IE7 on Server 2003

By sachleen
in Microsoft (Windows)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Mentor

vcv

Posted
Posted

google it as i know bink.nu had a link or something to get it working. Why you'd want to do that is beyond be well unless you're using 2003 server as a workstation which is also beyond me.

I'll give you some reasons:

1) Comes with everything disabled and locked down, unlike XP. So you just enable what you need, and have a nice quick and slim OS from the start

2) More responsive, partly as a result of #1. It just feels slightly more snappy.

3) Better security

4) Built in web server if you're a web developer and want to make sites locally, without havig to install anything.

What I don't get is why people care what other people run. I don't get the whole "It's a server OS, you're an idiot for using it as a workstation" thing. And yes, I've seen people say that. It works as a workstation OS once you enable a few things, and works very well. Better than XP out of the box I'd say.

Mentor

garethevans1986

Posted
Posted

I'll give you some reasons:

1) Comes with everything disabled and locked down, unlike XP. So you just enable what you need, and have a nice quick and slim OS from the start

2) More responsive, partly as a result of #1. It just feels slightly more snappy.

3) Better security

4) Built in web server if you're a web developer and want to make sites locally, without havig to install anything.

What I don't get is why people care what other people run. I don't get the whole "It's a server OS, you're an idiot for using it as a workstation" thing. And yes, I've seen people say that. It works as a workstation OS once you enable a few things, and works very well. Better than XP out of the box I'd say.

From that point of view, that is a damn good reason but its people who want to plays games and crap on it that I dont understand.

ChocIST

Grand Master

John Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

I'll give you some reasons:

1) Comes with everything disabled and locked down, unlike XP. So you just enable what you need, and have a nice quick and slim OS from the start

2) More responsive, partly as a result of #1. It just feels slightly more snappy.

3) Better security

4) Built in web server if you're a web developer and want to make sites locally, without havig to install anything.

1. What exactly is disabled and locked down when compared to XP?

2. It's not more responsive. Benchmarks with < 1% differences don't constitute being "more responsive" in my book.

3. It's the same security as XP by default. Check it yourself.

4. XP has a web server for developers/power users too. On both XP Pro and Server 2003, IIS must be installed before you can host websites.

Neowinian

omfg

Posted
Posted

My apologies for bringing this thread back on topic, all...

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/downloads/default.mspx

MS have a native version of Beta2 which works on Server 2003 SP1.

As far as the XP vs. Server 2003 argument goes - I believe that the core OS is built off the same codebase, but using Server2003 Build 3790 will give you a newer build of the kernel.

3790 was used as the basis for Vista, not the XP codebase... hence many of the delays.

Rising Star

Victor V.

Posted
Posted

My apologies for bringing this thread back on topic, all...

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/downloads/default.mspx

MS have a native version of Beta2 which works on Server 2003 SP1.

As far as the XP vs. Server 2003 argument goes - I believe that the core OS is built off the same codebase, but using Server2003 Build 3790 will give you a newer build of the kernel.

3790 was used as the basis for Vista, not the XP codebase... hence many of the delays.

When they started the thread there was no IE7 for 2003. I think now this should be closed.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.