• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Windows 2003 as a Workstation

Recommended Posts

Windows X    32

To do it legally is expensive <--- as Vista

It isn't supported by MS and manufacturers <--- It is as long as you don't apply real XP conversion patch

While it might achieve a relatively high degree of compatibility with XP it isn't 100% <--- as above and I doubt if Vista will work while 2003 doesn't

A lot of the talk about reliability and perf gains is subjective <--- Have you actually tried my tool? I never heard complaints like this in my topic Since the only differences are these and XP compatibiliy, what else? Sounds like you want to make server and play games in the same time lol. Anyway, you can get workstation OS with better IIS when needed and more hardware support than XP for server machines lol

If you are skilled in PC's and Windows, you should be able to make XP run quick and reliable anyway <--- If you are going to do the same to 2003, you would get very very insanely faster than XP also lol

Keep moaning 2003 is not for workstation trivial as you want but I'm not definitely going back to XP or switch to Vista while over half of PCs aren't ready but just capable. Final word from me is get trial version and use my tool to optimize it for workstation. Then open dxdiag to make sure everything is corrected. (Usually sound acceleration is sill standard but no major issues) After that, you can complain whatever you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+BudMan    3,536

"very very insanely faster than XP"

Really - is that a technical term? ;) What percentage of improvement is that exactly??

Maybe you could clear something up for me --> Faster at what exactly? Lets see, what are some common things you might do with a desktop??

So does it burn my CD/DVDs faster? How much faster? Will it turn my 52x burner in to a 54x?

Does it rip music from CDs or xfer it faster to my portable mp3 device?

Does it play my music faster? Doesn't that make it sound funny? ;)

Does it download BTs faster how about ftp? How much faster -- how does it make my connection faster?

So it makes IE or FF render neowin faster? How many milliseconds does insanely equate too? 10, 20 -- woo hoo 30+?

Does it open my email faster? How much faster will it open gmail or hotmail?

How much faster does it xfer my pictures from my camera?

How much faster will it copy files to and from my usb thumbdrive??

How many FPS more will I get in FEAR?

Will it make my wireless xfer faster?

Does it make my bluetooth keyboard and mouse work faster?? So now I will be able to type 80 wpm vs 70, what if the mouse moves around the screen so fast that I can not follow it - how do I slow it down?

Heres a quick test to see how much faster it is, and if its worth the extra money.. Cuz man if I could just get word to open faster -- it would be worth any cost ;)

Here is a simple autoit script to open word, type some stuff then close - and then tell you how long it took.

$begin = TimerInit()
; start word
Run("C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\OFFICE11\WINWORD.EXE")
; Wait for the word to become active
WinWaitActive("Document1 - Microsoft Word")
; Now that word is running, type some text
Send("Hello from word.{ENTER}man this is fast -- 1 2 3{ENTER}")

; Now quit (File menu -&gt; Exit)
Send("!f")
Send("x")

; Say no to save changes
WinWaitActive("Microsoft Office Word", "No")
Send("n")

$dif = TimerDiff($begin)/1000
MsgBox(0,"Time in Seconds",$dif)

So I currently get a bit over 2.5 seconds

post-14624-1144516392.png

Will running 2k3 as my desktop os trim that down to say 2.3?? No wait, you said insanely faster so something like 2.2 seconds maybe??

Maybe it boots my machine faster.. how many seconds will decrease my boot time by? 5, 10 -- dare I say 20 seconds?? Oh wait - my machine is on 24/7/365 anyway.. So how does it make my monitor turn on faster again??

Edited by BudMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windows X    32

2.576 = 2.58 = 2.6 and 2003 is 2.3 for simple word program. But what if you open photoshop cs2, word, windows media player and msn messenger running? you do multi-tasking around and do some works. In XP terms, the core is not as smooth as 2003 in my experiences. I'm not going to talk about stupid benchmarking like this. But if you can make Vista open word 2003 in 1 second, I would re-consider about it. Anyway, it depends on users tastes and it's useless to convince people's believe. And insanely is sarcastic terms for me :p

In short, average performance and stability terms in XP is about 70-80% but I'm feeling I get more like 80-90% depending on works. And I'm not going to tell you guys buy 2003 and bye bye XP at all. JUST in case you have 2003 or trial version so this is nothing bad for try.

Edit: if you want to make proper benchmarking, try capturing cpu usage for stopping time like below than 5% and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MazX_Napalm    0

All I use my laptop for is email, surfing the web and sometimes edit photos. That's it. No video. No music. No gaming.

Did ANYONE read the question?

Please tell us how much faster 2003 is going to open a web page, download and view email and "edit some photos"?

I tell you what. Add up all those .0001ms over the life of the install. Now deduct the time and effort to convert 2003 to a workstation. Which do you think will be greater?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windows X    32

well, some proved it's 0.3 second faster for word 2003's occurance. But when you do multi-tasking, it's much far better than XP and if all you did are just that, 98/Me/2000 is even fine for you and no more need for Vista. I hope all of you who blame at 2003 won't switch to Vista for just blablabla like 2003.

Edited by Windows X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aimakung    0

Did ANYONE read the question?

Please tell us how much faster 2003 is going to open a web page, download and view email and "edit some photos"?

I tell you what. Add up all those .0001ms over the life of the install. Now deduct the time and effort to convert 2003 to a workstation. Which do you think will be greater?

First, I try w2k3 for small web server for development and education. Sure, I'm using for gaming, chatting, surfing, bla bla bla (sometimes I testing my interest program & tweaks). :laugh:

And I found w2k3 is faster...not little but not very... only workstation tweaks.

I don't use any conversion pack but configure manually by read some articles.

(In my opinion, conversion pack included components that I'm not use, I don't want 'like XP' shutdown dialog because It doesn't help me for faster shutdown :whistle: ).

Second, I don't think that w2k3 have only 0.3 second faster.

I try for 1 week and found XP is use more memory than 2k3.

XP+All Apps use ~200MB memory in startup.

2k3+All Apps use ~140MB memory in startup.

(All Apps in XP & 2k3 is same).

But I found w2k3 is slow for some games, on loading. And when I exit some games, It's slow down. :(

I'll try memory management utilities & test agian.

Last, for only gaming, multimedia, photo editing, use MS office and no use any server services. I recommend XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+BudMan    3,536

Did ANYONE read the question?

I did ;)

And I'm curious where anyone has even proved its .3 seconds faster? So you have a xp and 2k3 installed on the exact same hardware? And you timed the load of word? I gave you a simple little script that can do that.

Where are these benchmarks, where are the multitasking benchmarks? You would think with all the hype about how 2k3 is faster as a desktop xp.. there would be plenty of sites sporting the actual numbers to back it up.. I have never seen any..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason    5

Can we say placebo effect and playground blagging rights :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John    7

Can we say placebo effect and playground blagging rights :rolleyes:

We can, but no one will listen. The bragging rights seems to cause a stupidity effect as well, which causes the affected individual to defy logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Izlude    100

The most annoying thing for win2k3 is that every time i booted to desktop, I'd get "internet explorer had a serious error" about 10 times and had to click ok, so I disabled error reporting. now when I get to desktop it's clean as a whistle ;) I'd have to say it performs about the same, just boots quicker on my end than when I had XP. It doesn't seem to like having BF1942 in it though, won't launch, but all other games work just fines. I guess boot time is the only goodie you get here. I'm still waiting for the day the OS boots within like 5 seconds of power on. OOOH OOOH Hybrid drives for vista!!!! If only they had EFI support... Did they say they were gonna put it back?

Edit: Now I remember why I liked win2k3 better than XP... It's die-hard, it doesn't deteriorate on you like XP and Win98 did. I remember I'd have to reinstall every so often just because my installs - drivers and apps - caused calamity! I'd get "NTLDR MISSING" crap like that. Win2k3 I havn't needed a fresh install since day 1... Maybe been 2 and a half years or more. Maybe it's the updates that winupdate keeps providing that help?

Edited by Izlude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windows X    32

Make sure you get SP1 or upcoming SP2 this year ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lemonzest    0

2003 Service Pack 2 this year? i've heard nothing on this, what's your news source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jimbo12141    0

its on microsoft's website somewhere..... i noticed it too a while back, ill have a look for it soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lemonzest    0

yeah i did a quick search and found the service pack roadmap, sp2 2nd half of 2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scorbing    517

Guys 2003 is a great Server OS that CAN be used as a workstation but the only problem with it is the drivers compatibility. Also, some programs like Opera seem to not work right sometimes. For me Opera is very important as it is the ONLY browser I use due to its awesome security and speed. If you go right now to Compaq's, ATI, and even Nvidia's web site, you will not find a single driver for 2003 server. That is very bad I think.

Oh and by the way, while I was testing 2003 I did noticed that web pages opened faster than with XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lemonzest    0

MOST of the time XP drivers can be used, but yours might be a special case as you have a laptop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scorbing    517

MOST of the time XP drivers can be used, but yours might be a special case as you have a laptop.

Oh no, all my drivers worked fine. No problems at all with it. The only problem I encountered was with Opera. It gave me an error when it opened once. Opera had never given me errors on XP. Other than that, 2003 worked just fine on the laptop. I am done playing with it though. I installed MCE 2005 on the laptop instead, but might put 2003 back sometime in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windows X    32

just try it. almost all new laptops work fine on 2003. And one of most important reason is it's really hard to make BSOD in 2003 without damaging hardware (see how to crash 2k3 without damaging hardware thread)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the_dark_son    0

Windows 2000 Server and Windows Server 2003 were very hard to crash without damaging hardware.

just try it. almost all new laptops work fine on 2003. And one of most important reason is it's really hard to make BSOD in 2003 without damaging hardware (see how to crash 2k3 without damaging hardware thread)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John    7
Edit: Now I remember why I liked win2k3 better than XP... It's die-hard, it doesn't deteriorate on you like XP and Win98 did. I remember I'd have to reinstall every so often just because my installs - drivers and apps - caused calamity! I'd get "NTLDR MISSING" crap like that. Win2k3 I havn't needed a fresh install since day 1... Maybe been 2 and a half years or more.

Server 2003 can suffer from a missing NTLDR just like XP can. As well as 2000, NT4, and every other version of NT...

XP doesn't deteriorate either. Not by itself; not if you keep it clean. And I don't mean regularly scanning for spyware and removing those little free downloads you don't use anymore. I mean by not installing them in the first place. Before I bought my laptop, my desktop had been running the same installation of XP since mid 2002. It has lasted nearly four whole years without major problems, and still runs just fine and just as fast as it used to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windows X    32

Just accept the fact that 2k3 has better kernel and memory management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HDW-mobile    0

Just accept the fact that 2k3 has better kernel and memory management.

and that's a fact. :shifty:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobbba    9

Yawn, this topic is getting tired... and that's the only definite fact here :sleep:

I think every aspect of this has already been covered from those in the pro camp who say it's just better whilst offering no evidence and those in the against camp who point out that it's expensive/illegal, offers no tangible benefits and simply isn't worth the effort.

Maybe Neowin should setup a separate forum so that this one can focus on the needs of people who are using the product in a way in which it is meant to be used? :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windows X    32

offering no evidence or trying to say those evidences are fake? Many people in XP Conversion Pack topic said it's much faster and smoother than Windows XP. Aren't those posts enough to prove it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mordkanin    225

I find that both Server 2003 and XP x64 are a little easier to keep running than XP. Like, All three seem equal when you first set them up, but 2003 and x64 both seem to stay fast and responsive with no actual effort.

Plain XP, for whatever reason, seems to bog down after a month or two of normal usage, whereas I haven't ever had that problem with 2003 or x64.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.