Joel Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 It's not such a bad analogy, but you're entitled to your opinion. Just like everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Prophet Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 yes it is a bad analogy corse what can we expect from mods that dont follow the rules there supose to up holed im sorry but you people dont follow your owen rules you say spaming isnt allowed but you let people do it all the time by posting things like "its not a workstation its a server" when people ask about gaming or converting 2k3 into a workstation maby u should just out law all workstation talk as well as remove alllll workstation info from the forums and rest of neowin grow the fuk up 2k3 is just xp after better dev time and with the lagacy crap removed (thankgod) the reasion ms didnt put out 2k3 pro was becouse buisnesses and home users would have **** since xp isnt that old and menny places had just migrated to it (got that from a relitive that works for ms) as to web not being avalable retail u can get it online if you know where to look toatly leigal u can also get it oem disk if i wasnt so damned tired from being up for 3 days strate i would get ya some links but that will have to weight my self if your gonna buy it get web addition or if its accdemic licence get standred server ent isnt needed for home use i have converted them all web is only missing a few things u may want like the icf(firewall) but then agin i was able to run blackice protection on it dispite being told it isnt compatable oh and i know theres bad spelling in there oh well i have had about 2-3 hrs sleep in the last 3 days im in no mood to bother with spellcheck and a note on the hypocracy of neowin and rule's i have seen mods in the past warn doug and tom about those types of comments that are off topic and toatly un helpfull and yet nothing is ever done now it just seems that mods back these lifeless zelots :/ if you dont want workstation talk in the server forum then eather remove all info about workstation use of 2k3 or make another thred for workstation use of 2k3 (corse then you would acctuly have to inforce the no spam rule) well cya i gonna try and get some sleep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 It's not off topic to offer an opinion on EXACTLY what is being asked. It's not like the thread is about your girlfriend and someone pops in and say, "It's a server!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joswin Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Actually the review on Osnews.com i posted in the thread furthur up there. I was just looking at the comments (noting the genreal response about the subject in here). I only saw one message refering negativly to the argument in the way people in here do.... Comment on Review: Sorry, but I find this "review" and all the comments way past the point of "yawn". It's a server, the review was how it made a "iffy" desktop. DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What's next, how the QE2 just doesn't cut it as a ski boat? How a sledge makes a cruddy tack driver? Swatting fly's with a AK47? Hair Cuts with an industrial band saw? Read this part slowly... IT's...A...SERVER...OS! Response From Review Author:So it is Linux, believe it or not. But people keep jumping up and down saying that it is good as a desktop OS too. Guess what Mr, Windows Server 2003 is ALSO a good workstation, not just a good server (you seem to have understood that we said the opposite). It does *everything* XP does, plus much more. Guess thats one way of looking at it :shifty:. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Sorry, but I find this "review" and all the comments way past the point of "yawn". It's a server, the review was how it made a "iffy" desktop. DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What's next, how the QE2 just doesn't cut it as a ski boat? How a sledge makes a cruddy tack driver? Swatting fly's with a AK47? Hair Cuts with an industrial band saw? Read this part slowly... IT's...A...SERVER...OS! That was great :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubanPete Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 im sure people start these threads looking for a fight, how many times have we had the same question phrased differently. Answer to the question:- it doesnt matter which version of 2k3 you use as a workstation as they are all basically the same when you install them, its just standard has more than web. enterprise has more than standard, you'll probably never use and of the extra features that appear in the higher versions and i think you wouldn't notice what they are anyways as you have to install them, they arnt on as default. One more thing, im gonna say 2k3 was built from 2000 server in the same respect that xp was built up from 2000 professional, i doubt microsoft would tweak xp to a server as its easier to tweak 2000 server cause much of the basics already exists, just cause the interface looks the same doesnt mean it came from xp. Pluse 2k3's been in development for a VERY long time, used to be known as Whistler just after 2000 server came out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 I believe it was actually known as XP Server for a while. Whistler was the codename for XP and 2003 Server is built on the XP codebase just like 2000 server is built on 2000 code base and not NT4 Server's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joswin Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 One more thing, im gonna say 2k3 was built from 2000 server in the same respect that xp was built up from 2000 professional, i doubt microsoft would tweak xp to a server as its easier to tweak 2000 server cause much of the basics already exists, just cause the interface looks the same doesnt mean it came from xp. Pluse 2k3's been in development for a VERY long time, used to be known as Whistler just after 2000 server came out. :trout: What jason just said. ;) It was Whistler Advanced Server (which later became 2003 Enterprise Edition), it followed XP's (Whistler's) build release's and then when XP went gold - carried on from there. Windows 2000 Server is Windows 2000 Profressional with add'd features. They have no differences apart from their server abilitys (or lack of). 2003 is the first Server OS to be 'technically' ahead of the desktop in terms of build. It's why this argument has never poped up before, until now. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Prophet Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 u know if somebody came in and asked a question about using 2k server as a desktop none of these people would probbly say **** since its just 2k pro with extra crap to bad they cant stop acting like anoing little kids and start eather helping or STFU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Natan Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 Use Server 2003 Web Edition.. Fastest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Veteran Posted September 15, 2003 Veteran Share Posted September 15, 2003 yes it is a bad analogy corse what can we expect from mods that dont follow the rules there supose to up holedim sorry but you people dont follow your owen rules you say spaming isnt allowed but you let people do it all the time by posting things like "its not a workstation its a server" when people ask about gaming or converting 2k3 into a workstation maby u should just out law all workstation talk as well as remove alllll workstation info from the forums and rest of neowin some of the mods are admins, and they also have the opinion that one shouldn't use a server OS on a workstation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Veteran Posted September 15, 2003 Veteran Share Posted September 15, 2003 :trout:What jason just said. ;) It was Whistler Advanced Server (which later became 2003 Enterprise Edition), it followed XP's (Whistler's) build release's and then when XP went gold - carried on from there. Windows 2000 Server is Windows 2000 Profressional with add'd features. They have no differences apart from their server abilitys (or lack of). 2003 is the first Server OS to be 'technically' ahead of the desktop in terms of build. It's why this argument has never poped up before, until now. :) all versions of NT server and workstation have the same codebase. NT5 is NT5, regardless of which version it is (professional, server, datacenter server, etc). the same goes for xp; NT5.1 is NT5.1... server 2003 started as NT5.1, but then changed into NT5.2 when microsoft modified the kernel for IIS. there is no final build of "xp server" and there is no build of "windows 2003 workstation". enter "tweak NT"... :shifty: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joswin Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 (edited) all versions of NT server and workstation have the same codebase. NT5 is NT5, regardless of which version it is (professional, server, datacenter server, etc). the same goes for xp; NT5.1 is NT5.1... server 2003 started as NT5.1, but then changed into NT5.2 when microsoft modified the kernel for IIS. there is no final build of "xp server" and there is no build of "windows 2003 workstation".enter "tweak NT"... :shifty: Is ther an echo in here? ;) Anway's you keep saying the reason MS changed the kernal version to 5.2 was because of just IIS. Well as i said before i would really love to see your information source because this contradicts Microsoft's very own resources. There was far more too it than just IIS from my understanding. However i guess i could have read some iffy documents so... although i dont really think it matters why its NT 5.2.. TBH 2003 is the exception of past NT platforms. In that it is slightley newer than the desktop OS. Longhorn is based off this and if it was just "IIS" and enhanced 'server only' performance then why would Microsoft base their next desktop OS off of this so called "built as a server only, no good for a workstation" platform? They wouldnt, i read up on 2003 and the various published tech documents and beyond the great server functionality (IIS6 for example) its just an evolution of NT 5.1 (XP) but geared towards its original purpose. A server OS. I dont get your last statement btw... "there is no final build of "xp server" and there is no build of "windows 2003 workstation"... Are you feeling ok? ;) Edited September 15, 2003 by RobertH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Veteran Posted September 15, 2003 Veteran Share Posted September 15, 2003 I dont get your last statement btw... "there is no final build of "xp server" and there is no build of "windows 2003 workstation"... Are you feeling ok? ;) microsoft never released them. :p and i'm currently looking for an article about how server 2003's build number changed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joswin Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 I was sure winsupersite had some information on this but strangley they dont. They just waffle on about anything but lol. :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Veteran Posted September 15, 2003 Veteran Share Posted September 15, 2003 that's what i thought too :unsure: but i looked over all the win2k3 and whistler stuff, and nothing's there :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Prophet Posted September 15, 2003 Share Posted September 15, 2003 acctuly it was true whistler was the codename for the server os and neptune the pro client they had one other that was going to be a home os cant remmber its name but when billy boy stoped being the prez or what ever of ms and took the other job(sue me i suck at remmbering title changes) he combine the projects into 1 xp was a result of combining a server os a pro workstation os and a home os all based off nt but with difrent end goals whistler was to be the server os with rock stable opperation and far less lagacy support if any neptune would have been the next evolution of 2k pro basic lagacy support and grater stab the other think it started with an O was to have been the home os supporting as much lagacy software/hardware as possable i really with billy hadnt combine the projects my self i had neptune and loved it (disk was stolen) it was 2k with the kernal of xp basickly but including less lagacy support (no built in app compat tools at all) i have seen an alpha of the home os just looks like the whistler everybody was playing with (they used the O enterface as there base for xp) least thats what i have seen , read ,been told(relitive works for ms) and i had neptune if i can find another copy of neptune its going on my laptop for sure :) i could get longhorn from ms if i wanted to play with it but i dont see the point in using an os like that i will stick to my 2k/2k3 stance :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endoscient Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 dude. still there is nothing wrong with usign 2k3 as workstation. ppl dont need to spam and troll. sayign its not a workstation its a server. so they want to transform it. y must u flame them for there decision. they didnt ask in anyway is the should use 2k3 as a server. tehy already want to and they want to kno whihc version best. u dont gotta flame. :no: all the trolls in the Longhorn adn Windows 2k3 forum. wut happened :-( :no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joswin Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 Just to follow on from what PF Prophet said. I think odassy (sp?) was the name you were after. Neptune never even got an offical beta release before MS decided to can-it and work on the same OS for both home and business. :( They just decided split into two different feature sets of the same OS and Whistler was born. I have a 'Whistler Advanced Server Beta2' CD around here somewhere actually, but if you looked at it compared to what 2003 is now they look like distant cousins lol. I mean that was it basically, Whistler Server followed Whistler Personal/Professional's build updates until it hit RTM as Windows XP pro and Home. Then .NET ( now Server 2003) split off and followed its own path. Windows Server 2003 has had 3 Beta Release's and 2 RC Release's in total.. :blink: In microsoft's own words.... "This lets us focus on the server customers, who want it rock solid, rather than right now," Thompson told us. "Desktop software has to ship in sync with [PC maker] sales cycles. There is no holiday rush with servers." That followed on from this Since the completion of Windows 2000, the biggest decision the Windows team made was to split the client and server releases with the Whistler products, which became Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. :shifty: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Veteran Posted September 16, 2003 Veteran Share Posted September 16, 2003 they didnt ask in anyway is the should use 2k3 as a server. tehy already want to and they want to kno whihc version best. u dont gotta flame. the "best" version for workstations is a WORKSTATION version... i don't know why you guys don't get it... there isn't any advantage of using server 2003 as a workstation over xp... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endoscient Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 stfu. guess wut there is no workstation of windows server 2k3 (nt 5.2) so he is asking which one would be best even if u consider xp as workstaiton version of 2k3 (they totally different version) u kno that wasnt an answer he was looking for, so y give it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK1150 Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 stfu. guess wut there is no workstation of windows server 2k3 (nt 5.2) so he is asking which one would be besteven if u consider xp as workstaiton version of 2k3 (they totally different version) u kno that wasnt an answer he was looking for, so y give it XP and 2k3 totally different? I think not... all 2k3 has is some tweaks and IIS 6... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Veteran Posted September 16, 2003 Veteran Share Posted September 16, 2003 stfu. guess wut there is no workstation of windows server 2k3 (nt 5.2) so he is asking which one would be besteven if u consider xp as workstaiton version of 2k3 (they totally different version) u kno that wasnt an answer he was looking for, so y give it i know there is no workstation version of NT 5.2... so he is left with xp by default... :huh: when you compare server 2003 as a workstation and xp, they're the same. they're not totally different in that respect. and as for giving my answer, it doesn't matter what answer he was looking for. if he had his mind made up already, he shouldn't ask... someone doing that is just looking to start a flame thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endoscient Posted September 16, 2003 Share Posted September 16, 2003 he isnt left with xp by default. he is left with nothing. and no they arent the same no it isnt some tweaks + IIS 6. also the server part of 2k3 is a lot more then IIS 6. stuff like active directory, dhcp server, etc.... IIS is just teh web serrver part. its more developed, stabler, better memory mangament, less junk like movie maker. and faster. no reason not to use if u can get legit for no that expensive. he alread ydecided he wanted to wun 2k3 as workstation (not xp). wanted to kno which falvor would be best.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Veteran Posted September 16, 2003 Veteran Share Posted September 16, 2003 i understand that there's more to server 2003 than just IIS6. i'm saying, when you use it as a workstation, it's the same as xp. if you're using xp and server 2003 as a file server (xp can't do much else, 10 connection limit on IIS), then server 2003 will probably do a little better. having movie maker in xp doesn't slow you down either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts