Zxian Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 You mean it doesn't have all the crap that makes XP so annoying?586786295[/snapback] It has most of it, but it's probably disabled by default. The login screen is probably the one thing that I don't know how to turn on in Server 2003.does win server 2003 have a feature where it prompts for the password before certain things get installed or changed for extra protection?586789160[/snapback] Nope. It's got the exact same configuration as XP when it comes to installing programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leddy Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 IMO XP is still a better client. You don't have to fiddle to get everything working. Win2k3 is staying on my network server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
null_ Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 I find Windows XP to be the better choice over Windows Server 2003. With some tweaking and some simple modifications, Windows XP actually runs FASTER than Server 2003 does in its default state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
champagne_supernova Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 ....Windows XP actually runs FASTER than Server 2003 does in its default state. 586795380[/snapback] What do you mean in its default state?? If you don't make a few modification in Win2K3, of course XP will runs faster (i.e. Win2K3 is optimized for background programs). I do think that both windows run almost the same for average users :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruckWEB Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Since W2k3 is still Windows, you would need a good Anti-Virus. NONE of the Free one works under W2k3. And darn they are expensive!! That's about the only thing that keeps me from going to W2k3 on my workstation. I have MSDN so the price is not a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jak0bk Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 You don't actually need a good AV. I have no AV and haven't for nearly 4 months now. I have yet to get a virus. Browse smart, only open things that you trust. And Win2k3 has the welcome screen, it's just disabled in group policy. There's a guide on the internet somewhere on how to make it a decent client. And I think that if it weren't for compatibility issues, then Win2k3 would beat WinXP out on my desktop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AltecXP Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 compatability? its basicly the same OS just tweaked for stability and server usage (same codebase as XP x64) and i have NEVER seen the welcome screen on server Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugnostos Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 and i have NEVER seen the welcome screen on server 586802682[/snapback] erm... this shows how to to rid yourself of the CTRL-ALT-DELETE requirement via Group Policy... http://www.msfn.org/win2k3/ctrl_alt_del.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AltecXP Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 thats totaly different from enabling the welcome screen that just prevents having to press crtl+alt+del before it shows the NT login box, it just makes the box auto-prompt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leddy Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 So you paid $600 for MSDN but can't pay $50 for an antivirus scanner? Right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK1150 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 bad idea, by the time you enable everything u need, it will be slower than XP, plus the compatibility problems (a LARGE amount of software won't work on server 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeWolf324 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 New from microsoft Windows Server-but-run-it-on-a-desktop-anways 2005 SE with Lime! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AltecXP Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 bad idea, by the time you enable everything u need, it will be slower than XP, plus the compatibility problems (a LARGE amount of software won't work on server 2003) 586802870[/snapback] ive never had ANY software problems with 2003, and i run it on an old laptop. and it runs better then XP because it has better memory management, not just services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManMountain Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 I'd have to say that Windows XP 64-bit is the fastest, most robust os I've ever used from MS. If you have a suitable CPU, give it a whirl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AltecXP Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 x64 is 2003 recompiled for 64bit with XP's features added back in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miran Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 x64 is 2003 recompiled for 64bit with XP's features added back in 586802927[/snapback] Exactly. Just because MS decides to throw "Server" on the end of the name doesn't change the fact that it makes a lovely workstation OS. I already own Nod32 so antivirus isn't an issue, and I haven't found ANY programs that do not run on Windows 2k3. It runs Picasa, Nero, games, PowerDVD, Office, iTunes, Windows Media Player, MSN Messenger, etc. I don't know where some of you have gotten the idea that a "LARGE" amount of software will not run on 2k3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
champagne_supernova Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 ...NONE of the Free one works under W2k3. And darn they are expensive!! 586800403[/snapback] Are you sure? I found in AVG FREE documentation that it supports windows 2000 and newer. Haven't tried it myself though :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilsbury Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 The simple fact is though that XP is just over $100, 2003 is $1000. The average home PC costs somewhere in the region of what $750 and a top of the range one from about $2000 up? Amazes me that so many are willing to shell out more than the cost (/worth) of their PC for an OS that they are going to use as XP. Both OSes are from the SAME codebase, just 2003 is from a later build. They both more or less have the same features (with some disabled) and do the same things. XP is however more user orientated. Buy XP and give the $900 you have saved to charity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miran Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 The simple fact is though that XP is just over $100, 2003 is $1000.The average home PC costs somewhere in the region of what $750 and a top of the range one from about $2000 up? Amazes me that so many are willing to shell out more than the cost (/worth) of their PC for an OS that they are going to use as XP. Both OSes are from the SAME codebase, just 2003 is from a later build. They both more or less have the same features (with some disabled) and do the same things. XP is however more user orientated. Buy XP and give the $900 you have saved to charity. 586804203[/snapback] Or get it free like myself (legally). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMDMEFX-55 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 This is just like when Windows xp came out everyone wanted pro and not home. The only reason I have Windows xp pro is because there is no Windows xp home x64. It's stupid to run a server os on a desktop lol but if you want to put out $1,000 for an os that's fine with me but I would rather put that money into better hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mint0 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 This is just like when Windows xp came out everyone wanted pro and not home. The only reason I have Windows xp pro is because there is no Windows xp home x64. It's stupid to run a server os on a desktop lol but if you want to put out $1,000 for an os that's fine with me but I would rather put that money into better hardware. 586804412[/snapback] As previously stated, alot of students get free access to MSDN, which includes free liscences for windows 2000, server 2003 and windows XP pro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMDMEFX-55 Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 As previously stated, alot of students get free access to MSDN, which includes free liscences for windows 2000, server 2003 and windows XP pro 586804432[/snapback] O I missed that now it all makes sence lol I think ill run server also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigCheese Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 I run win 2k3 on my desktop. I find that its generally faster and better than windows xp. Some of the annoying crap from windows xp has been removed. For example, the windows explorer search bar is nicer than the XP one. I also sometimes use a few server features like IIS. A thing I have noticed is that, in windows xp, while using CursorXP and hovering the mouse over video that is playing in PowerDVD or WMP, the cursor shadow will just look like a black blob. However in Win 2k3, the shadow appears normal. Not a significant difference, but it shows some things have been improved. The only compatability problem I had was partition magic wouldn't run. But, I got a copy of Acronis Disk Director Suite, and I think its even better than partition magic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToneKnee Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 Why not try before you buy? Thats all i can say, get the free 180Day Trial. Test it out, make it into a Workstation. I find Windows 2003 better than XP, never had a problem except for Anti-Virus software, which i never install anyways. If you browse smart like someone here has said and download only things you trust, you'll be fine! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruckWEB Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 So you paid $600 for MSDN but can't pay $50 for an antivirus scanner? Right... 586802852[/snapback] It's not 600$, it's way more than that (MSDN Universal) and it's my job that paid for it. But I can use the software at home. And a good AV to use with W2k3 is more than 50$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts