If you have to recommend Windows Server 2003

Really depends on what it's up against. W2k? Linux?

Well, it's not really the case of OS 1 vs. OS 2. But let's say you need to convince someone that it's better to install Widnows Server 2003 instead of Linux on the system administrator's machine.

If you're supporting Windows Desktop machines, then a familiar UI will save time and therefore money. No need to learn a complex *nix to administer it.

Windows Server 2k3 has a very useful mass patch management/deployment tool for the desktop machines - WSUS (which requires W2k3SP1+).

If you use Windows Server as the backend for your client machines, then Group Policy provides a very time/cost efficient way to administer the desktop machines.

W2k3 has a Group Policy overview tool to find out what permissions apply to a specific user/group etc - very useful for troubleshooting GP inheritance issues.

Here's the MS top 10

If you Google the subject, you'll find countless opinions and counter-opinions. It's one of those questions. It all depends on what you compare against what ;)

Lan, thanks. I actually did see that page, but I wanted to hear what a real person has to say instead of what MS's PR people have wrote :)

And I tried googling 'benefits/advantages of Windows 2003 server' and the likes, but was not really satisfied with the results.

Thanks again :)

What is the purpose of the server? File storage, accessed by local Windows machines? Web server? If it's a Web server you should probably go with Linux. I'm not as familiar with setting up local networks so can only comment on Web servers.

I'm not as familiar with setting up local networks so can only comment on Web servers.

Boatcrew, that's exactly the purpose — setting up a local network :)