Using server 2003 as a workstation?

[PF Prophet]

works grate search for the name salsa get the link to his page grate little tool for those who just wana quick conversion to workstation

dont mind those like dough who alwase seem to have there panties in a bunch

as u see i use it as a workstation and to date have found 1 bloody game that dosnt wana trun bf1942 but hell i dont really like the game anyway LOL

oh and those who cant get there mouse or nic working probbly have ancent hardware or are usig laim ass bluetooth crap to them i say what i have said b4 get a real ps/2 or usb kb/mouse and be happy :)

[John Veteran]

Why are some of you people so incredibly harsh on others curious on certain topics

because:

a. there's no advantage over XP pro, unless you need the extra CPUs

b. it promotes downloading illegal software because server 2003 is quite expensive...

those are the two biggest reasons for me, i'm sure other people have more reasons...

edit: nevermind...

Edited December 23, 2003 by gameguy

[OptiPlex]

How about the fact that running a server as a workstation is just plain ol' stupid!

You didn't do that to Windows NT server and 2000, why 2003? STOP IT AND USE Windows 2000/XP/NT/98/95/ME/3.1/DOS

[Southern Patriot]

Yes but do you hear the Mac OSX Users running Mac OSX Server? :whistle:

That is our point!

Actually, I'm pretty sure there are some that are. The difference there is that with OS X, there aren't different drivers/software between the Server and Client OS's (that I'm aware of). Basically, if it works on one, it will work on the other.

[Southern Patriot]

b. it promotes downloading illegal software because server 2003 is quite expensive...

I really wish people would stop saying this, because there are perfectly legal ways to get Server 2003 directly from Microsoft FOR FREE! Hell, they'll mail you a copy. As many copies as you would like. I happen to have a stack of them sitting in a box collecting dust at the moment (why? because I don't happen to have any extra machines to run them on at the moment).

[Min0rity]

Listen, I am using Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition (Free from Microsoft themselves) as a workstation on my network... I am using it to type this post as we speak.... I have noticed it is alot faster than Windows Home/Pro/Corp.... by following this guide: http://www.<< spam >>/win2k3/ it shows you what you can change etc.... After following this guide you will see the speed advantages over XP...I certainly did..

Alot of software will install, but programs like Norton AV need a server edition of there products to be able to run on your system....

[CubanPete]

if people want to use it as a workstation then fair enough, its when people start going on about getting skins to work for it and ask how to make it xp that i really dont see the point in. If you want to turn Server into xp just cut the crap and install xp. i like server for its extras but i want to run games easily and effectivly so i use xp. i really dont see the point in turning 2003 server into xp, high powered workstation maybe yer but dont ever try to make it xp when its not!

[Bazildondude]

2003 is available legitimally from Microsofts site as a 180-day trial, so nothing should really stop anyone curious or wanting to upgrade from doing so.

Just because it's a server does not mean it won't run anything. A lot more stuff runs on this computer now since upgrading to 2003, compared to 2000 which has no support for anything (theoretically). I've still got 100 days left in the trial, so i'll keep my options open until near the end what I want to do!

[Floyder]

win 2003 converted to workstation ownz :)

[Chicane-UK Veteran]

I would find it hard to argue that its even a server OS!! :)

Seriously though, you can turn it into a workstation without too much trouble.. seems to run quite quick as well :)

[mattmatik]

Google for "Windows 2003 as Workstation" and there's a few guides to help you tweak it through. But, honestly as someone who did this before, basically you will be turning off alot of the features that make it 2003 and it will just be XP Classic; that's what my experience was anyway.

Try it, though, maybe it will appeal to you or you will have a different experience than I did. It's your software, your hardware, who cares what anyone else says. If you can, try to experiment with it using VirtualPC or something first. That way you don't wipe out your current system, install 2K3, then have to go back and start over. That's the best advice anyone can give, instead of ripping someone's quest to smitherines.

[fjv]

I propose that threads like this and "what are you listening right now" should be closed.

not because of whether w2k3 can or cant be used as a workstation (i honestly dont care what you use as your os), but because they are flooding the forum with crap.

sorry to the one that started the post, but if you would have done a search youd find 16574687213 threads of the same ****.

fjv

[uniacidz]

Win 2003 works great as a workstation once configured.

Some game mightnt work and most likely a different AV scanner is needed.

As for the the people saying No to a workstation, sssssshhhhhhhhhhh. The whole thing is getting a bit lame now.

Heck, even Neobond compiled a 'Windows 2003 As A Workstation Guide'

[theh0g]

cpu killer: YES, you can use it as workstation. Don't listen to those retards who can't even write normaly on forum and yell about "SERVER OS". They've probably never even seen Win2003 and obviously they don't know crap about systems, especialy servers. If they were right, Linux couldn't be used as a desktop OS, only server, since most machines running Linux are servers and you get all kinds of server programs with it.

I'm using Win2003 as a main OS since it came out and the only problem I had was with bluetooth drivers - only because there is only one company making drivers for it and they're totaly incompetent. As much as a Windows95 can be a server if you run SQL or IIS on it (theoreticaly), so can Windows2003 be a workstation if you don't run any server programs. By default most things are disabled so you only start things you need. My Win2003 runs way better than WindowsXP, more reliable and stable, I usualy only shut my machine down during weekends, but on working days, I run everything from Office, Photoshop, PHPed, at least 5 IEs, Mozilla, SQL clients and everything else (not to mention bittorrent and other software) and it works perfectly, no problems at all. This is simply the best OS Microsoft ever released.

If you can't decide, download a trial version from Microsoft's site and see for yourself. It works for 180 days so you have a good chance on getting familiar with the system.

[Min0rity]

Thankyou 'Thehog' for making it clear to him that Windows 2003 is a good OS...for server and as a workstation... I am not going to try and go back to Windows XP because i have no need to go back... Everything i install works...

[vincent]

Yes but do you hear the Mac OSX Users running Mac OSX Server? :whistle:

That is our point!

stfu let him use what he wants and dont discourage him, have u tried using 2k3 as a ws ? prolly not ur just following along like some 50 cent fans who think there fave "rapper' is a thug :D

[theh0g]

Min0rity: exactly. I was using Win2000 until 2003 came out, because I didn't like the way XP works - everything wants to work automaticaly, all those stupid wizards, messanger which I don't need needs extra work to get uninstalled, ... Win2003 looks the same as XP if you enable themes so what more can you ask for? :) Win2003 all the way.

[Joel]

This thread is an incredible display of nonsense. To answer some remarks made here:

I work in IT. I know the reasons I am taking the position that you should leave the servers to the people who will actually use them the way they need to be used. Don't come here and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, because I have certificates to prove I do. Like I said, use it any way you want. But if you come in here and say, "NAV2003 won't install, what do I do?", or , "PM8 won't work on it!!!", you'd better expect to hear that you're an idiot. If you paid for the server OS to be a workstation, you wasted your money. If you warezed it to look cool, you're an idiot. If you're running the eval version and you keep reinstalling it to keep it current, because hey, it's gotta be better than XP because it's 2003, you're an idiot.

@ theh0g: Linux asks you how you want to install, workstation or server. I can't ever recall seeing an MS server OS saying "Do you want to cripple me to run games?" as a choice on install.

[+BudMan MVC]

This WHOLE topic has been done to death - and it is just SAD that neowin continues to ALLOW this promotion of WAREZ. I do not care if you got the copy FREE or not - the use of the eval software as a DESKTOP OS for personal use, is NOT covered in the EULA!!

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003...trial/eula.mspx

** Not for Production Use. You may not demonstrate, test, examine, evaluate or otherwise use the Software in a live operating environment

What part of this - do you NOT understand??? How would using it for day to day stuff, NOT be a live operating environment??

** Limited License; Time Sensitive Software. YOUR RIGHT TO USE THE SOFTWARE IS EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE YOU FIRST INSTALL THE SOFTWARE ON ANY SERVER FOR A PERIOD OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180) DAYS.

Notice the PART about - from FIRST install?? And No, having another copy of the CD - does not make it LEGAL to install that copy after the first 180 days. And NO you can NOT just put it on another box.

I understand its NEW - and hey everyone wants to check it out!! But the use of the EVAL software - is meant as that, EVAL of the software for use as intended. Will it run games - sure, can it be used to browse the net, sure! Can it be used to listen to music - sure it can. But how is listening to music while you browse neowin not your production environment?? You did the exact same thing before you installed the EVAL of w2k3 - on the same damn machine. This is clearly not the intent of of the EVAL software, nor is it permitted by the EULA.

Hey there is the cuz you can factor - and that's fine. But there is NO freaking way that all of you people purchased FULL legal copies of this software - NONE, its just too freaking expensive!! I don't care if you got some academic version from some online store or NOT. The vast majority of you would be in violation of that EULA as well. I would have to say most of the posts of people using it - are from kids living at home with Mommy (I did not say all, so don't your knickers in a bunch - geeesuzzz) Yeah OK, they can buy $1000 software to browse the net with - come ON!!! And they are not sure what version they should get Standard or Enterprise - COME ON, if you think these kids are legit - or the intended audience of this eval - you need bang your head up against the wall a few times, maybe it will knock some sense into you???.

Is it my place to say if your legal or not - NO! Would all of my software withstand an audit of legality - hmmm, not going to say ;) But then again - I don't go asking about it on neowin. As soon as that w2k3 as a workstation guide was posted - it was clear that it was PROMOTION of warez, plain and simple. I tried to voice my opinion on that quite a few times - and was shot down. Hey not my board - so whatever.

But since I am a member of this community - just like everyone else. I have as much right to voice my opinion on a topic as the next member of this community. As long as I do not break any rules - and if my opinion is that running of w2k3 as a workstation is wrong. Why can I not voice this opinion?? As you can tell from every thread that has w2k3 in it - its a very heated topic.

So if you ask if you should run w2k3 as a desktop - get ready for alot of people saying NO. And then there will be those saying - don't listen to those fools, do whatever you want, etc.. etc.. If you would of search - this would of been CLEAR!!

As a final note - if you own a LEGAL copy of w2k3, please feel FREE to do with it as you wish. And hey - glad to see your doing so well, that you can afford that kind of money to play games or browse the net with. I would of saved a few bucks and gone with version that was meant for desktop use - but hey thats me ;) And yes there is cheaper copies available under academic lic.. But then again - if you eligible to purchase w2k3 under that lic.. you would also eligible to purchase XP, which again would be ALOT cheaper!!

[+BudMan MVC]

This thread is an incredible display of nonsense. To answer some remarks made here:

Very Well Said!!! I agree completely!!!

[GR7]

lol. If being weird and having a lot of money makes you excentric instead of weird........what are you if you have a lot of money and buy windows 2003 to use it as a workstation? couldnt help asking that to myself when i read all this stupid debate.

I understand techies being upset about getting the same questions about "this app wont work"...since i consider myself a techie. but from that to getting mad cause someone uses w2k3 as a WS....well that i dont get. bitchin about equals the same effort you'd make by answering some idiot's question.

aaanyways.....its 9:43 AM and havent slept at all. gotta keep on programming.

just a personal opinion: i have a 2003 pc as a server AND my personal box is xp pro. i barely use the w2k3 since i use it just to host my asp.net projects, but i had to do some stuff in it the last couple of days and I couldnt help but notice the great improvement of stabily over XP. I do consider XP stable....but 2003 is way better in my opinion.

I mean....my WS stays on ...what? 4,5,6 days without a need for a reboot...and then i HAVE to reboot it...but i just checked my 2003 server uptime and it was 13 days....the system wasnt slow at all, or anything. Ill just try and see how far it can go without a reboot.

Wonder if stability would justify using 2003 as a WS?

[Joel]

I mean....my WS stays on ...what? 4,5,6 days without a need for a reboot...and then i HAVE to reboot it...but i just checked my 2003 server uptime and it was 13 days....the system wasnt slow at all, or anything. Ill just try and see how far it can go without a reboot.

Wonder if stability would justify using 2003 as a WS?

Just because you mentioned stability :p Meet my home machine, running XP and used by my GF and 4 year old daughter. Still ticking away.......

[Got3n]

windows 2k3 is a good workstation OS and should be used by everyone. I LOVE ME WORKSTATION 2k3

[volrathxp]

This thread is an incredible display of nonsense. To answer some remarks made here:

I work in IT. I know the reasons I am taking the position that you should leave the servers to the people who will actually use them the way they need to be used. Don't come here and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, because I have certificates to prove I do. Like I said, use it any way you want. But if you come in here and say, "NAV2003 won't install, what do I do?", or , "PM8 won't work on it!!!", you'd better expect to hear that you're an idiot. If you paid for the server OS to be a workstation, you wasted your money. If you warezed it to look cool, you're an idiot. If you're running the eval version and you keep reinstalling it to keep it current, because hey, it's gotta be better than XP because it's 2003, you're an idiot.

@ theh0g: Linux asks you how you want to install, workstation or server. I can't ever recall seeing an MS server OS saying "Do you want to cripple me to run games?" as a choice on install.

I agree w/ you.

I agree with BudMan too. I think that's all I'm gonna say. :)

[Joel]

windows 2k3 is a good workstation OS and should be used by everyone. I LOVE ME WORKSTATION 2k3

So how do you really feel?