back to article Windows Server 2003 support deadline is TOMORROW – but thousands don't care

Tomorrow marks the end of support for Windows Server 2003 but plenty of customers, of all shapes and sizes, weighed up the cost versus the risk factors and will continue to make do with their dusty old boxes. From 14 July, Microsoft will not issue any further security patches or firmware upgrades, and buying custom support is …

  1. AMBxx Silver badge
    Boffin

    More stats please

    Anyone have the stats on what these old servers are running? Internal applications or file servers, then who cares? IIS with Internet facing site, big oops.

    1. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: More stats please

      Well some I suspect are network appliances running WS2003 ISA Server (VPN, Firewall etc.).

  2. Little Mouse
    Trollface

    Ah, but - technically....

    Assuming there are new patches out tomorrow, that buys another month's grace.... Right?

  3. Tony S

    Meh

    Difficult to get too worked up over this, when there are a lot of businesses that are still running crucial systems on Win 2K and NT4.

    I worked for one of these about 2 years ago. They had outsourced their IT and were reliant upon a certain well know vendor / services company. As far as I know, they still have their Win 2K server running, containing about 15 years worth of data that nobody actually makes use of. They keep it "Just in case".

  4. MJI Silver badge

    Will they all go embedded?

    Like all the XP workstations

  5. Roland6 Silver badge

    What was meant by the final paragraph?

    "Another huge support deadline has almost passed but IT directors and their tech suppliers should taken note – end of support dates for Windows Server 2008 and 2012 are looming. You’ve got less than five and eight years respectively to get your houses in order."

    Given the context is the upgrade of WS2003, I read this as implying that business'es should also be preparing for the migration of existing WS2008 and 2012 workloads and hence these platforms are not suitable targets for a WS2003 migration. But wait a moment WS2012 is MS's current server offering, WS2016 isn't expected until next year!

    So is the implication that enterprises should be getting their house's in order by migrating away from Microsoft server? But as we know from feedback on other ElReg articles, there are very few OS's that do offer 10+ years of guaranteed support from the day they are released, thereby ensuring platform stability for a number of years. Platform stability isn't something, I've seen cloud/(x)aas providers trumpeting; particularly over a 10+ year timeframe...

    So is the suggestion that no one wants to say on record is: run your WS2003 for another few years and then migrate to WS2016?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What was meant by the final paragraph?

      No, WS2012 *R2* is the current offering.

      1. Stephen Leslie

        Re: What was meant by the final paragraph?

        I thought Windows Server 2012 R2 U1 is the current offering. Microsoft distributed ISOs for it.

  6. roytrubshaw
    Linux

    Opensource alternatives...

    ... given that migrating to a later Micro$haft O/S is going to take serious effort, not to mention the up front costs (cheapest OEM deals are in the £hundreds), it looks like I will be giving serious thought to Zentyal et al.

    1. Lee D Silver badge

      Re: Opensource alternatives...

      To be honest, I don't know that you'll save any money compared to even several hundred quid. The transition alone, and pain of migration or integration, will cost you more than that on even the tiniest of systems (I work in schools, and have worked from tiny primary schools with barely one server up to huge colleges with hundreds of VM's).

      I'm just not sure what you think you're saving there at all. And Zentyal isn't free by the looks of it. The OS versions look about as helpful as you might expect from someone offering paid support for what is basically the OS project.

      I'm not averse to open-source - have put Linux into hundreds of machines in schools, and taken it out, have replaced servers with Linux, install and use Linux for back-end tasks all the time, run schools on OpenOffice (before LibreOffice) and run any number of services on OS software on all platforms - but this sounds like you're building yourself up to a world of hurt in preference to throwing down a few hundred quid.

      Anywhere that you need an Exchange server, a couple of hundred quid should be nothing more than a drop in the ocean compared to everything else you have to have to make it work reliably.

      Personally, I think you'd be better off going managed hosting, and have you seen the prices on that? It's not cheap, but it is usually at least per-user which is a great saving for tiny shops.

      I have happily told Microsoft et al where to go on many occasions and come up with better, faster, cheaper, easier solutions... but I think you're just heading into a world of pain thinking that OS will save you here.

  7. Lee D Silver badge

    ARGH!

    Honestly, how many articles are you going to suck out of one event happening? It's getting ridiculous, Reg.

    At this point, anyone who cares has done something about it, and anyone who's left doesn't care.

    My last workplace that used 2003 was taken from it nearly FOUR YEARS ago and that was a real hanger-on and fought to the last to stop me upgrading it (i.e. we were still using Windows XP!). The only thing I absolutely couldn't argue with was that they were still on permanent Volume Licences and thus had to move to the annual licensing if they moved forward (so I understood their reluctance). Still, I twisted their arm and moved them on to something sensible... FOUR YEARS AGO.

    IT does not standstill just because you bury your head in the sand or "your boss said so". Get it upgraded, or you become the "support" for all the weird problems and lack of external support you'll start having.

    Hell, how do you even buy new hardware that support 2003 any more anyway? Do they even still make RAID drivers for that OS? Just better hope your hardware never dies before you get onto virtualising it all (and why didn't you start that years ago with your 2003 machines?).

    P.S. For those who don't get the hint, it's time to explain to your boss AGAIN why the IT can't just stay static for ever and ever and needs maintenance and upgrades and refreshes all the time.

  8. Loud Speaker

    Are you sure?

    How many of those servers are actually running BSD or Linux and have been for years?

    If the owners were worried about security, it is unlikely they would be running Windows. I doubt the people who repurposed them bothered to phone HP or Dell for support - it is quicker to use Google.

    Disclaimer: I have several servers with Windows licences which have never run Windows since I bought them, and I still have a laptop which runs XP.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon