Greg, thanks. Nice company there, you have a site? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 9:40 PM Subject: RE: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003?
> First off, > > I run a network of 180 servers, each has Microsoft Windows 2000 Server > (Advanced) installed and running in a Forest/Multi Brain environment with 2 > PDC's per node. > > Whoever stated that Windows 2000 Server does NOT support HyperThreading > developed by Intel/IBM, has not the slightest idea what they are discussing. > > In fact, the reason Windows 2000 Server was released was primarily for > technological advancement and deployment of active hardware management and > utilization. Windows 2000 Server (of any flavour) supports HyperThreading > (which is just a fancy name for "multi-threading") and it's sole purpose was > to handle this advancement in particular. > > What's more, if you run Windows 2000 Server Datacenter Edition SP3m, you're > looking at the ability to scale up to 64 uni-syncronous processors > (physically) and up to 2 terabytes or more of RAM (either physical state or > node on a by-wire NLB, GLB) > > The only difference between Windows 2003 Server (Enterprise or Standard, not > including Datacenter, since Advanced was done away with years ago) is a > included SQL server, SMTP/POP server, Lite Exchange, "out of the box" Active > Directory and PDC / DC deployment, "being locked down" out of the box, and a > few other minor UI touch ups and packet interface handling exchange methods > (IPv6 anyone?) and the removal of NetBUI, etc. > > If you don't understand what you're saying, please let those who do gain the > time to respond. Especially when what you're responding to will possibly > have an adverse affect on how another individual spends his/her time and > money. > > To whomever it was that asked earlier, Windows 2000 Server (Standard, > Advanced, Enterprise, or even Datacenter) does support "HyperThreading" and > in standard form up to 4GB of physical RAM, etc. as well as up to 2 physical > processors (Standard), multiplied by a factor of 2 each step upward. > > Additionally, CALs for RDP are interchangeable between Windows 2000 Server > and Windows 2003 Server, so administration should you decide to license one > over the other thru a purchase (since Windows 2000 Server can be purchased > for close to $2,500 USD depending on the license you choose) and may be more > cost efficient if you want to re-use that license, especially if it is off > network (as MS has already stated this will be free for everyone in the next > 5 months and forward). > > As a note, every server we deploy is currently at a minimum specification of > two or more 2800mhz "F" class Intel Xeon processors and 2048MB of PC2700 DDR > (ECC). And the taskman does show a multiplicity of processors and system > information which does indeed state that "Multi-Threading" is capable and > active. > > Read a book people. You shouldn't be spreading misinformation simply because > the thought crosses your mind. If you don't KNOW, then either find out or > don't post. I long for the good old days of this list... > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Guido > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 9:02 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > Wow, thought 2k did support HT. Is there gonna be anyproblems if i have a HT > support processor and motherboard but not the OS? > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 8:39 PM > Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > > nope, 2k does not support hyperthreading > > > > and as mentioned earlier, both 2k and 2k3 are basically the same os, just > > with slight differences. theres more setup that has to be done on 2k3 > since > > its server software, and has nothing set up on install. > > > > as for whoever said xp for win servers, i would like u to send me some of > > that fine jamacian weed you're smoking, cuz im out at the moment. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Donald Holl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 7:34 PM > > Subject: Re: [hlds] Windows 2000 or Windows 2003? > > > > > > > > Wait. Does Win2k Pro support HT? > > > > > > I doubt it. HT wasn't around when Windows 2000 came out so it would seem > > to make sense that Windows 2003 can take advantage of HT and therefore > > perform better. > > > _______________________________________________ > > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > > please visit: > > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
