Server or Professional first?

As I travel around the country talking about Windows 2000 (Win2K), people frequently ask, "Should I migrate to Windows 2000 Server or Windows 2000 Professional first?" The short answer is that you should migrate your servers first. Here's why.

First, your chief financial officer (CFO) wants to see quick Return on Investment (ROI), lower total cost of ownership (TCO), better customer support, faster adoption of technology, and happy end users. Your CFO wants your IT shop to be a strategic weapon that moves business strategy forward, makes more money, and leverages technology better than your competitors do. Given these factors, what would happen if you migrated your workstations to Windows 2000 Professional (Win2K Pro) first? At the outset, you'll spend a bunch of money upgrading your client devices to be Win2K-"ready." You'll need approximately 128MB of RAM, a 300MHz or better processor, and Win2K Pro; then, you'll need to add the necessary application software.

You might be able to shorten this process with cloning, but the process will still take a while. After all that effort, you'll have spent a lot of time and money and will have almost nothing to show for it. OK, so your interface will look slightly different and you can run the latest Universal Serial Bus (USB) peripherals, but that won't mean much to your CFO. Are your end users happier? Have you lowered TCO? Probably not.

An Abundance of Features
Windows 2000 Server (Win2K Server) is loaded with features that make an administrator happy. Although that situation is great for you, you'll need to position those gains correctly with your CFO. For example, Windows Installer, Remote Installation Services, and IntelliMirror let you configure applications and user information centrally. In fact, if you set up these tools properly, you can theoretically take new PCs and remotely install Win2K Pro and applications on them. The ultimate goal is to configure a PC once and never have to touch it again. Translation: The more you can manage centrally, the less running around you need to do. You'll be able to respond to end users faster and more efficiently.

Terminal Services, which Microsoft has built into Win2K Server, lets you run all applications from the server and send display information to client devices. Administrators who have adopted this technology have told me that they can manage the same number of client devices as they did PCs in a traditional client/server PC environment, and they can do so with an administration staff consisting of 20 percent fewer people. Translation: You can do more work with fewer people and save money.

Automatic Client Updating
Windows NT Server 4.0, Terminal Server Edition (WTS) users tell me that they're not worried about implementing Win2K Pro on the desktop. Remember, they don't need to load Win2K Pro on any client devices. If Win2K is on the server, the clients will use Win2K Pro automatically. Translation: After you upgrade the servers, the clients update automatically—no hassle.

The Choice for E-Commerce
Win2K contains a built-in version of Microsoft Internet Information Server (IIS) 5.0, which is now part of Web Services. Microsoft is positioning Win2K as the business Internet platform—the basic infrastructure you need to build an e-commerce environment. Although you might not be an e-commerce business, you're probably responsible for some part of your company's Web strategy. Translation: Win2K is part of a strategic platform for building Web-based applications.

So, should you avoid Win2K Pro? No, but when you deploy Win2K Server first, your Win2K Pro deployment will be easier, and you'll show your senior managers immediate benefits.

End of Article


You must log on before posting a comment.

If you don't have a username & password, please register now.

Reader Comments

The author assumes that previously your system is an all manual, and walk-around setup.

However any professional Network Administrator will manage a multitude of tasks automatically, for example by creating answer files, or using login scripts and quite install option for new installs, updates or configuration changes.

If such an infrastructure exists, there will be no benefit whatsoever of all these great management features, no time saving, no reduced TCO.

The worst thing about this article is the suggestion that the Server should be upgraded first. In most companies the Server ist the most important part of the network - the heart of the organisation. Any problems affecting it will knock out your organisation and stop all work. It is therefore foolish to try out such an untried technology without a track record.

Perhaps the migration is inevitable, so the best approach will be to start rolling out the Workstation version, to collect experience with the OS, learn its bugs and how to fix it. After the situation is stable and under controll, you can try to do the same thing with servers. And way after that you can use the advanced features.

Patrick Niessen- January 04, 2000

I read Mark Smith's January editorial, "Migrating to Windows 2000," and I have a few comments about it. I understand and agree that much of the value of Windows 2000 (Win2K) will come from Windows 2000 Server (Win2K Server), not Windows 2000 Professional (Win2K Pro). However, I don't agree that an organization should install Win2K Server first. To realize the added value of Win2K Server and many of the features the author mentioned, organizations must install Active Directory (AD). In most cases, planning and implementing AD will be a major project. While you are planning for and implementing AD, you could also be installing Win2K Pro on all desktops that can support it, ordering and installing desktop hardware upgrades, and training users. --­Scott Anderson

Scott Anderson- February 24, 2000

I want to comment on Mark Smith's January editorial. Although I agree with the author that deploying Win2K Pro without a Win2K Server infrastructure in place doesn't provide a lot of bang for the buck, I think there will be situations in which deploying Win2K Pro ahead of the server infrastructure will be necessary. In many large organizations, migrating to Win2K Pro will take much longer than updating the server infrastructure. Certainly, if I want to use Remote Installation Service (RIS) to deploy Win2K Pro, I'll need a Win2K Server environment first. However, I can use other means (e.g., ghosting an image, distributing CD-ROMs) to deploy Win2K Pro that don't require the server environment. Careful project planning is necessary to determine whether you need to deploy Win2K Server or Win2K Pro first. The goal ought to be to complete both deployments at approximately the same time so that everyone can immediately benefit from the new features in Win2K that will lower total cost of ownership (TCO). --­Steve Clines

Steve Clines- February 24, 2000

I’ve been gathering information about whether to convert to Windows 2000 Professional (Win2K Pro) or Windows 2000 Server (Win2K Server) first. Mark Smith’s January 2000 editorial, “Migrating to Windows 2000,” suggests that you implement Win2K Server first to show a greater Return on Investment (ROI). That suggestion makes sense, but how does the size of your network affect this choice? For example, in an enterprise environment of 10,000 or more users with 4 master domains and about 70 resource domains, is converting servers first a good idea?

Chris Berry- June 07, 2000

<i>If you have 10,000 PCs, you’re going to be adding new ones every month. You can make sure the new ones have Win2K Pro on them. How long will it take to replace all the PCs at a typical replacement rate? In the meantime, could you complete the server migration on a group-by-group basis? The major migration tools support this type of migration.</i>

Mark Smith- June 07, 2000

I justed wanted to know what would be the steps for migrating to Windows 2000. step by step. thanks

jillian chappell- May 07, 2001

 
 

ADS BY GOOGLE