Hey, Winblows Loser!
If 2000 is such a great server, then why doesn't MS themselves use it as often as they say we should? Hotmail.com is running on FreeBSD simply because Windows 2000 couldn't handle it. Microsoft themselves use Linux and the BSD's for their mision critical servers.
Anything on MS's web site that claims that 2000 is better than a Unix based OS is obviously a lie, and even MS doesn't believe it.
When people set up a web server they want an inexpensive reliable solution. Free/Open/NetBSD and Linux are inexpensive and very reliable, acheiving uptimes of over a year. Windows 2000 with IIS will throw you a good 300 to 800 dollars and I've never even heard of 2000 having uptimes of over a year. And countless studies have shown that the total cost of ownership of a unix based server is 30% less than that of a Windows 2000 based server.
You can't argue with facts(well you can, but you will not convince anyone here).
And other studies have proven that Apache on Linux or Unix is faster and more reliable than IIS or Apache on Windows 2000.
Winblows loser please do some quality research(read: not on MS"s site) before trying to sell MS's crap.