kc8yff Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 At the present moment, I have the option to get either XP or WS2003 from my friend. I would like some information on what all of you people think is better. I don't plan on running a server. It's just an OS for every day use. I currently use Windows 2000 Professional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannlich Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 well, if you are not running a server, then why on earth would you run windows server 2003. Use XP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamend Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Unless you can resell, get XP. There's nothing that Windows Server 2003 has in terms of user features that XP doesn't, and it'll just make a lot of things a lot more complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzz99 Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Server or not ? Question answer for itself... and why not stick with 2000 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrack Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Windows XP Professional. Having "Server" in the name doesn't mean it will perform any better. It just means it comes with server software. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seafirex Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Actually you can get both it does not matter as per win2k3 can be set as workstation and it is easy to do. But if you prefer get the new winxp that is in beta and coming out in september of this year or next year tops. Hope this helps you out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kc8yff Posted April 11, 2005 Author Share Posted April 11, 2005 Windows Server 2003 isn't just for running a server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Natan Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 With SP2, XP is now better for a workstation. Haven't tested Server 2003 SP1 yet, so can't comment on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamend Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Windows Server 2003 isn't just for running a server. 585761228[/snapback] It isn't, but its only other practical use is for having your web development environment be the same thing as your non-production test platform, so unless you actually code ASP/ASP.NET with VS.NET, there's not much of a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EZRecovery Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 If you have a 2000 machine that it is working flawlessly for you, leave it the way it is. If you can get your hands on another system, then install XP and play with it. Do not waste your time on Server 2003 if you are not going to use it for what its suppose to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan~ Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 I guess Windows Server 2003, would be alot more stable than Windows XP, as it is server software and it's needed to be run al lthe time. Or am I just thinking logically, and not technically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 If you want to use Win2k3 as a server fine if you want it to act like a XP or Win2K workstation then you will have to hack it to bits to make it work like a workstation. So you have to ask yourself, do you want a machine that does not have to be hacked to work the way you want or do you want to hack it to bits to get what you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MazX_Napalm Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 Hey, if your friend is going to sell you Server at the same price as XP and they are both legit.... buy both. Then flog Server and you can get a brand new pc with the money. Then install XP on the new pc. I have the option to get either XP or WS2003 from my friend. Is it just me or does this sound a bit like a stretch of the MS EULA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester1x Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 I would recommend you do whatever you please. You can use the OS for whatever purpose you want if it does what you want it to do. :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzachattack2 Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 I run server 2003 sp1 on my workstation and I love it. Runs smoothly, more stable, and it seems like it runs a bit faster. The only thing I don't like is the lack of support for certain software, (ex: NIS, NAV, etc). I'd also imagine server to be a bit more stable/up to date than Windows XP. It is windows 5.2 whereas xp is 5.1, and XP x64 edition I believe runs off of the 5.2 kernel as well, so there must be something in 5.2 that is better than XP. But there is a certain amount of tweaking to get a server 2003 machine up to par with XP, in a workstation (not server) sense. MSFN has a nice little guide about it, and so does an article on this forum, but i don't have the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 Cleary that makes sense... spend big bucks for a server to play games or spend a little to play games without have to hack it up. But this person is not paying so one should question the source of this gift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NienorGT Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 2K3 Server is the BEST Windows... But I don't sugest it to you since it's costly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Prophet Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 If you want to use Win2k3 as a server fine if you want it to act like a XP or Win2K workstation then you will have to hack it to bits to make it work like a workstation. So you have to ask yourself, do you want a machine that does not have to be hacked to work the way you want or do you want to hack it to bits to get what you want. 585762856[/snapback] ^^^im^with^stupid^^^^^^^^^^^ 2k3 works great as a workstation. 2k3 sp1 works evern better. F-prot is the antivirus i choose it installes on server without a hitch and uses very little in the way of system resorces. Other apps work fine for the most part. Some requier a little work to install. (doom3 needs a tweaked msi to remove os check since it only likes xp5.1) I have used 2003 as a workstation since it came out and it works great. Xp x64 is based on a 64bit enhanced windows 2003 core (nt5.2) they used 5.2 because it was better and more up to date. Dont mind the nay sayers 2003 is great for workstation use as well as letting you play with the server side when/if you desided to learn it. I use windows 2000 OR 2003. Xp never comes close to my system. Once drivers for x64 are out for my hardware i will be VERY happy and plan to move to the x64 platform as soon as possable :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
struct Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 I don't understand why people keep making these threads. I'm still in the "It's a server" camp, so why don't all you 2003 workstation users do some benches on both platforms in an attempt to back up your claims that it is faster? In the end though, try both and keep the one you like best. MS has trials downloadable from their site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 I run server 2003 sp1 on my workstation and I love it. Runs smoothly, more stable, and it seems like it runs a bit faster. The only thing I don't like is the lack of support for certain software, (ex: NIS, NAV, etc). I'd also imagine server to be a bit more stable/up to date than Windows XP. It is windows 5.2 whereas xp is 5.1, and XP x64 edition I believe runs off of the 5.2 kernel as well, so there must be something in 5.2 that is better than XP.But there is a certain amount of tweaking to get a server 2003 machine up to par with XP, in a workstation (not server) sense. MSFN has a nice little guide about it, and so does an article on this forum, but i don't have the link. 585767955[/snapback] What is the difference between the 2 kernel versions? Since 2003 seems to have a lot of the stuff XP has (and makes notice of it in some places) + server tools minus games, etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 I use windows 2000 OR 2003. Xp never comes close to my system. Once drivers for x64 are out for my hardware i will be VERY happy and plan to move to the x64 platform as soon as possable :) 585768826[/snapback] Why? It's not like XP is all too different from 2003. In fact, lots of messages I see in 2003 mention XP. We have 2003 at work, and I've tried it on the desktop and haven't noticed anything different. I might move back to XP Desktop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzachattack2 Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 What is the difference between the 2 kernel versions? Since 2003 seems to have a lot of the stuff XP has (and makes notice of it in some places) + server tools minus games, etc 585772572[/snapback] As far as I know, client vs server operating systems are not dependant on the kernel. What I mean is the extra "server" features you will find in server 2003 have nothing to do with kernel; the kernel could just as well be used in windows xp with some modification. Whats better between the 5.1 and 5.2 kernel? I have no idea, but you can count on that 5.2 is probably more stable, and all around faster. All the extra or removed features in 2003 are just features built into various places of the operating system, not into the kernel itself; server 2003 just happens to have the newest kernel version, just like the 64-bit version of xp does. Correct me if I'm wrong anyone, I'm just basing this off of some things I know and common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stopdroproll Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 Your friend must be rich if he's just giving away legal Windows server licenses! :o Gotta find one of those to have as friends. Anyways, my advice - leave your Win2k alone.It's not critical that you upgrade to XP at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 Windows Server 2003 isn't just for running a server. 585761228[/snapback] There's really no other reason to run it as anything but a server. That's why they named it "Server". Did you run 2000 Server over Pro? There is no evidence that XP is any worse than 2003 when run as a workstation. You'll have to work just as hard to get 2003 running as a workstation as you would have to work to tweak XP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glowstick Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 Windows Server 2003 is better thanks to scheduler and memory manager improvements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts