WinFreak Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 I was just wonder what the major advantages would be to using server 2003 vs. XP on a laptop. I run a lot of graphics and audio programs. Would sever 2003 have the ease of networking that XP did? Would I notice significant performance enhancements? Thanx in advance...................Tony :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha_omega Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 There are no major advantages. XP is enough and - not to mention - cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klop Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 XP for sure Server 2003 was designed for server not laptop... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim K Global Moderator Posted November 6, 2005 Global Moderator Share Posted November 6, 2005 XP of course. Server 2003 doesn't have "Server" in the name for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 Perofrmance enhancements are only realted to the server features so you would gain nothing but a biger hole in your wallet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shihchiun Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 XP... there's a lot of stuff normal users would use that is disabled or removed in Server 2003. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miran Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 I have noticed the complete opposite. I installed both XP and Server on the same machine. Boot up times, and overall system responsiveness are much, much improved on Server. Maybe it isn't right for a laptop, but I have high praises for using it as a workstation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aludanyi Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 It's depends. If you are an average user, XP will be OK, but if you are a developer, then Windows Server 2003 might be the right solution. I use it for a long time on my notebook and it is better than XP. First it is based on better code (XP is based on NT 5.1 code, Server is based on NT 5.2 code and XP code is dumped - yes Microsoft using NT 5.2 code for Vista). Virtually everything will run on your Server machine, smoother, and with better security than on an XP machine. So don't listen the fairytales, that something won't work, there is a 0.1% of specific XP software (usually from Microsoft) which refuse to install, but there are always some workaround, anyway this stuff is ultra rare... The price is a problem (I am an MSDN Subscriber so it isn't an issue for me). Performance is better than XP's, but not very noticeable, and you can install some server stuff which won't work on XP machines. Games - I am not a gamer, but a few one I tried all works great. Adobe and Macromedia stuff run without problems. Anyway me advice is, if you are a developer, then Windows Server 2003 is the best solution, but if you are an average user... then it's a little too expensive... and it will be happier with 1 or 2GB of RAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 haha XP code is dumped that would be a big NO!, it is XP with a few server related improvements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aludanyi Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 haha XP code is dumped that would be a big NO!, it is XP with a few server related improvements. 586776139[/snapback] Please! don?t haha to me. First (this is off topic but anyway) check the facts, Longhorn Client was based on XP code (NT 5.1) but after some development problems Microsoft give a big reset to the Longhorn project and dumped the development efforts based on the XP code and adopted the Server 2003 SP1 code (NT 5.2). And Windows 2000 has a similar codebase for Client (Professional) and Server the last time (Mark Russinovich had a discovery back then that the only difference between the 2000 Pro and 2000 Server was a few registry entry. When developing th next version of Windows (XP and Server 2003) Microsoft created two separate codebase NT 5.1 for XP and NT 5.2 for Server 2003. Now I am not sure about the code base of Longhorn Server, but Vista is not on XP codebase. It is based on Server 2003 codebase, and NT 5.1 (XP) codebase are dumped. If you don't trust on this ask Microsoft or check on the Internet, but don't be rude with haha stuff, I am tried to help here with my comments, and Windows Server 2003 is much better OS than XP, I experienced this many times. PEACE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 I know Vista is built on 2003 Server thats obvious. From what you wrote I read XP code was dumped in 2003 Server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinFreak Posted November 6, 2005 Author Share Posted November 6, 2005 Thank you all for your comments and suggestions, they are greatly appreciated. I'm going to go with Server 2003 and let my pockets bare the burdon. Sorry about the double posting. Have a great week everyone!...............Tony :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miran Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 If you are a student at a university you might be able to get it for free. The version I use I got from uni, they give you the full CD and a CD key. Pretty cool if you think about how much $$$ server 2003 costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circaflex Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 I put it on my desktop its cool i guess to say I have Server 2003, but in reality tweaking it to play games and audio takes as much time as putting xp on and tweaking it for the best performance. Im on XP but i still have server around, i got enterprise edition free from school, but see no point really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MazX_Napalm Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 If you are a student at a university you might be able to get it for free. ..... Pretty cool if you think about how much $$$ server 2003 costs. 586776544[/snapback] I think you should read the EULA on that version. It is intended for study purposes, not as a free OS for general use (server or client). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miran Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 I think you should read the EULA on that version. It is intended for study purposes, not as a free OS for general use (server or client). 586776651[/snapback] Computing Science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDW-mobile Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 on a lappie it work very good as a workstation ( windows 2003 ) with some simple modifications you will have in notime the look of windows VISTA and I have to say even gaming is possible ( not recommand). boot time from Windows 2003 is much faster then XP. windows 2003 is also based on XML which they used in Vista also.... it's quite fast I have to say.. tried it on a lappie DELL L400 700 Mhz mobile processor and 256 mb of mem... as a workstation it works very good and better then XP sp2.. I'm happy enoff yto get working with it... and for those who think about it..! just install it on a lappie because it's worth it to do...... if you need help with it I'm here to support you with installation..... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+orgitnized Subscriber¹ Posted November 9, 2005 Subscriber¹ Share Posted November 9, 2005 Yeah, like other people have write already...cost is a factor. Not just for the OS, but for the software to support it. Some AV programs are much more expensive when needing a version for a server. Some backup programs are also more expensive, knowing they'll be used for server versions instead of workstation versions. FWIW anyways. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leddy Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 2k3 is rather lacking in user-friendliness i think. It only looks half as good as XP does (no welcome screen on 2k3) and those server features you won't be needing. (I do like Sharepoint Portal server though) Boot time on 2k3 is faster on default settings than XP's default settings because 2k3 doesn't load all this visual styling crap that XP does. They labeled it Win2k3 server for a reason. It's meant for a server application, not as a desktop OS. Even though in theory you can use it as a workstation OS it's not as user-oriented as XP is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zxian Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Virtually everything will run on your Server machine, smoother, and with better security than on an XP machine. So don't listen the fairytales, that something won't work, there is a 0.1% of specific XP software (usually from Microsoft) which refuse to install, but there are always some workaround, anyway this stuff is ultra rare...586775996[/snapback] Two things that I noticed didn't work right away with Server 2003. Trend Micro PC-Cillin 2005 and the drivers for my Logitech webcam. Both gave me blue screens (yes, the BSOD) because they weren't written for Server 2003. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miran Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 2k3 is rather lacking in user-friendliness i think. It only looks half as good as XP does (no welcome screen on 2k3) and those server features you won't be needing. (I do like Sharepoint Portal server though) Boot time on 2k3 is faster on default settings than XP's default settings because 2k3 doesn't load all this visual styling crap that XP does. They labeled it Win2k3 server for a reason. It's meant for a server application, not as a desktop OS. Even though in theory you can use it as a workstation OS it's not as user-oriented as XP is. 586786071[/snapback] You mean it doesn't have all the crap that makes XP so annoying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 You mean it doesn't have all the crap that makes XP so annoying? 586786295[/snapback] All the more reason to use it as a desktop OS then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miran Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 All the more reason to use it as a desktop OS then! 586786309[/snapback] LOL I agree. I can live fine without the welcome screen thank you :D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stunna Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 does win server 2003 have a feature where it prompts for the password before certain things get installed or changed for extra protection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J_R_G Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 I tried the 180 day free download Win2k3 server for awhile, I found a few programs I wanted to run that refused to run because it wasn't a supported version of windows (even messing with compatibilities settings didn't help) so I switch back to XP which is the same in all ways you'd notice anyways. Stick with XP and avoid the hassle of programs that get lost on server 2k3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts