Exchange 2000 Won't Run On Windows Server 2003

Advertisement (Why?)

Channel partners are miffed that Microsoft's Exchange 2000 won't run on Windows Server 2003.

Just two days before that operating system is to be released, partners are complaining about incompatibilities between Windows Server 2003 and existing Microsoft server applications installed at many customer sites.

For instance, neither Exchange 2000 nor Internet Information Services 5.0 will run on Windows Server 2003. SQL Server 2000 will run on Windows Server 2003 only with Service Pack 3 deployed, partners sources say.

"It would be much better to have Exchange 2000 on Windows 2003," said Walter Horowitz, president of Mardovar Networking, a reseller in Saundersville, R.I. "After all, we were able to keep Exchange 5.5 when we upgraded from Windows NT to Windows 2000."

Only Exchange 2003 will run on Windows Server 2003, which is due to launch Thursday after years of delays.

News source: CRN.com

Thank you again for your interest in OneNote, and we hope you enjoy
using the product. We'll be looking for your feedback on the OneNote
public newsgroup.

#1 tntomek on 23 Apr 2003 - 16:49

Maybe they did this for a good reason...There is lots of security holes that W2K3 addressed and there is nothing worse then having to work with old software that inhibits your ability to make software more stable and secure. If it was done for reasons other then to get people to upgrade to Exchange 2003 then GREAT but if that was the only reason MS should reeveluat eits strategy. W2K3 will be hard enought to adopt without having to put up with ugrade conspiracies.

#2 BigBoy on 23 Apr 2003 - 16:53

It's a good move IMHO. with IIS6, you'd have to revert back to IIS5 "compatibility" mode if you wanted E2K to work - and that would then be a waste.

#3 outofcoffee on 23 Apr 2003 - 17:26

In all fairness, this was 'known' (however widely I don't know) about a year ago when ZDNet ran a story on it.. seems admins might've slept through that half-announcement(!) If MS are to build the kind of security record they want for WinServ2k3 they're going to have to make concessions like this, although I doubt this argument'll hold weight with the "MS Wants To Fleece More Money Out Of Us" camp.

#4 Mr magoo on 23 Apr 2003 - 17:39

tntomek - you right. although it forces an upgrade and thus more cost, it will raise the security level alot.

#5 dougkinzinger on 23 Apr 2003 - 17:50

nice....that'll be a nice upgrade for those shops with windows 2000 server and exchange server 2000 (like me)....

#6 xStainDx on 23 Apr 2003 - 17:57

[QUOTE]"It would be much better to have Exchange 2000 on Windows 2003," said Walter Horowitz, president of Mardovar Networking, a reseller in Saundersville, R.I. "After all, we were able to keep Exchange 5.5 when we upgraded from Windows NT to Windows 2000."[/QUOTE] Yeah, When Microsoft Cared Dick About Security, You Twit.

(1 reply) #7 me101 on 23 Apr 2003 - 20:11

Should this not have come out during the "testing/beta" phase of Windows Server 2003... I'm completly surprised that no-one had not installed Exchange 2000 on a Windows Server 2003 setup to check that it indeed worked until Microsoft actually get Exchange 2003 rolled out... Talk about a "basic" compitability test... !!

#7.1 tntomek on 23 Apr 2003 - 21:40

[neoquote=#7.0 by me101]Should this not have come out during the "testing/beta" phase of Windows Server 2003... I'm completly surprised that no-one had not installed Exchange 2000 on a Windows Server 2003 setup to check that it indeed worked until Microsoft actually get Exchange 2003 rolled out... Talk about a "basic" compitability test... !![/neoquote] Learn to read

READ what #3...said This was intentional and now some accident

(2 replies) #8 werejag on 23 Apr 2003 - 22:11

go microsoft. go microsoft. go microsoft. makem pay, makem pay, makem pay! good going for forcing customers to upgrade. got to hand it to microsoft to come up with ways to force unwilling customers to upgrade. my hat is off to you

#8.1 JaggedFlame on 24 Apr 2003 - 03:49

Hats off to you for not being able to read. It must be great managing to stay in the 1% of the population that's still illiterate.

#8.2 werejag on 24 Apr 2003 - 07:47

ah my friend faggedlame. err that JaggedFlame, (sorry) is it true from what i read, that 1) simple apps that people payed for dont work in 2003 2) they only fix is more money 3) your so pro microsoft

#9 EQ23 on 24 Apr 2003 - 00:14

Exchange 2000 with SP3 or later can operate in a Windows Server 2003 Active Directory environment. http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/evaluation/ti/TiWin2003.doc Can't you guys read REAL source......

#10 Eversurf on 24 Apr 2003 - 01:25

Correct me if i'm wrong, I have not tested this but i thought you could run the command forest prep and domain prep and then install Xchange 2k on win2k3. Can someone tell me where i can find the information about this story on the Microsoft Website. Thanx

#11 jesterzwild on 24 Apr 2003 - 02:36

There are some funny things in this news, some that others have already pointed out. For one, why would you want to run IIS 5.0 instead of 6.0? In addition it's not like IIS is a separate application in the sense that Exchange is, instead it's practically part of the OS. Secondly to say that Windows 2003 is being released after years of delays is silly. Given that the last server OS was Windows 2000, it has only been 3 years, which is not a large deviation in either direction for new OS releases from Microsoft. Some of us might also remember that Exchange 5.5 did not migrate easily to Windows 2000 at the start and there are still known issues with the combination.

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Neowin.net