null_ Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 Windows Server 2003 is better thanks to scheduler and memory manager improvements. 585779026[/snapback] True. But Windows XP SP2 has also improved in these areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ev0| Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 this is going to be a pointless argument because in a year, we'll all be running NT 6.0, which will be alot better than either 5.2 or 5.1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McCormick Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 Windows Server 2003 is for SERVERS and Windows XP for WORKSTATIONS. Use Windows XP SP2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glowstick Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 It's the same freakin' operating system... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REM2000 Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 Windows Servers are geared towards background tasks (such as sql etc..) Windows Workstations are geared towards foreground applications (such as word, games). Yes you can slide the option from foreground to background however apart from the foreground -> background option the server is still geared towards running background tasks. If i was you i would use WinXP Pro SP2 as general applications are designed and tested for this release of windows. There may be a game or application you need to run which doesn't support or has a bug in the server software. As mentioned you will need Server software for certain utilties such as Antivirus. The only ppl to benefit from running Win2k3 as a workstation are web dev's and system admins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mx Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 Windows Server 2003 isn't just for running a server. 585761228[/snapback] Umm yes it is. That's what it is designed for. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxdesmus Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 ^^ lol ...simple and yet to the point :yes: :whistle: Having used both for both uses (server and workstation) that are both at the same level of performance after you tweak them. Just my $0.02, get Server and then resell it ...take the money you get from selling it and then buy XP and keep the difference. Boy I hope you're not talking about illegally obtaining either of these....This would be a very stupid question then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzachattack2 Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 Boy I hope you're not talking about illegally obtaining either of these....This would be a very stupid question then... 585779804[/snapback] Coming from someone whos avatar says "I Steal From The RIAA", oh the irony.... :rolleyes: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
struct Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 zzachattack2++; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidonocu Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 I personally run Server 2003 SP1 as a workstation and find it alot better than XP or any other version of Windows. I have uptimes of weeks rather than days and MS have issued less security patches for Server than for XP in the same timespan. All the modern games run fine too (HL2/Doom/etc) Converting to a workstation takes about 2 to 3 hours the first time but after that, its plain sailing. I've got it down to about 1 hour myself now haveing setup a couple of machines. See the link posted earlier by zzachattack2 on the converting process. However here is a list of things you might want to just consider since I won't push it to you if it won't be as useful. - File sharing - If you have other computers, you should make sure your username and password matches on all of them with the 2K3 computer, otherwise, file shares can be a right pain to access as well, Server is designed with multiple users in mind. Not one trying to just do simple file sharing. This also means that even if they don't use the 2K3 computer, people who want to access fileshares on it will need a login account on the Server machine, that matches their login details on their XP or other 2K3 machines on the network. - Fast User Switching - There is no fast user switching in 2K3, if you share the computer, you should consider XP as there is nothing worse than having to logoff to let a sibling do homework or a parent or spouce check e-mail when you are in the middle of something! ;) I use XP on my laptop for this reason, as it tends to act as the machine for my friends to use when they visit, so has alot of user accounts on it. - Hardware Compatibility - Not a big one this, as Server actually supports more stuff out the box than XP. However, some devices can take a little more coaxing to playball. My Epson Scanner for example is quite fiddly and takes a bit of beating with a stick to work. Most printers, iPod's, stuff that goes inside your box though, should be fine. Hope this helps :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigCheese Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 I would use 2003. Sure its intended to be used as a server, but I find it to be faster and more stable when i use it every so often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden Posted April 18, 2005 Share Posted April 18, 2005 - Hardware Compatibility - Not a big one this, as Server actually supports more stuff out the box than XP Really?!?! Then you won't mind if I sell you some expensive dedicated Intel NICs with their own processors that work fine under Win2K but blue screen with 2003. What would be the point of having a hardware compatability list? Everything is supposed to work better than XP. Personally, I'd rather deploy more 2003 servers in the data center where I have rack space and MAKE MONEY than playing Doom on it. You may buy software but I hire it to do a job. For me it's a tool. It makes me laugh when users "in the know" waste the true potential of the tool and use it to play games and surf the web. Oooh, your so clever... what a waste! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEVER85 Posted April 18, 2005 Share Posted April 18, 2005 I would rather use an OS DESIGNED to play games than waste 3-4 hours of my life reconfiguring Windows Server 2003 to do the same task. 2003 suits my needs as a fileserver, nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidonocu Posted April 18, 2005 Share Posted April 18, 2005 Really?!?! Then you won't mind if I sell you some expensive dedicated Intel NICs with their own processors that work fine under Win2K but blue screen with 2003. What would be the point of having a hardware compatability list? Everything is supposed to work better than XP.Personally, I'd rather deploy more 2003 servers in the data center where I have rack space and MAKE MONEY than playing Doom on it. You may buy software but I hire it to do a job. For me it's a tool. It makes me laugh when users "in the know" waste the true potential of the tool and use it to play games and surf the web. Oooh, your so clever... what a waste! 585791069[/snapback] Really.. what is your problem? :p People hack with computers and software all the time. We have forums dedicated to the stuff on Neowin! Why should Server 2K3 be some kind of sanctified never touched item? On the issue of hardware compatability, it -does- support more stuff as I tested it on my laptop once for the heck of it and it supported its NIC and modem out of the box. I had to go get drivers for XP (which is a pain when you have no NIC o.O). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted April 18, 2005 Share Posted April 18, 2005 I personally run Server 2003 SP1 as a workstation and find it alot better than XP or any other version of Windows.I have uptimes of weeks rather than days and MS have issued less security patches for Server than for XP in the same timespan. All the modern games run fine too (HL2/Doom/etc) 585788258[/snapback] Uptime means absolutely nothing UNLESS it's a server. "WOW MAH COMPUT3R HAS 3 WEKS OF UPTIEM!!1!1!!! LOL YAY1!!!1 LOL" And I get weeks on my XP box at work and at home. What do you guys do to your PCs that shuts them down in days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidonocu Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 I suppose the uptime its self doesn't -actually- matter. What it basicly is though, is a measure and an indicator to others of how often your system needs to be restarted because the memory gets clogged up or things simply start messing up. Or the system crashed. So while desktop users don't -need- uptime, the uptime can be used as a point of reference. :) For example, my old '98 uptime was about 5 hours. XP's was about a week. Server's is now greater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 I would rather use an OS DESIGNED to play games than waste 3-4 hours of my life reconfiguring Windows Server 2003 to do the same task. 2003 suits my needs as a fileserver, nothing else. 585791114[/snapback] Well, people with less interesting and busy lives may want to 'waste' that time. I'm sure you are busy doing much more meaningful things with your time, such as browsing Neowin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 And I get weeks on my XP box at work and at home. What do you guys do to your PCs that shuts them down in days? 585793288[/snapback] People allowing Windows' automatic updates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 XP's was about a week. That means three things: 1- You have sucky hardware. 2- You have hacked it to a point of random instability. 3- You don't know what you are doing. There are no other reasons. You can't blame the OS because I have XP on desktops and laptops and XP runs until I shut the machine down or reboot for a necessary updates. 60+ days and all you could manage was a week!?!? So which one are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stopdroproll Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 How come I get the idea that at least 75% of the people running Windows Server 2003 as a workstation pirated it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circaflex Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 because they did and id say 75% of people on neowin have a pirated corp version of xp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 How come I get the idea that at least 75% of the people running Windows Server 2003 as a workstation pirated it? Becauce kids don't shell out $800+ for an OS to play games on... :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premgenius Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 (edited) Microsoft Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2 Edited April 19, 2005 by DJ Prem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
null_ Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 Alright. I decided to see exactly what all the fuss is about and if there was any difference since Service Pack 1 for 2003 was released. So I went and grabbed myself a copy of the Evaulation Version of Enterprise Server. Modified the ISO and slipstreamed in SP1. I imaged Windows XP, so I could easily go back without a problem. Formatted and installed Windows Server 2003. Tweaked it for use as a Workstation. Installed all my applications again, set up user accounts, and copied over data backups into each profile. Configured all the profiles. Defragmented the hard drive. The ONLY difference I noticed between Server 2003 SP1 and XP SP2 was that Explorer windows opened up a half a second faster. Everything else ran the same. I wouldn't personally waste my time using Server 2003 as a workstation. The only feasable way I can see it happening is if I need to set up something that requires Server 2003, then I'd use it as both Workstation and Server. Until then, I'll stick with Windows XP Pro SP2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden Posted April 19, 2005 Share Posted April 19, 2005 I have a test machine where I dual boot Win2003 Standard Server (32bit) and XP Pro x64. I test with a single java based program D2OL. D2OL is a distributed computing client. It takes the CPU to 100% and leaves it there. This test ran 26 days straight non-stop on both platforms. Win2K3 crunched a daily average of 89.4 candidates (output) per day. XP Pro x64 crunched a daily average of 131.3 candidates per day. XP Pro x64 was 40+% faster than Win2K3 Server on the same hardware (Athlon64 3200, 512MB) Draw your own conclusions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts