.
EDIT: Also, it was domain joined and once I got to 2008, I had to rejoin it to the domain due to the odd way that NT creates computer accounts.
My job still uses Windows Server 2003 but it runs VMWare with OpenServer 5 that has the main software we use. Only time we need something done in windows is to run MS-Office Excel, Word and OutLook.
I myself when it comes to server use for say my home or any other I always use Linux. It's free and has better support then Microsoft and Apple combined due to a huge Open Source community. Run into a problem and just google it and get your answer. Run into issues with Windows Server and you're stuck watching some ten year old on youtube going on and on while studdering on how he fixed it or end up with a generic answer from Microsoft's message board. Apple is always going to the "newest/greatest" thing and dropping support on the previous version. "Oh you're running mavericks? I'm sorry we only support Yosemite now.".
And if I have to reinstall a program anyway, I might as well do a fresh install.
I've seen quirky issues doing upgrades even on Linux. I had a Debian firewall that stopped NAT'ing after an upgrade. I wiped it, did a fresh install and copied the configs over to the new install. It worked perfectly.
That said I still recommend everyone do migrations to fresh installations regardless of the operating system. It's far cleaner. With Windows 2003 going out of support in July I sense we'll be doing some extra migrations in the up coming months at work.