ComputerWorld Singapore has an interesting article on Windows Server 2003, and its lack of backwards compatibility. This is by design, and is part of Microsoft's overall efforts to gently nudge users towards a more stable and secure platform. For example, SQL Server 2000 with SP3 is the "oldest" generation DB code that can be installed on a Windows Server 2003 box. And going forward, people looking to upgrade to Yukon will be forced to move to Windows Server 2003. I'm not certain whether or not this is a good thing, but I'm leaning towards it being good. I think that Microsoft's concerns about backwards compatibility have been a huge part of its success in the PC world. I know so many people who really love the Apple platform but have been irked time and time again by the tough choices they've had to make as they upgraded OS and hardware, only to find that their favorite tools have to be repurchased or no longer function. In the world of enterprise software however, I think that backwards compatibility may be more of a hindrance than a help. I think that most customers understand the need for software to be secure and robust, and understand that upgrading platforms may be necessary to get to the newer versions of software that they need. If removing backwards compatibility improves the overall stability, security, and reliability of the platform, then surely that will be perceived as a good thing.