• 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

+BudMan    3,535

Aren't those posts enough to prove it?

:rolleyes: Plain and simple -- NO! If it is so much faster as a desktop OS, post the freaking NUMBERS already! With your testing method, so it can be repeated by anyone looking to do so..

Billybobuser stating its faster.. is meaningless.. I'm with bobbba -- its been done to death arleady!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windows X    32

So you never try it, do you? You never try 2003SP1 with my tool so can keep moaning your stupidity like this. Just "TRY" it, baka.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lemonzest    0

I simply WONT go back to XP after using 2003 full time for two months :)

and Windows X Tool is the buisiness for those who want a seamless XP conversion. Keep up the good work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ManMountain    56

Whilst previously I ran Windows 2003 as a workstation, I then vowed never to revert back to XP (I was that impressed with it's performance and resource management) I have since done so (bo0h!), that is to XP x64 (yay!). I find it as equally responsive (if not more so) than 2k3 and cannot fathom those who insist XP, that is, 32-bit XP, is equally efficient and offers the same performance / management as either 2k3 or x64. ;)

Each to their own I suppose, but x64 is the most impressive OS Microsoft have produced IMHO and untill Vista 64-bit is available, my primary OS it will remain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mujjuman    0

ok guys... ive downloaded the trial version of Windows Server 2003.

now a clean install of Windows Server 2003 SP1 boots 3 seconds faster than clean install Windows XP Pro SP2.

i will repeat:

- this is a CLEAN INSTALL of Windows Server 2003 SP1 vs. CLEAN INSTALL Windows XP Pro SP2

- it boots 3 seconds faster than WinXPSP2

someone else should confirm this please. and please only compare them equally, for example:

Clean Install vs. Clean Install

or

Office 2003, AIM, Firefox, all updates, 3rd party firewall, 3rd party antivirus installed on BOTH SYSTEMS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windows X    32

either way, 2003 won it long time ago and most users would switch to it if it's not hell pricy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lemonzest    0

yes i can confirm it boots fast, one cycle sometimes two of the loading bar, and i'm at the login :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobbba    9

ok guys... ive downloaded the trial version of Windows Server 2003.

now a clean install of Windows Server 2003 SP1 boots 3 seconds faster than clean install Windows XP Pro SP2.

3 second increase in boot time... :woot: Well worth it then!!!, lol :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windows X    32

3 second increase in boot time... :woot: Well worth it then!!!, lol :D

n00b.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mujjuman    0

3 second increase in boot time... :woot: Well worth it then!!!, lol :D

im not saying everyone should get this OS because it boots 3 secs faster... i was just saying that it does. but thats NOT the reason why people want to use this OS at home. it has better memory management, an updated and better kernel, etc. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+BudMan    3,535

im not saying everyone should get this OS because it boots 3 secs faster... i was just saying that it does. but thats NOT the reason why people want to use this OS at home. it has better memory management, an updated and better kernel, etc. ;)

So your saying people should steal it?? Cuz you have to be kidding me that you would suggest people spend the extra money on a 3 second faster boot time???? ;) Or 1 FPS more in whatever game??

And then again -- none of this has been proven.. where are the benchmarks that 2k3 is faster in desktop use than xp??? Where??? Please point me to the tests!!!! where are the tests??????????

Billybob saying its faster, sorry however kewl that is -- it just does not impress me.. please point me to tests where 2k3 has better FPS in quake or CS, etc.... Now it better be like 2x for the cost of it.. 1 FPS come on..

So my machine boots in like a 30 seconds now.. how much faster does that extra $1k get me??? what does it work out to in $/second of boot time???? :rofl:

Sure -- if Im going to steal something, might as well steal the lastest model! Why should I steal the 2003 model when there is something dated 2006 that has a bigger price tag on it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stunna    0

"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 -> 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??

What type of code is this?

BTW I got my windowsXP to boot up with using about 150-160ish memory system restore and the other secruity features are still enabled besides windows defender and 14 processes running.

Whats everyone elses like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sandman45654    0

Do we really have to go here again BudMan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+BudMan    3,535

Do we really have to go here again BudMan?

I would hope not! But still waiting for the links to the tests???? Show me the links to the benchmarks??? Where are they?? I would put them up -- but I just dont have the time.. nor do I really care that much if a $2k OS has 3 FPS more than a $200 OS..

If I had the time, I would benchmark it myself and put this stupid debate to rest once and for all.. If it was so much faster and better -- then then they would be posted already.. Where are they??? its been how how long now since 2k3 has been out?? what we are on r2 now.. so r2 faster than r1???? for desktop use?????

Well -- Im waiting for the links to all the benchmarks that show that 2k3 and or 2k3 r2 are FASTER than XP in desktop apps... Where are they?? Its been quite long enough.. where are the tests?????????????????? Come on show me that 2k3 gives me 2 FPS more? Or boots 3 seconds faster -- come on show me!!! Maybe it plays my my CDs faster, or plays my movies faster? or what??? for the extra $1k????

edit: you know what!! I have tmrw free.. what would you like me to benchmark?? I have access to xp pro and home and 2k3 and 2k3r2 , and a dell machine with a 80gig drive... atleast 256mb of ram.. what do you want me to test???

Edited by BudMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S550    94

R2 is a pack add-in that ADDS tools to 2k3, not an OS.

Who pay's 1k for server? you can get it for like 300, that less then Vista, and Vista is slow as balls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
selphj    20

I've always seen these debates. I will just say this. It seems like a debate for college kids to me. First off, thinking Win2003 costs $2000 is stupid. Second, it was tuned/tested for several months beyond XP. Just like Longhorn server will be the same base code as Vista but tuned/tested for several months extra. So it is better, but I wouldn't say it's enough for the average user to run it. But there are people with valid reasons to use 2003 as a workstation. I work as a sysadmin at a decently sized company, our servers support around 7000. My boss bought me win2003 Standard for my PC and told me to run it so I could test server projects on myself before hitting a real server. So I do. I have another machine sitting beside it running RedHat ES. Just because YOU don't have a reason to run 2003 doesn't mean some of us don't. And I like having it look like XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobbba    9

R2 is a pack add-in that ADDS tools to 2k3, not an OS.

Windows 2003 Server R2 is treated by MS as a separate OS, it has a separate license, new product keys and OS install cd's, it is an OS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobbba    9

I've always seen these debates. I will just say this. It seems like a debate for college kids to me. First off, thinking Win2003 costs $2000 is stupid. Second, it was tuned/tested for several months beyond XP. Just like Longhorn server will be the same base code as Vista but tuned/tested for several months extra. So it is better, but I wouldn't say it's enough for the average user to run it. But there are people with valid reasons to use 2003 as a workstation. I work as a sysadmin at a decently sized company, our servers support around 7000. My boss bought me win2003 Standard for my PC and told me to run it so I could test server projects on myself before hitting a real server. So I do. I have another machine sitting beside it running RedHat ES. Just because YOU don't have a reason to run 2003 doesn't mean some of us don't. And I like having it look like XP.

So what are you saying then?

If you are saying you use W2003 as an OS because you want to test server projects or for other reason like hw support on it fair enough.

If you are saying that you use it because it is "better" and must be more tuned becuase it came out later than XP that is what some disagree with.

If it was better just because it came out later wouldn't every OS be faster than the last one then? Is 2000 faster win9x, is XP faster than 2000, will Vista be faster than XP, I don't think so.

It's not as though MS put the time into a server OS tweaking it to run faster in general than XP. Any tuning they do will in very specific areas like web server performance and networking. This does not mean it is faster or more reliable at general tasks and certainly doesn't mean it is worth the cost of doing it legally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sandman45654    0

I would hope not! But still waiting for the links to the tests???? Show me the links to the benchmarks??? Where are they?? I would put them up -- but I just dont have the time.. nor do I really care that much if a $2k OS has 3 FPS more than a $200 OS..

If I had the time, I would benchmark it myself and put this stupid debate to rest once and for all.. If it was so much faster and better -- then then they would be posted already.. Where are they??? its been how how long now since 2k3 has been out?? what we are on r2 now.. so r2 faster than r1???? for desktop use?????

Well -- Im waiting for the links to all the benchmarks that show that 2k3 and or 2k3 r2 are FASTER than XP in desktop apps... Where are they?? Its been quite long enough.. where are the tests?????????????????? Come on show me that 2k3 gives me 2 FPS more? Or boots 3 seconds faster -- come on show me!!! Maybe it plays my my CDs faster, or plays my movies faster? or what??? for the extra $1k????

edit: you know what!! I have tmrw free.. what would you like me to benchmark?? I have access to xp pro and home and 2k3 and 2k3r2 , and a dell machine with a 80gig drive... atleast 256mb of ram.. what do you want me to test???

Test what you like BudMan, it sounds like you already have a few good ideas. Here's a tip though, do the test on a machine worthy of the OS. On second thought rinkydink rig would be perfect for this. Windows Server 2003 will run fine on a quarter gig of ram but Xp won't without a fair amout of tweaking. In fact I run the OS on my laptop with 192 megs of ram and 800Mhz cpu and this little thing flies. Xp was barely usable. Honestly, I'm just flattered you still remember me :hug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blazkowicz    0

I tried 2003 on a celeron 600 with 128MB ram and 10GB HDD, the kind of rig you wouldn't dare put XP on.. and I was surprised how well it ran, better than windows 98, and let enough RAM for light firefox browsing.

I read somewhere that win 2003 is much better at swapping. also a default install only eats 90MB or so RAM.

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 stgay 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.

that's because Windows XP64 is 2003 ;) (NT 5.2)

maybe you remember that "XP reloaded" which was be an intermediate release, before Vista. I'm sure it would have been a 32bit NT 5.2 windows XP. but MS cancelled it.. it would have been a good release, best NT 5.x OS, especially as Vista got delayed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windows X    32

Conclusion: 2003 beats it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WillCodeForFood    0

OK folks, after reading 5 pages of s(tuff) and learning nothing, let me just add this reason to run W2003 as a sometimes workstation:

I come out of a you-name-it Unix world. I'm old enough to have worked on lots of operating systems, and honestly I don't care as long as I get the job done. I got shafted in a corporate reorg and had a hard time getting on my feet... Thanks Carley you ineffective con-artist, murdering b***h !! Fade to life and job change - now I work from home, and as the lawyers say, I eat tonight what I killed today. So I get to make a lot of choices, but at least a few better be right, or the kids don't eat.

The market for the kind of application work I can do on my own is *nix + MS servers + presentation layers controlled by more MS servers. After doing some research I found that Microsoft has really been trying very hard, and s-l-o-w-l-y learning lessons from the Open Source world, to reach neogeeks, ubber-geeks and us poor developers.

I did not have to spend a lot of money to license a bunch of MS stuff, or I might have done things differently. As it is, I don't aspire to be one of those garrage geeks, God bless 'em, with a whole data center in the garrage. That time and expense I'd rathger spend on my boat!!

I just need one W2003 server, and to make it friendly I set it up as a workstation. Add another cheap PC running FreeBSD and a laptop running XP, and bang - within arms length I have a whole datacenter... and no more 3AM phone calls to some poor operator for admin/root when I need it.

Making the intellectual jump to *.NET has not been the coolest thing I've ever done, but the stuff works and I'm learning more about real-life interoperability than ever possible otherwise.

Does W2003 run anything faster on a fairly everyday PC - I don't know and don't care. If you want fast get an Itanium workstation with a $5000 vidio card.

Would I rather develop in *nix, sure because it's comfortable. But my target is now down to the desktop level including oh-my-god Office (Excel) and applications for work-group web servers that MS likes to call "portals." Is MS in general and *.NET fun to program - no, unless you really like having committies of people telling you what you can and can't do. Since I do some Excel development, my major gripe is that VISTO sucks large eggs through small straws and plain old VB6 is officially dead. Give me a supported VB.NO-NET and stop waiting for various factions within Microsoft to solve their internal differences.

Setting up W2003 on a PC as a workstation albiet with a server in the back seat has been huge for me:

-- It's productive

-- I don't hate Microsoft anymore (they just remind me of DEC in the '70's... "do it our way or you are an idiot")

(Note to Bill -- unless you want to go out like Ken Olsen, fire half your marketing people, issue an edict from on high that says "Teams that do not get along will first have their Project Managers fired for cause, and if that does not work 6 months later half the team goes," and keep TRYING, I know it's hard, Bill, to be ubber-geek and developer friendly.)

-- I spent maybe a total of US$800. A negotiated (begging helps) deal with MS; F-Prot and Outpost (no, lovley Zone Alarn DOES NOT like W2003 contrary to an earlier post), subscription to O'Reilly's Safari for those senior moments when I don't feel like Google-mainia and endless HOT-TO's, and I'm set.

After 6 months, one project for a big integrator and one "product" (mostly COTS+connectors+know-how) with 5 paid, large implementations. Not bad for a MS newbie with a strong desire to feed his kids and maintain his sailboat!!

Now, let's get back to Win2003 matters, so I can learn from all you guys who are bucket-loads smarter than I will ever be.

Any suggestions, especially about "hardening" W2003 when it's not locked away in a datacenter with all kinds of dedicated engineers keeping it healthy, would be really welcomed.

-Will :cool:

Edited by WillCodeForFood

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.