What do you think of Windows 2003+ for CS2006?

I think with a product like Commerce Server, it is something you are going to want on a secure server. That means that if you aren't running Win2k3 SP1 you are missing out on a lot of security benefits.

Also, if you are deploying the latest and greatest server applications, by the time CS2k5 hits the customers, you are 99% likely to already be running Win2k3.

I am also sure that there is a lot to be gained for the customers by requiring the higher level platform. Compatibility will be number one on that list since with a smaller platform choice to support there is a greater chance of lower impact bugs being fixed before RTM. There is also less impact trying to carry CS2k5 on to newer server and database platforms. It will be a far greater benefit to be able to move forward compatibilities with fewer necessary patches than to support a product which will have backwards support to an ever decreasing install base of Win2k.

In short, the better product for CS2k5 will have a lower TCO over it's lifespan even for those that would have to purchase a license upgrade for the server to bring it up to Win2k3.

Ryan

I agree with Dan here, but note (importantly) that we are both from partner organisations. I do think that there would be negativity towards a restiction like that so a PR offensive would be required, but on a practical level it seems sensible to focus the resources on building the best of breed ecommerce solution, even if at the cost of some 'backward compatibility'.

I assume you have access to market research which might provide some insight into how many new build solutions are being deployed on Win2K versus Win2K3 - that might be useful to look at. Commerce Server solutions are of course mainly a 'new build' type project, at least in my experience, so there should only be issues where you are overcoming larger enterprise policies for supported platforms rather than trying to bolt it onto existing Win2K servers.

Subject to a test customer survey, I'd say go for it !

Nick

I agree, with Don. please support only 2K3.

It will give us a better product.

I also agree with the direction of keeping CS2006 a Windows Server 2003 based product. I believe your adoption rate will improve if the product is secure, robust and reliable and Windows 2003 is a huge step forward for all three. I used to reboot my NT4 servers once a week and my Win2K servers once a month. Since moving to Windows 2003, I only need to reboot when required by a security patch.

I understand the arguments from both side as to why you would want to support 2000. As a customer who has existing depoyments I would prefer to see as much functionality in the next release and if that means it is only supported on the latest operating system then so be it. I want performance, securtity, and features. I went to battle with our operations group and conviced them we needed to deploy on 2003 and they agreed with me. My major pain point was with our 3rd party hosting, we had to threaten to pull the contract to force them to provide us with 2003 servers. As they say where there is a will there is a way.

The biggest problem I can see and this is probably more of and application issues is the upgrade path.

I fully support CS2K6 on W2K3 and above but an important thing that will need to be thought about, tested and taken into consideration are those existing CS2K2 deployments on W2K. Such a customer will first have to upgrade the OS, test everything and make sure it is right and then upgrade CS. Then can open the door to potential problems.

As long as we cover all upgrade senario's in testing and documentation thoroughly then we should be ok.

My current customer is already on the migration path to the Win2003 platform, and their experience with the reliability of the 2003 platform has been very good.

I would prefer to see strong support for CS2K6 on W2K3 and not dilute the testing and qa of it with backwards compatibility support.

I would like to echo the support for a Windows Server 2003 or later release is a good thing. While there may be concern for desktop products and backwards support I think for a server environment, especially one where security is critical, the case for a Windows Server 2003 or later release is justified.

We run an environment where if there is a release that provides security-related benefits it gets priority to move to production.

Cheers,
Colin

I completely agree with the above posters. If the choice is between more functionality or Windows 2000 support, my vote is for more functionality.

There does need to be as smooth as possible migration from CS2002 to CS2006. Web sites should not have to be completely rewritten with each new version of Commerce Server -- customers just won't go for it.

I'd personally support 2k3 only - if it was my box I wouldn't even consider installing 2k as the OS in the first place.
I guess the real question is the big sites out there still running on 2k - you need a real strong roadmap/assistance to get them migrated otherwise you are effectively closing the door to CS2k6 adoption with these customers.