Windows 2003 .. REAL Workstation

[K3EnU]

2K is the best Win OS imho. Cuz i don't need all the fancy crap that XP has. XP is just an eye candy OS based on 2K. People using XP and that are proud of it should be ashamed of themselves. I mean, you all brag about your 1337 m4d skills but you are using the most "user friendly" OS ever created... you guys crack me up.

Thats the problem with "free" software today... kids trying to understand an OS they shouldn't even come close to touching.

hmmm... looks like someone need to go out more ! :laugh:

[LiGhTfast]

2K is the best Win OS imho. Cuz i don't need all the fancy crap that XP has. XP is just an eye candy OS based on 2K. People using XP and that are proud of it should be ashamed of themselves. I mean, you all brag about your 1337 m4d skills but you are using the most "user friendly" OS ever created... you guys crack me up.

Thats the problem with "free" software today... kids trying to understand an OS they shouldn't even come close to touching.

me thinks some ones jealous :laugh:

not only the most user friendly, most stable too ;)

[dpanda]

look at the name above my stars and below my avatar u will neo im on which side

[Autoexec]

2K is the best Win OS imho. Cuz i don't need all the fancy crap that XP has. XP is just an eye candy OS based on 2K. People using XP and that are proud of it should be ashamed of themselves. I mean, you all brag about your 1337 m4d skills but you are using the most "user friendly" OS ever created... you guys crack me up.

Thats the problem with "free" software today... kids trying to understand an OS they shouldn't even come close to touching.

I use Windows XP, i also use SUSE Linux which im quite an expert at. so becuase im teh 1337 d00dy @ LuNix does that meen c02 i have XP i Su><0r @ PC's :p

I think u need to grow up :p

[nixr]

2K is the best Win OS imho. Cuz i don't need all the fancy crap that XP has. XP is just an eye candy OS based on 2K. People using XP and that are proud of it should be ashamed of themselves. I mean, you all brag about your 1337 m4d skills but you are using the most "user friendly" OS ever created... you guys crack me up.

Thats the problem with "free" software today... kids trying to understand an OS they shouldn't even come close to touching.

You call that a humble opinion? Geez! I'd hate to see you when you're being presumptuous and arrogant. :rolleyes:

I don't want to start a flame but why should I be ashamed of myself for prefering Xp over 2000? And what does that have to do with the discussion at hand? Furthermore, if you compare Xp and Win2k from an IT point of view you would see that Xp is far easier to administer and deploy. And as far as it being "eye candy", what's wrong with a sleeker looking OS? Does an OS need to be ugly for it to be good?

Here's the bottom line : Xp has everything that 2000 has and then it sweetens the pot by adding things that 2000 shoulda had. System Restore and Driver Rollback really great tools for fixing a flubbed driver installation, and I'd much rather use the Files and Settings Transfer Wizard than have to type the scanstate or loadstate commands all day.

So I guess I'll just chalk this up to a difference in opinion but don't insult my intelligence just because you're affraid of a new GUI.

Embrace the present my friend. Revere the past.

[sirocco]

If I prefer 2000 over XP, it isn't because of the GUI (I can switch ...)

And I didn't tried Windows server 2003 for the server capabilities, I run my own servers (apache ....) it's more reliable :)

[sumpter]

I'm not sure if anyone has put this yet, but just run the setups/applications you're having problems with in compatibility mode. Right click file > properties > compatibility > check run this program in compatibility mode for: "Windows XP". Good luck.

[SonicYouthXY]

I think if you want to fool software that you're not running Windows Server 2003 you'll have to tweak some DLL's and system files (kernel, shell, etc.) They use versioning information and such. However, there probably will be many files you'll need to tweak.

You also will need to get around Windows File Protection.

Also, if you tweak some, they may become incompatible and inoperable with the OS itself.

Having said that, and even if you do make all these changes, there will be no guarantee your software will work.

Microsoft and software vendors go through a lot of testing to make software compatible with an OS. Sure there'll be bugs, but if you can get all this work, apply for a job with Microsoft, or soem third-party vendor.

Stick with Windows XP, or move to Redhat 9.

Sonic.

[John Veteran]

And I didn't tried Windows server 2003 for the server capabilities, I run my own servers (apache ....) it's more reliable :)

i don't know any statistics on 2003's stability off the top of my head, but you should definiately try running a server on both IIS 6.0 and apache before you decide which is more stable.

[Kontrollverlust]

I'm using 2k3 as a workstation, I just used NTSwitch then did some services editing. I can see a bit of a performance increase over XP. I prefer it over XP...I haven't had any compatibility issues...

[DJLunacy]

2K is the best Win OS imho. Cuz i don't need all the fancy crap that XP has. XP is just an eye candy OS based on 2K. People using XP and that are proud of it should be ashamed of themselves. I mean, you all brag about your 1337 m4d skills but you are using the most "user friendly" OS ever created... you guys crack me up.

Thats the problem with "free" software today... kids trying to understand an OS they shouldn't even come close to touching.

I should be ashamed of myself huh, You people who run around and open there mouth without processing rational thought is what cracks me up.

Perhaps before you start posting more crap, on the forums you should dedicate your time to expanding your knowledge so you don't sound so ignorant.

Thanks

[Jessterw]

And I didn't tried Windows server 2003 for the server capabilities, I run my own servers (apache ....) it's more reliable :)

You didn't try a server OS for it's intended capabilities? That's like buying an off-road vehicle that you're only going to use to drive down a suburban road.

Secondly, when will people learn that Linux and Apache are two separate things. Apache is a server in the sense that is serves web pages and such (what a server truly is, hence the reason why server systems are named such), however it is not a server system, while Linux can be. Comparing Apache to Windows is just plain ignorant, if anything you could compare Apache to IIS or Linux to Windows.

In addition reliability is all well and good, but it's not the whole reason one should be choosing their OS of choice.

Oh and, I am so freakin' ashamed :cry: I can't bear to go home and use my XP system while looking at my poor lonely BSD server which I have so disgraced by using a *gasp* streamlined OS that looks pretty.

[+Elі Subscriber²]

2K is the best Win OS imho. Cuz i don't need all the fancy crap that XP has. XP is just an eye candy OS based on 2K. People using XP and that are proud of it should be ashamed of themselves. I mean, you all brag about your 1337 m4d skills but you are using the most "user friendly" OS ever created... you guys crack me up.

Thats the problem with "free" software today... kids trying to understand an OS they shouldn't even come close to touching.

You call that a humble opinion? Geez! I'd hate to see you when you're being presumptuous and arrogant. :rolleyes:

I don't want to start a flame but why should I be ashamed of myself for prefering Xp over 2000? And what does that have to do with the discussion at hand? Furthermore, if you compare Xp and Win2k from an IT point of view you would see that Xp is far easier to administer and deploy. And as far as it being "eye candy", what's wrong with a sleeker looking OS? Does an OS need to be ugly for it to be good?

Here's the bottom line : Xp has everything that 2000 has and then it sweetens the pot by adding things that 2000 shoulda had. System Restore and Driver Rollback really great tools for fixing a flubbed driver installation, and I'd much rather use the Files and Settings Transfer Wizard than have to type the scanstate or loadstate commands all day.

So I guess I'll just chalk this up to a difference in opinion but don't insult my intelligence just because you're affraid of a new GUI.

Embrace the present my friend. Revere the past.

Oh you forgot to say that he can 'if he wants' disable all the XP's Eye Candy he complaints about, XP is indeed better than 2k, get out more dude!

[John Veteran]

Secondly, when will people learn that Linux and Apache are two separate things. Apache is a server in the sense that is serves web pages and such (what a server truly is, hence the reason why server systems are named such), however it is not a server system, while Linux can be. Comparing Apache to Windows is just plain ignorant, if anything you could compare Apache to IIS or Linux to Windows.

i'm not sure who you are targeting this towards, but i hope it isn't me. i told him he should compare IIS 6.0 and apache before making a choice. my comment about windows 2003's stability might have been taken the wrong way. i only figured if he tested IIS 6, he would have to use windows 2003 instead of windows 2000, linux, or any other OS. a major part of making sure a server is stable is the OS it is running on. that is the only reason i mentioned windows server 2003 at all.

if my posts have caused any confusion, i apologize.

[Jessterw]

gameguy34, I was referring to his comparing Windows to Apache. I'm sure he meant IIS on Windows compared to Apache on Linux (which you were saying he should actually compare), but I see so many people make offhanded remarks of that nature ("Apache is a better server than Windows", etc.) that it's absurd.

I completely agreed with your post, sorry for any confusion there. ;)

[John Veteran]

ok, thanks for clearing that up. yeah, i have seen a lot of people like this too. usually i think they are just blind haters of windows and everything microsoft. windows has come a LONG way since win95. too often i still see people complaining about BSODs in windows. they ask me what can they do. first thing i always ask them is what version of windows do they use. only had 2 people say xp so far. the vast majority say win95 or win98.....

[sirocco]

You didn't try a server OS for it's intended capabilities? That's like buying an off-road vehicle that you're only going to use to drive down a suburban road.

you're right, that's why I said I just wanted to try it.

i told him he should compare IIS 6.0 and apache before making a choice

you're right too ;)

I didn't tried IIS6 or any other 2003 server software .... I tried IIS server several years ago, so I can't compare to apache

I use apache because I know it, I'm more a linux user than a windows user.

[John Veteran]

I use apache because I know it, I'm more a linux user than a windows user.

i think people should work with what they know. i have used both windows and linux, and IMO, i find windows to be more suited to how i work. if you feel linux is more to your liking, that's fine. no software can fit everyone's personal taste.