• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Using server 2003 as a workstation?

Recommended Posts

PF Prophet    0

what are u trying to convert lol

and vdub crashes on every system i have seen depending on the codac its free for a reasion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
graeme_7799    0

let this thread END PLEASE MODS AND ADMINS!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freakyfriday    2

i'm on server 2003 right now....for the time being, i was messing with Longhorn 4051 trying to get the WMP sidebar tile to work, then i threw some IE patches :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cpu killer    7

lol, WOW, I spanned a non-spam topic with 21 pages worth of actual DISCUSSION, has this been done before on Neowin? :p

I'd vote for sticky so peope dont ever DARE to post something like this again, hehehe, probly dumb idea tho..ah well..

:) :ninja: :shifty:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spyntek    0
Able to, if you know what you're doing. You must have missed the cries of, "My video card/NIC/mouse doesn't work!!!" Do what you want. Just don't ask dumb questions about it and you'll be all right.

I have ran it for over a year. I have a sound blaster Extigy, ATI AIW radeon, Maxtor SATA drive, Philips 8x CD Burner, Pioneer 16x DVD drive all running beautifully on Server 2003. IT WORKS FINE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darkmark327    0
lol, WOW, I spanned a non-spam topic with 21 pages worth of actual DISCUSSION, has this been done before on Neowin? :p

I'd vote for sticky so peope dont ever DARE to post something like this again, hehehe, probly dumb idea tho..ah well..

:) :ninja: :shifty:

I'd cast a vote for never having another one of these since it's always the same arguments back and forth, though I must admit I'm surprised by the relative lack of trash posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
~phoenix~    0

Wake up people.Its March of 2004 not 2003.Its almost a year after the 2003 release so if you want a year to decide if you can use it as workstation then i guess you will have a big problem with the women to bring them in bed.

These people they never really said that this os cant be used as workstation.They just dont want warez issues in Neowin.They just want to make this place the first alternative MS site.Simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
b3n    0

who cares what os other people use?

if they want to use 2003 then its fine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExtremeXDude    0

well when i used windows2003 server i used it as a workstation and i felt alright until i got my new keyboard and digital camera, it couldnt work wif it so yeh :( then later on installed it again and found i can use keyboard and cam on it :p i had fun :D

-xDude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoDaddy    0

Just installed 2003 on our servers here. Hardly no hiccups on Monday morning. We have three servers that run this department, one here in Oxford, one in Tupelo, and another in Southaven (this is in MS), I went to Tupelo, another guy went to Southaven, and one person handled it from Oxford. He left and went to lunch early, because only one or two problems. We were expecting to be really busy today; glad we're not. :cool: {crossed fingers}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darkmark327    0
Just installed 2003 on our servers here

Using server 2003 as a workstation?,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crusty    0

OK, so the thread is basically people who are against using 2003 as a desktop OS vs people who don't mind & people who do.

"Why use a server OS as a desktop"

Although it may seem like a valid question, it wholly depends on the nature of the OS and the circumstances around it.

For instance, I would never use any netware OS as my desktop, basically because it's not possible. However, if it would be possible and it would have better features than my previous OS, I would certainly be inclined to give it a try.

But completely aside from this single argument, the whole question becomes in fact totally moronic once you realize that people have been using the reverse situation for ages and in HUGE numbers.

ANYONE who shares a directory with files on windows 95, 98 ME, 2000 or XP, is using his 'Desktop OS' as a 'Server'.

You 'serve' out files at home or in your work environment with a Desktop OS. Why are people doing this?

BECAUSE IT'S POSSIBLE.

Yet I hear no complaints about the Desktop OS being used as a server OS. Even though some stuff that is designed for Servers doesn't work on it, no one complains that people should immediately stop using these OS's for serving files.

Bashing people for trying to do the reverse when it's completely possible to do so, is beyond sanity.

Then there are several other reasons people might want to use it besides the fact that it's possible:

-It's the latest in the NT family and as such has the most well-developed codebase. It's supposed to be more mature, ergo more stable. So far reports seem to confirm this. So if ANY PERSON wants or needs excellent stability and needs it on a windows OS, they're best served with 2003. Period.

-Many people (including me) HATE the way XP treats it's user as a 6 month old baby, and dislikes all the stupid wizards. 2003 expects it's user to be an adult, and treats his as one.

-2003 has many security features turned ON by default and many security RISK options turned OFF by default. In fact, it's the most secure OS Microsoft has released so far.

So if ANY PERSON wants or needs excellent security and needs it on a windows OS, they're best served with 2003. Period.

-2003 has many other features turned of by default, and that's the way I, and many other people besides me, like their OS. Part of installing windows has always been turning stuff off ASAP for me.

-Compatability is good, as far as can be told from the reports. When 2000 came out, it's compatability was hardly that good. And remember NT4? Oh boy, those were the days....

-XP is a flaky OS at best. Some people report more stability and performance contra w2k, some report less. It's a mixed bag of results. On the contrary, 2003 seems to be both slightly faster and more stable. So if you're sticking with w2k because of doubts about XP, 2003 seems a better option than XP.

-because 2003 is more recent than both XP and w2k, there are less patches out for it. Which is a good thing if you have to install it. I dislike the fact that it took MS 4 service packs to get w2k properly done, it should come out supporting USB 2.0 and UDMA 66 etc etc from the box. XP is already on the way to it's second service pack. If I want to reinstall now with the least fuzz on my system, which has parts all less than 18 months old, 2003 sounds like a good option. Maybe not the best for some, but at least a GOOD one.

Besides these advantages, the idea that propagating the use of an OS for something else than it's original intend is equal to propagating the proliferation of warez and illegal copies, is a bit like telling Jimi Hendrix that setting his guitar on fire is promoting the misuse of guitars as firewood, aka complete bull****.

So what that BF1942 doesn't work with it. BF1942 is extremely buggy, and notorious for it. Kick the devs for not fixing it.

So what that 2003 is bloody expensive? The fact that a professional studio recorder costs over 20.000$ has never EVER stopped a single musician-wannabe who was capable of buying it and wanted it from doing so,

The fact that a Boeing 727 costs tens of millions of dollars has never stopped any billionaire from buying it, even if he could just as well be served with a small Cesna costing 50.000$.

And, most importantly to people with good hearing, the fact that a good guitar costs hundreds of dollars has never stopped a single untalented moron with rockstar ambitions from buying one.

So, to all those 2003-as-a-desktop-OS-bashers, go **** yourself and adjust some of the screws in your head. This is a free world, and it's a complex world. Some people want to use 2003 as a desktop OS, and succeed. Live with the fact that others want to follow.

And in the end, isn't development of 2003 best served by as wide a use-base as possible? You'd have more people reporting bugs, writing software for it, using it as a development tool, etc etc.

This should make sense to ANYONE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joel    26
Why are people doing this?

BECAUSE IT'S POSSIBLE.

Many things are possible, but that doesn't mean they make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank    3
Yet I hear no complaints about the Desktop OS being used as a server OS.

If the user is on a two person network and uses both computers as a workstation, and shares files from one another, It wouldn't bother me a bit, because they are using it for its originally designed purpose, and also, using another "feature" that was built into it.

Now on the other hand, if a network with 50 nodes running and has a file and print server that is running Windows 98 as its OS and having problems, I would smack the person in the back of the head, just like I would smack a user of a "Windows 2003 Server Workstation" that was having problems getting it to work like a workstation.

I would quote on your other ports, but I have a pool tourney to go to in 30 mins, but I may comment on them when I come back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John    7
Now on the other hand, if a network with 50 nodes running and has a file and print server that is running Windows 98 as its OS and having problems, I would smack the person in the back of the head, just like I would smack a user of a "Windows 2003 Server Workstation" that was having problems getting it to work like a workstation.

:laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ssjchris_29    0

server 2k3 as workstation... *shrugs* in my opinion, if you want to do it, go right ahead. i'll be doing it myself becuase of the MSDNAA. i'll have access to 1 copy of it for personal use becuase of the college i'm attending, so i'm going to use 2k3 on my main computer here at home. this way i'll be able to transfer teh liscence i have for Windows XP Pro to a slightly lesser machine i own and use. to me, the only real differences between the 2 OS's (Server 2k3 and XP Pro) are security differences, and Server has a few additional services that are running. as for those services, they can easially be shut off without worry of goofing up a system. i myself would rather have an OS that has too much "stuff" in it, but that stuff can be turned off, than have an OS that doesn't have the capabilities needed for me to do all the things i do and not be able to do anything more with it. well, that's my 2 cents, (granted its a bit scrambled, but, eh, we're all geeks here so we're smart and can figure it out :-P) :alien:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StevenNT    11

i agree there ssjchris_29. if you *really* want to then go ahead. just dont complain that some games and other home user type stuff dont work since it was not to be used on a Server OS.

as i said before would someone make a thead for this topic so the users who want to run it as a workstation can go post there comments there so the rest of us dont have to put up with the annoying questions like "is Server 2003 beter than XP Pro" :huh:

it's a Server OS damn it :crazy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank    3
as i said before would someone make a thead for this topic so the users who want to run it as a workstation can go post there comments there so the rest of us dont have to put up with the annoying questions like "is Server 2003 beter than XP Pro" :huh:

This has been brought up before, but I do not think this will ever happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ssjchris_29    0

*nods* dont think it will, becuase like this thread, itd turn into a flame war a few pages in. my main thing is that, if you wanna use Windows Server 2003 as a workstation, than feel free to do so, but if something doesn't work correctly, like a game, dont bitch, becuase server 2003 isn't an OS designed to run games or anything. i myself, becuase of the college i'm attending, will be receiving a full version, perfectly legal copy, for my own personal use (not for a business, but for personal use, so i can learn how to use and administrate it). if something doesn't work, than fine, it wont work, i'll deal with it. but i will use it for my desktop here, i'll spend a little while tweaking a few things, and i will install a couple games (hey, i like playing Diablo 2 LOD with the Zy-El mod :-P), and i'll continue my everyday life without worrying about "OMG, its a Server OS not being used as a Server".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joni_78    48

This was fun to read =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cpu killer    7

OMG, I ask forgiveness to the gods for ever making this thread - IT DOESNT DIE!

Hehe, glad some people enjoyed it, I definetely learned alot ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sjiggag23    0

hahahahaha. its the same as xp except for driver problems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tw1sta    0

bump. Hows life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sandman45654    0

Running Win2003 is a fine idea if you know what you are doing and don't need someone to hold your hand while using it. If you want to use it as a workstation go for it but leave programs like NTswitch and TweakNT alone. Leave it as a server os, just install your workstation apps. 99% of all programs and games I have tried to run on Win2003 have worked without any problems, others could be persuaded (Intellipoint 4.1 is a good example). The other 1% are easily replaced.

I think those who say do not run it as a WS OS may feel left out and maybe even a bit jealous. Why else would they care so much??

Maybe they cannot afford it (understandable) and they're to scared or too smart to steal it (again understandable).

For those that say 2003 doesn't offer anything over Xp you couldn't be further from the truth. If you had run the OS you would know this :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rudy    457
Running Win2003 is a fine idea if you know what you are doing and don't need someone to hold your hand while using it. If you want to use it as a workstation go for it but leave programs like NTswitch and TweakNT alone. Leave it as a server os, just install your workstation apps. 99% of all programs and games I have tried to run on Win2003 have worked without any problems, others could be persuaded (Intellipoint 4.1 is a good example). The other 1% are easily replaced.

I think those who say do not run it as a WS OS may feel left out and maybe even a bit jealous. Why else would they care so much??

Maybe they cannot afford it (understandable) and they're to scared or too smart to steal it (again understandable).

For those that say 2003 doesn't offer anything over Xp you couldn't be further from the truth. If you had run the OS you would know this :)

couldnt say better!! :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.