• 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

Got3n    39

omg CLOSE THIS THREAD NOW, TOO MANY WIN 2K3 WORSTATION THREDS. Im all about it but im tired of explaining it, its possible, but people will falme you for it, you want more information then pm me or add me to your aim or hotmail. i have it and love it but will no talk about it on this forum any more. they are making too many threads on it. next time do a search and you will find atleast 100 threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joel    26
I am guessing its the Support for 32Gig of Ram, or maybe the 8-way smp. Most likely the box he is using as a workstation has 32gig of ram and 8 cpu's :)

Or maybe its the Hot Swap memory feature - maybe he is swaping in 16Gig when he plays games - for that added KICK! Or maybe its the WSRM features - you know when he launches UnReal or SimCity, he wants to make sure it is limited to only using say 2 of the 8 cpu's and MAXes out at 12GIG - you know you need the rest of the hardware resources to call up neowin, and winamp, etc..

Or it maybe its the need for the running of a Terminal Session Directory - so that his users can more easily reconnect to a specific session in his load balanced Terminal Server farm!!

These features are just not available in the Standard version!! ;)

lmfao!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joel    26

Merged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dougkinzinger    0
I am guessing its the Support for 32Gig of Ram, or maybe the 8-way smp. Most likely the box he is using as a workstation has 32gig of ram and 8 cpu's :)

Or maybe its the Hot Swap memory feature - maybe he is swaping in 16Gig when he plays games - for that added KICK! Or maybe its the WSRM features - you know when he launches UnReal or SimCity, he wants to make sure it is limited to only using say 2 of the 8 cpu's and MAXes out at 12GIG - you know you need the rest of the hardware resources to call up neowin, and winamp, etc..

Or it maybe its the need for the running of a Terminal Session Directory - so that his users can more easily reconnect to a specific session in his load balanced Terminal Server farm!!

These features are just not available in the Standard version!! ;)

HA! LOL, owned!! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John    7

:woot: LMFAO! nice one budman (Y)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freakyfriday    2

yup.. great budman. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freakyfriday    2
HA! LOL, owned!! :D

haha... OWNED!!! :woot: :woot:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
csabo2    0

hahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joswin    25
I am guessing its the Support for 32Gig of Ram, or maybe the 8-way smp.? Most likely the box he is using as a workstation has 32gig of ram and 8 cpu's.....

Ok, on the topic of the high-horses everyone is getting on here... All this "I work in IT" and "I'm an admin" and "i know what im talking about" blah blah blah...geeze give it a break:rolleyes:: This thread is another example of how these so called "More intelligent" people that know the difference between SERVER and WORKSTATION OS's are a bunch of morons. If you have nothing usful to post... dont post... oh but wait u need to get ur daily 'greather than thou' kick from somewhere eh?? Sure :sleep::

Anyway BUDMAN.

In response to why is he running Ent Server and not Standard? Could be all those things u mentioned...Or...

Maybe, just maybe he is using Windows Server 2003 Enterprise because that was the only version he had access to?

Maybe because when he ordered a trial from Microsoft they shipped the Enterprise version.....

Maybe because he works somewhere where Enterprise Server is in use and didnt want to sound cheeky saying to the admin "Dammit, Ent Server isnt good enough. I want you to get Standard edtion from me so retards dont flame me for using a 133ter OS".

I really do dispair when i see threads like this....Might i make a suggestion? Read an article like this on here....

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3655

If you can afford it, you're hardware has drivers for it - and you really have nothing better to spend the money on, go for it sure.

Just find somewhere where people are old enough to cope with the fact you are using it (aka not Neowin). You can get nice deals on Windows Server 2003 if you are a student - basically costs you the same ammount as XP.

Now can we just let all this hate die? These threads would fade away quicker wouldnt they if we didnt have all these idiots posting in huge font sizes "Windows 2003 is a SERVER NOT A WORKSTATION. I mean really do they have nothing better to do??:rofl::

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OptiPlex    0

Maybe it's the only copy of Windows 2003 he could download a copy of from the usual warez sources (Bittorent, newsgroups, etc.)

RARELY do ever people post Win2k3 Standard Edition or the 3 in 1's on newsgroups, trial, retail, VLK, Whatever. I'm just going to assume it's the same for the other warez places.

:sleep: :no:

For some, that's what is ticking 'em off.

I won't use Win2k3 server as a workstation for the simple fact that my download speeds never go beyond 100KB/sec. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AJAJ    0

Maybe 2003 is his lucky number, and 'Enterprise' is his favourite word?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joswin    25
Maybe it's the only copy of Windows 2003 he could download a copy of from the usual warez sources (Bittorent, newsgroups, etc.)

RARELY do ever people post Win2k3 Standard Edition or the 3 in 1's on newsgroups, trial, retail, VLK, Whatever. I'm just going to assume it's the same for the other warez places.

:sleep: :no:

For some, that's what is ticking 'em off.

I won't use Win2k3 server as a workstation for the simple fact that my download speeds never go beyond 100KB/sec. :wacko:

Thats just an asumption. :blink:

Maybe YOU pirated your copy of XP... get off the board now you theif.... ;)

You know its customery that people are INNOCENT until proven guilty. Here your guilty unless you show a scan of the recipet or something. And of course if you have Windows Server 2003 Enterprise you MUST have pirated it, if you post a question about it asking something out of the ordinary then you also MUST have pirated it. :no:

I paid for my copy of Windows 2003 64bit, its a 360day trail i had to pay to be shipped to me and i have little choice in using it for workstation purposes simply because Windows XP Professional 64bit edition is only available to MSDN subscribers. Its Win2k3 or nothing. :)

People have no right to get "ticked off" just because they dont think someone should have something. Apart from that of course i bet at least half of the 'protesters' have XP CORP! on their systems. So its pot calling the kettle black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToastGodSupreme    2

I've been using 2003 Server Standard at work for a while now. I will say this...

Despite what Microsoft says, despite what any of you say... it is a server platform. That's it primary role.

If you want to use it as a workstation, fine. But you can not expect the same functionality out of it as you can like XP. I've encountered a few programs now which won't run on it. Not it's fault. I certainly won't bitch about those programs not working because I know that they aren't made for a server OS.

The reason I said that none of us here would help you if you had a problem with it, is because you know what the hell you're getting yourself into when you load Server 2003 onto your box. I have asked ONE question since having 2003 on my box at work. Only because even the guys I work with are as stumped as I am. There are newsgroups like Technet. There are guides to turn it into a workstation. There's google or google groups. If you can't find your answer as to why NFS doesn't run on Server 2003, well, bugger off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OptiPlex    0
Thats just an asumption. :blink:

Maybe YOU pirated your copy of XP... get off the board now you theif.... ;)

You know its customery that people are INNOCENT until proven guilty. Here your guilty unless you show a scan of the recipet or something. And of course if you have Windows Server 2003 Enterprise you MUST have pirated it, if you post a question about it asking something out of the ordinary then you also MUST have pirated it. :no:

I paid for my copy of Windows 2003 64bit, its a 360day trail i had to pay to be shipped to me and i have little choice in using it for workstation purposes simply because Windows XP Professional 64bit edition is only available to MSDN subscribers. Its Win2k3 or nothing. :)

People have no right to get "ticked off" just because they dont think someone should have something. Apart from that of course i bet at least half of the 'protesters' have XP CORP! on their systems. So its pot calling the kettle black.

I don't use XP, read my sig.

And yes, I BOUGHT my copy of 2000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank    3

I have seen a lot of people saying that the reason for them using Windows 2003 SERVER is to get experience using a server. I am sorry but using Windows 2003 SERVER on your WORKSTATION is NOT going to give you the experience you need to administer a Windows 2003 SERVER. The interface and options are EXACTLY like Windows XP. Unless you actually set up an IIS server and run a web page, or install POP3 or SMTP or RAS support on the machine, how can you claim you are "Learning" Windows 2003 SERVER? It was based on Windows XP, and 99% of the options are exactly like Windows XP. I just don't understand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Winky    0

I had to register just to post in this thread.

I found this board because of an article outlining steps

to make Win2k3 into an XP like install.

(worked like a charm)

From the tone of many of the

"don't use a server OS as a workstaion" posters

I can guess that most are teenagers (even if they have reached their 20's)

Let's just say that the first BillyG OS I encountered was the C:\ prompt

of DOS 1.0 in 1980.

Lemme put this in irrefutable terms for ya kids.

Go into the device manager and check the date on the Micro$oft driver for

the IDE ATA/ATPI cont.s

Ever wonder what it takes to get an update for those?

Well it's newer in Win2k3 as is a lot of other code.

You can't go wrong using the latest stuff from Redmond!

Wait til SP2 for XP comes out and you will replace a large portion of your OS's code

to fix problems and garner improvemnts that our buddies in the Northwest have made for us.

Or load Win2k3 as your Workstation OS and enjoy them Today

Recall the improvements in Windows for Workgroups (3.11) over 3.1?

The vast difference between the first Win95 distro and the finally finished Win98SE?

What was the difference between Server 3.51 and 4.0?

It was Better that's what.

I am loving the slight improvement afforded by a properly configured 2K3 Enterprise install

over XP Pro Corp.

----------------------------------------------

OH and Fowen, Eliza Dushku is my Wife :happy:

What a beauty! clickable

468x60.gif

Edited by Winky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToastGodSupreme    2

Winky, hard to take you seriously when seeing your sig there. But your point, is lost on me. What is your point? What the hell does any of what you said have to do with this thread? Yes, it's an update based off of XP for all intensive purposes. I am an update to my parents. Think of all the genetic improvements (and possible problems) that I now have over them. But that doesn't have anything to do with this conversation either, does it?

And so what if I'm in my 20s?

I ****ing remember dos. I remember installing games and having to configure my sound card as a soundblaster live compatible and set the irq, dma, etc for it manually. BFD

Some of us, even as kids, had access to computers. What's your point? That you're some seasoned veteran or something? I care not. So far, you've only rambled on like a senile old man and totally missed the topic of discussion.

Windows 2003 Server? Server OS. Mother fsking period. SERVER. SERVER. SERVER. SERVER.

YES, you can use it on a workstation machine. You can use it for anal stimulation too (or at least the cd). There are so many uses for it! Is it MEANT to be used as anything other than a server os? NO! Am I sure about this? YES.

Everyone, stop the damn bickering. Stop it all. It's a server os, it can be used on a workstation, but that is not it's intended purpose (IF THAT WAS IT'S INTENDED PURPOSE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NAMED WINDOWS 2003 WORKSTATION).

This argument/discussion has become retarded. The point is clear...

Windows 2003 Server, is a server operating system. In many respects, it is very similar to Windows XP. But it is not Windows XP. You can use Windows 2003 Server in place of XP, but there is no guarantee that everything will work like it does in XP. In Microsoft's eye, it is not meant to be a replacement for Windows XP on desktop computers, either at home, or in the workplace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freakyfriday    2

good point, but i say its your computer do whatever you want with it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dougkinzinger    0
I am loving the slight improvement afforded by a properly configured 2K3 Enterprise install over XP Pro Corp.

Uh huh. Sure you are. No doubt you're using Volume Shadow File Restore, IIS, and ADAM, aren't you.

Sheesh folks. It's a bloody server. You know it, I know it, the American people know it. Stop acting l33t and saying how awesome it is over XP when you're not getting a darn thing out of it versus XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dougkinzinger    0
Winky, hard to take you seriously when seeing your sig there.

Hahaha, yeah....bet you still live with Mom & Dad, Winky! Even though you're pushing 40 (supposedly) :D ;)

(just kidding, I may not agree with your Server 2003 posts, but I won't joke about your personal life)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John    7

yes, freakyfriday, it's your computer, do what you want. but obviously, any performance/coolness/other advantages gained for workstation use is NOT worth the price increase. [rant] and pf prophet, don't even come in here and tell me you traded two copies of xp for server 2003 like you've done a thousand times, because in all reality, that doesn't count. hell, it may even be illegal, i don't know, i'm not a lawyer. the fact is, next to nobody is going to "trade" one copy of a multi-thousand dollar operating system for something they can get for $200 at office max. [/rant]

Recall the improvements in Windows for Workgroups (3.11) over 3.1?

The vast difference between the first Win95 distro and the finally finished Win98SE?

What was the difference between Server 3.51 and 4.0?

It was Better that's what.

winky, i used dos. i used win3.1 and 3.11, along with 95a, 95b, 98, 98se, me, 2000, xp, and server 2003, not to mention various versions of macintosh (absolute CRAP before OSX), and even linux. i also saw the value in upgrading. like toast, i too remember setting IRQ and DMA settings for my soundblaster card, the first soundblaster card to come out. cost my parents $99 for a stupid sound card, if i'm not mistaken. but that's beside the point. the point is, there are others on this board who are just as kowledgable and have just as much experience with older software as you do.

Go into the device manager and check the date on the Micro$oft driver for

the IDE ATA/ATPI cont.s

Ever wonder what it takes to get an update for those?

Well it's newer in Win2k3 as is a lot of other code.

my first reply to this is that it's a newer OS, it's bound to have newer code, otherwise no one would buy it (pirate it?). the reason the drivers are new is because the kernel now accesses hardware differently. the date for the IDE controller driver is 7/1/2001 (sp1), version 5.1.2600.1106. all it "takes to have these updated" is a change in how the kernel accesses hardware. this happend in server 2003, as everyone knows. but truthfully, the bottlneck with drive transfer speed is not the drivers, but the physics of magnetic storage. the drive physically cannot transfer speed any faster with a different driver, so where is server 2003's advantage with this? the only changes that were made were in how the kernel handles hardware.

do you want to know the exact reason the kernel was updated in server 2003? i bet everyone wants to know. i'm going to tell everyone why the kernel was modified in a (hopefully successful, yet surely hopeless) attempt at ending this god-forsaken madness. the reason? it's an acronym: IIS. internet information services. the ONLY reason the kernel version changed from 5.1 to 5.2 is because of IIS 6. microsoft had big plans for IIS 6, and chose to even leave IIS 5.1 in xp and not continue it because it was not capable of performing the way they wanted. there are a few things i have seen that simply will not with IIS 5.1 because, it was (for a lack of a better word) unfinished. IIS 6.0 was a huge leap in technology compared to 5.1, if you don't believe me, visit microsoft technet and look around for IIS.

now, i know what you're saying. "cool, IIS was updated, what's that have to do with the kernel?" the kernel was updated because the performance in IIS 6.0 was unacceptable. as i said before, microsoft set high goals for IIS 6.0, and to achieve those goals, they had to change the way IIS addresses memory through the kernel. IIS is now integrated more with the kernel and has improved performance because of this.

there's your reason everyone, now stop with the damned "5.2 is better than 5.1" bull****. it's not better for anything you people would do on your computer. it won't draw pictures 3 milliseconds faster, it won't increase your network speed, it won't do anything you would want, period. what it will do is handle static HTML pages 600% faster than IIS 5.0 on windows 2000. it will support an unlimited number of connections compared to xp. if any of you have 10,000 users connecting to your computer to access static HTML pages, for the love of all that is good and holy, please tell me, i'm dying to know.

Wait til SP2 for XP comes out and you will replace a large portion of your OS's code

to fix problems and garner improvemnts that our buddies in the Northwest have made for us.

Or load Win2k3 as your Workstation OS and enjoy them Today

i'm running sp2 (beta tester) and yes, a lot of the files have changed, but that's because it's a SERVICE PACK! service packs update virtually ALL the system files with new versions. sp1 did the same thing more than a year ago. server 2003 doesn't have any "improvements" that will be in sp2, because any of those "improvements" would already be in sp1, released a few months before server 2003. to those who would say something was added to server 2003 after sp1 was released: BS! in RC stage, you DO NOT ADD ANYTHING to a product. if ANYTHING is added, the entire product must be retested.

if you're saying the drivers for the IDE controllers will change with sp2, i can confirm that; they have changed build numbers. why did they change? maybe it's got something to do with the PIO/DMA setting that gets screwed up from time to time, i don't know, i don't have the code to look at. but i can tell you this: transfer and/or read/write speed has not increased for either one of my hard drives. there goes that argument.

however, you, winky, are in a unique situation. you have a quad-xeon system. this warrants the use of server 2003 more than anything i can think of. perhaps it's the BEST reason to use server 2003 instead of xp. xp pro only supports two physical processors. in order to utilise the other two, you must be running a server version of windows, or some form of linux. deciding between those is up to you, and everyone has their opinion on that, so i'm not even going to go into that...

if you use server 2003 because it has all the xp "bloat" disabled, stop it now. it takes a whole ****ing five minutes to do it yourself. i should time it some day. with all the tweaking/removing/etc theads around here, you could arguably do more with xp than you could with server 2003... to turn the tables again, you have to enable some things in server 2003 to get it working the way you want. number 1 example: directx. to get any games to run on server 2003, you must first enable directx. EVERYONE has done this, even if they don't play games. there are even threads asking how to do this (further supporting my response to RobertH below).

another thing. that stupid little rumor floating around saying some microsoft rep in new zealand or wherever said server 2003 is in some way better than xp is pointless. he/she was a rep, and i guarantee you that that person was not qualified to make that claim. he had nothing to do with the creation of either product, so he's full of it. call the redmond campus and talk to the windows team. ask them if server 2003 is a better workstation than xp. i don't even have to guess what they will tell you...

Apart from that of course i bet at least half of the 'protesters' have XP CORP! on their systems. So its pot calling the kettle black.

i have a legal license of xp. if you come to my house, i will show it to you. NO i will not post pics of the cd on the internet, because 1. i don't have a scanner, 2. i don't want to buy one, and 3. i don't want to go through the hassle. most of the "protesters" (all that i know of) also own legal copies of xp, because simply, they work in businesses where they would be fired and perhaps even sued for using pirated software. on the other hand, most supporters of "server 2003 as a workstation" are teenage idiots who live with their parents, know next to nothing about how windows actually works, and pirate 90% of the software on their computers, whether they use it or not. don't believe me? make a poll, and if people answer honestly, the results will surprise you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason    5

Well said Gameguy I agree with you but you know it won't make a damn bit of difference to those who HAVE to use 2003 Server as a workstation else their fellow school chums won't allow them in their gang anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ForkliftDude    0

uhm, iis6 is NOT the reason the win2k3 kernel is versioned 5.2. it's the improvements in the memory manager and the different multiprocessor scheduler. whoever told you that iis thing has a nut missing. seriously.

--edit

need to add that to keep confusion low, because i expect it to turn up:

the iis http handler has been moved from the USER MODE into the KERNEL MODE, not into the KERNEL itself.

kernel mode == priviledged, user mode == non-priviledged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason    5
uhm, iis6 is NOT the reason the win2k3 kernel is versioned 5.2. it's the improvements in the memory manager and the different multiprocessor scheduler. whoever told you that iis thing has a nut missing. seriously.

Don't just talk provide us some proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lammmetak    0

i tryed it for a day

its ok if u like visiting webistes but not as gamer.

it didnt like my ati and my onboard sound and lan didnt work either.

i sugest to keep win xp. its fun its easy and its stable enough.

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.