Windows Server 2003 or Windows XP

[Phemo]

Draw your own conclusions...

585796268[/snapback]

My conclusion would be that your application testing makes effective use of x86-64 extensions so a 64-bit OS is going to be faster than a 32-bit OS. That's quite an impressive increase but how does comparing 32-bit Server 2003 to x64 Windows XP have anything to do with people running Server 2003 as a workstation?

Now, while I'm with everyone on the whole "Server 2003 is a Server OS, XP is a Workstation OS" thing, surely your testing results in this instance would only be valid if you ran them between 32-bit Server 2003 and 32-bit XP? As they stand, it's quite meaningless except for showing some potential performance increase that x64 can provide.

I wonder how long it will be before we have people running Windows 2003 x64 over XP x64 ...

[Marsden]

The D2OL java client is 32bit code. In this instance, 32bit code runs faster on XP x64 than it does on 32bit Win2K3.

People think Win2K3 is a faster platform than 32bit XP. Since there will be a free program from MS to trade up to XP Pro x64. Does it make any sense to hack Win2K3 to make it a workstation? That is the point.

[Phemo]

The D2OL java client is 32bit code. In this instance, 32bit code runs faster on XP x64 than it does on 32bit Win2K3.

People think Win2K3 is a faster platform than 32bit XP. Since there will be a free program from MS to trade up to XP Pro x64. Does it make any sense to hack Win2K3 to make it a workstation? That is the point.

585796305[/snapback]

I agree.

I'm betting that benchmarks between 32-bit 2003 and 32-bit XP would be near enough identical, too.

Personally, I think people who think 2003 is faster than XP are just under the placebo effect :)

[Nidonocu]

That means three things:

1- You have sucky hardware.

*points at his sig* Is it really that bad? :p

2- You have hacked it to a point of random instability.

I never hacked XP, its already a workstation OS remember? ;) I just ran alot of programs at once and not all of them are the most well coded things in the world. I personally found XP would clog up faster when it ran many small 'homebrew' applications that I use. Of course, you might only be running large 5 months in testing pieces of software, so I can't compare.

3- You don't know what you are doing.

I may not always know what I'm doing, but I do it anyway, because then I learn. :p My computer, if I mess up, I have laid out the system so a format-reinstall is not a problem. o_o

Finally, as for only running a week. Like I said, I run alot of small programs, but some has hookins to the system so require a reboot to install. I was installing/uninstalling often in XP. I do so less now under Server because I've worked out what programs I like and what I don't. So I admit that has also proberly affected my uptime. o_o

I don't mind debating this, but this may be dragging this off the original topic so I suggest we stop fighting on this thread for now before admins get annoyed. o.o

[Joel]

People allowing Windows' automatic updates.

585794946[/snapback]

So what does that have to do with the uptime capability of Windows XP or 2003? Are we saying there are less updates on 2003?

[Zeitgeist]

So what does that have to do with the uptime capability of Windows XP or 2003? Are we saying there are less updates on 2003?

585796953[/snapback]

No, it is saying that updates via Windows Update often require a reboot; and if you don't it will keep hounding you with a pop-up.

[Joel]

No, it is saying that updates via Windows Update often require a reboot; and if you don't it will keep hounding you with a pop-up.

585797173[/snapback]

Yes, fine. But the original thought was that he gets only days on his XP box but weeks on his 2003 box. Hence my question.

[Nidonocu]

So what does that have to do with the uptime capability of Windows XP or 2003? Are we saying there are less updates on 2003?

585796953[/snapback]

Yes o.O I had a very blank Windows Update screen for like, several months. XP though got the odd patch every now and then though on the Patch Tuesdays. Check with my desktop. Nothing to report. o_O

[zzachattack2]

zzachattack2++;

585782398[/snapback]

Seems like every topic I goto, somebody always has to do the <username>++ or "plus one for <username>" yea it gets pretty annoying. If you don't like the post, don't reply to it, rather than making an immediate contradiction to your accusation of a wasted post.

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]

Wow, does it really take you that long to configure it?(No sarcasm intended). I don't remember it taking me really that long, just a few settings and I was set.

I don't think XP was "designed" for gaming, nor was server 2003. They both support win32/direct x/etc, all the necessary components to support gaming or other programs. So I really don't see any huge differences when comparing which to run games on. However I don't recommend pirating it just because you think it would be cool to run windows 2003, nor do I suggest buying it (the extra thousand dollars doesn't have its money worth of features visible to the workstation user) If you have an extra license from your business or wherever then go ahead and use it if you want that little extra features/etc.

[Koolslacker]

I would go with Windows XP.