2008 Vs 2003

[MillZ]

Hi all you helpful people

So here's my problem:

At my school, they've for some reason chosen to teach us about Windows Server 2003, which I think is stupid, so I asked my teacher why we didn't use the updated Windows Server 2008. His reply was that you could do the exact same things in Windows Server 2003 as you can in 2008. He continued by telling me if I could find -one- thing you can do in Windows Server 2008 that you can't in 2003, he would get me a copy of 2008, and consider upgrading to 2008 for my class.

I can't say I'm much of an expert at Windows Server, so I decided to come here and ask you people if you could help me find out a major difference between them. Preferably anything that has something to do with networking, but anything is fine, really. Just as long as he can't do that specific thing on a version of Windows Server 2003.


So, please, could you help me show my teacher that he's wrong?

 

[mmthomas]

Mostly your teacher is right. There isn't much that is "brand new" in Server 2008. There are a lot of improvements and a lot of minor changes which some might consider big changes. But for everything that is going to be covered in one class, there isn't much difference. Sure you can run Server Core with 2008, but it's unlikely that would be covered in a class anyway. Additionally, the population of 2003 Servers is much greater than that of 2008 servers and is likely to be for a few years. There is also more Hyper-V in 2008, but this would likely be covered in a class by itself. I'm assuming this is some sort of intro class. There are still companies out there running Win NT, so while Server 2003 may seem old to you, it is still the new technology to a lot of businesses and 2008 is the new, untested and untrusted tech.