> Just taken delivery of some fairly substantial ironwork from Dell.
>
> The box was preinstalled with Server 2008, with an OEM licence
> supplied.
>
> The main requirement here is for file-distribution throughput, it
> will serve large files to a CAD workgroup via a dedicated GHz LAN.
> Basically no frills required but plenty muscle needed.
>
> Clients are presently XP/32, but Win7/64 is being envisaged, mainly
> for its
>> 4GB RAM capability, which on XP is a bottleneck for 3D CAD rendering.
>
> The initial intention is to set this up as a workgroup server. I’m
> already aware that there are issues with integrating 2008 into an
> existing 2000/2003 domain, but this will probably not be necessary as
> it’s to serve a very small group of distinct users.
>
> My concerns:
>
> 1. 2008 is basically serverized Vista (:-/) -Therefore is it going to
> make best use of the hardware’s capabilities speedwise, or not?
It can certainly handle more RAM (unless you have 2003 Enterprise)
>
> 2. There are numerous reports of SMB (file sharing) difficulties
> between 2008’s SMB2 and earlier OS’s that use SMB1. Is this likely to
> be an issue?
I have no issues with this myself.
>
> The scenario I really want to avoid at all costs is having to say,
> "Sorry guys this didn’t work out so we’re going to have to start over
> again…" some time down the line. That would not be a good outcome.
>
> Therefore, opinions sought: Would I be better to nuke the lot and put
> on tried-and-trusted 2003 SP2, or stick with largely-untested but
> newer 2008?
I’d go with 2008. There really isn’t much different about it for the
purposes you plan to use it for (wow, awkward phrasing) and you may as well
jump on the bandwagon sometime. My feelings about Vista and the bleeding
edge are similar to yours, but I am not finding any issues with it in the
admittedly few environments in which I’ve installed 2008.
