So much of the Windows 2000 Server installation is automated that if everything goes smoothly (repeat, if) a simple setup requires about 30 minutes and little expertise other than that of a general familiarity with Windows. However, troubleshooting in the vast array of interlocking features — especially those involving the Active Directory — is another story. So is an installation that is not basic (i.e. anything with Active Directory or involving multiple servers). The basic server version loves disk space, at least 850 MB of it, and works best with 128MB of RAM.
It has been said (repeatedly) that most companies will adopt Windows 2000 slowly. The scope, complexity, and cost of Windows 2000 Server makes this statement obvious. For enterprise use, a considerable amount of testing and comparison are in order; for departmental and midsize businesses, the complexities of Active Directory may be a barrier.
It’s going to be hard to swallow for some people, but Windows 2000 Server is not only a big improvement over Windows NT 4.0; it is also a system of products that will give the competition a run for the money in scalability and overall cost of management. Will Windows 2000 overtake Unix and Linux in the reliability and heavy-lifting contest? It’s possible; the next year or so should establish that. For current installations, Windows 2000 Server is worth the upgrade. Migration is a major headache, in part because the reach of the product is so great. Also, the under-one-roof approach has always had its proponents, especially for the enterprise.
Pros: • Active Directory and the services it enables • Improved performance, reliability, and security • Better (and more) administrative facilities along with a somewhat improved user interface
Cons: • Cost of planning and implementation, especially for midsize organizations that must use Active Directory • Bigger is not always better
|Version Reviewed: Win2000||Reviewer: Nelson King|
|Original Review: 3/1/00||Last Updated: 3/1/00|