Windows 2003 as a Workstation

[Scorbing]

OK I have been reading all over the web that 2003s Kernell is much better and faster than XPs plus that 2003's memory management is way better. According to all the stuff I read today, 2003 is a faster OS than XP and more secure. I am currently using XP Pro on my laptop and was thinking of replacing it with 2003. All I use my laptop for is email, surfing the web and sometimes edit photos. That's it. No video. No music. No gaming. I am just worried about the drivers and how they will work on 2003, if they do work. Suggestions and comments are welcome, even the flaming ones!. Express yourselves please.

Here's my laptop specs:

Compaq Presario Laptop Model v2402us

AMD Sempron 1.6 GHz

2 GB DDR 333 RAM

80 GB HD

128 MB (shared) Radeon Express 200 Video Card

DVD/CDRW Combo Drive

15" Widescreen Brightview monitor

[CoLdFuSi0n]

well if your going to just use win2k3 for that then why would you install it? and spend all that money for really nothing at all.

[Scorbing]

well if your going to just use win2k3 for that then why would you install it? and spend all that money for really nothing at all.

I already have a legal copy of Windows 2003 from a Dell server I bought a while back that died on me.

[MazX_Napalm]

Please note, although I am vocal about my opinion on Server as a work station, this post is not designed to put the practice down. You have a legit license that is not edu or such.

WinXP + a firewall (eg ZoneAlarm - free) + a good AV (low cost) verses W2K3 + server firewall ($$$$) + server av ($$$$)

W2K3 will not be any more secure than XP.

W2K3 without a FW and AV will be just as insecure as XP without FW and AV.

A FW and AV are not a replacement for good surfing and email habits.

... plus that 2003's memory management is way better. ...

All I use my laptop for is email, surfing the web and sometimes edit photos. That's it.

Unless you are working with very high end graphics, the memory management is negated.

It should work though.

[the_dark_son]

I use Server 2003 all the time as a desktop. Its a great desktop environment. The only isse you may have are Video Card drivers for laptops. Oh and AVG Free, anti-virus, does work on Windows Server 2003 and its not expensive at all. Hell its free. As for Firewall, ZoneAlarm free runs on W2k3 as does Jetico Personal Firewall.

MSFN has a great article on using Windows Server 2003 as a desktop

[sfalcon]

Oh dear. Brings back memories of those sig alliances: "Windows 2003 is not a Workstation Alliance"....

[+BudMan MVC]

Um and was this Lic for your server OEM?? If so it died with your server! OEM license is tied to the hardware.. PERIOD!

If you bought the server from Dell with 2k3 on it.. you can not legally use that OS on any piece of hardware..

This topic has been done to death.. Sure 2k3 can be used as a desktop OS.. it just does not make any cost sense.. and if all you do on your laptop is email, surfing the web and sometimes edit photos.. what do you think you will gain by using 2k3????

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I already have a legal copy of Windows 2003 from a Dell server I bought a while back that died on me.

If it was an OEM copy then it is tied to that hardware. It is NOT valid on any other system.

As for using Server 2003 as a workstation, I'm doing it as I type this. My main mail and dev machines at work run Server 2003. It has many advantages for me. That said, my Media Center runs MCE and my Tablet runs XP Tablet Edition.

I blogged about this very topic back in 2004, on my old blog: http://geekswithblogs.net/bpaddock/archive...2/07/16989.aspx

[Stunna]

If it was an OEM copy then it is tied to that hardware. It is NOT valid on any other system.

As for using Server 2003 as a workstation, I'm doing it as I type this. My main mail and dev machines at work run Server 2003. It has many advantages for me. That said, my Media Center runs MCE and my Tablet runs XP Tablet Edition.

I blogged about this very topic back in 2004, on my old blog: http://geekswithblogs.net/bpaddock/archive...2/07/16989.aspx

Is it possible have a User Account Protection type setup like windows vista on win2k3 or winXP?

even if it requires a third party program

winpatrol and windows defender were the best things i've seen so far

[Scorbing]

Well I installed 2003 on the laptop and I must say it does feel more solid than XP and it definately boots faster. Applications do open faster, not a huge difference, but it can be noticed. The ATI and AC 97 drivers worked like a charm. Everything is looking good. I will keep playing with it or a while and see what happens.

One question though, should I keep the settings at Performance Options like they are right now or should I change them to Background Servives and System Cache?

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/4491/untitled6al1.jpg

IMG Tags removed. Next time resize the picture. - Frank

Edited June 19, 2006 by Frank

[Lighthalzen]

Windows 2003 runs fine on a laptop, very fast too! You might have some driver issues... (MIGHT).

[Scorbing]

Windows 2003 runs fine on a laptop, very fast too! You might have some driver issues... (MIGHT).

Like I said, so far ALL the drivers have been working like a charm. No issues. No problems. I even have my widescreen!!!!!!!!!!!. Everything is working great. The only thing I have doubts on is the setting on Performance Options. What should I do there? How should I set it?

[Lighthalzen]

Like I said, so far ALL the drivers have been working like a charm. No issues. No problems. I even have my widescreen!!!!!!!!!!!. Everything is working great. The only thing I have doubts on is the setting on Performance Options. What should I do there? How should I set it?

I left it at default and all the programs and games ran very fast, but you might have to look into the Data Execution Prevention, turn the option same as Windows XP, which would be only system files and services only. Cause last time I tried playing a game, it blocked it until I changed that option, but it is very rare. :D

[Scorbing]

cool. thanks

You think you can help me with this?

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=449951

[Adequate]

I can attest that it does run better as a Workstation than XP (yes, it does, it's not just placebo, it's not just me going crazy, it really does! Ya rly!).

I even installed it on a P3 800 Laptop with 256 MB and it runs smoother than XP.

And to all those self-proclaimed policemen whose issues with this practice is far more important than their own existence, boo-hoo!

[Psychosematic]

A properly configured XP installation will run better than Server 2003.

Obviously a new installation of Server 2003 will feel faster than an old XP installation, but a properly trimmed XP install would be even better.

And there ARE compatibility differences between Server 2003 and XP, it's only a matter of time before you run into one.

[Windows X]

And a properly configured Server 2003 installation will run better than properly configured XP asas well.

A is better than B

B+ is better than A

so A+ is better than B+

[Menge]

And there ARE compatibility differences between Server 2003 and XP, it's only a matter of time before you run into one.

I've never, ever, had a compatibility issue with Server 2003 :|

except for software that deliberately blocks Server 2003.

[Scorbing]

One thing I noticed is that server 2003 is a bit faster on the web. Opening web pages, etc.

[JK1150]

You shouldn't be using a server operating system for a workstation environment. XP and 2003 are basically the same core, and you can disable enough services in XP to make it run like 2003. You will start installing programs and many will not work, and then you will come here asking us why, and we will tell you again and again that it is not a workstation. If you are installing 2003 on a laptop workstation, you probably don't know enough to properly secure a Windows 2003 environment, so you will be exposing yourself to more attacks being that there are many more server services running than in XP. All 2003 is is XP without the multimedia/home services and is instead running server services. Why do you want to deal with a plethora of driver/software issues just so my computer MAY open a little faster. Not to mention that by the time you enable all the services you need, it will likely run slower than XP because it's XP's services + server services that will combine to slow down the system.

[Scorbing]

You shouldn't be using a server operating system for a workstation environment. XP and 2003 are basically the same core, and you can disable enough services in XP to make it run like 2003. You will start installing programs and many will not work, and then you will come here asking us why, and we will tell you again and again that it is not a workstation. If you are installing 2003 on a laptop workstation, you probably don't know enough to properly secure a Windows 2003 environment, so you will be exposing yourself to more attacks being that there are many more server services running than in XP. All 2003 is is XP without the multimedia/home services and is instead running server services. Why do you want to deal with a plethora of driver/software issues just so my computer MAY open a little faster. Not to mention that by the time you enable all the services you need, it will likely run slower than XP because it's XP's services + server services that will combine to slow down the system.

Dude relax. I didn't say I was going to keep 2003 on the laptop. I am only testing it to see how it works. I have my XP partition image safe and can go back to my original configuration any time.

BTW, where can I get info on how to configure XP properly?

[JK1150]

Here's a good one:

http://techrepublic.com.com/i/tr/downloads...be_disabled.pdf

[Scorbing]

Here's a good one:

http://techrepublic.com.com/i/tr/downloads...be_disabled.pdf

Thanks. I will read it now.

[Windows X]

Simply, if 2k3sp1 wouldn't be really good for workstation, my xp conversion pack tool won't get 8 pages with over 90% positive responds.

[bobbba]

Some people are going to be happy just trying out a new OS, some will like the kewl factor of saying that they use a server os at home and that is why they will like the idea. It doesn't necessarily mean that this is a really good solution. Take a look at what isn't good about it:

To do it legally is expensive

It isn't supported by MS and manufacturers

While it might achieve a relatively high degree of compatibility with XP it isn't 100%

A lot of the talk about reliability and perf gains is subjective

There is a degree of effort required to get it to work, given the limited gains is it worth it

If you are skilled in PC's and Windows, you should be able to make XP run quick and reliable anyway

If you are doing it to try an gain experience with a server OS or just because you like seeing what you can do then fair enough. Just don't try and sell it as being a sensible or better solution as a workstation OS than running a well managed XP install.