PF Prophet Posted May 17, 2003 Share Posted May 17, 2003 ok this will give all those that hate people using 2003 as anything as a server a place to gripe and moan and those that think there bit ching and moaning is anoing and pointless a place to spout back my self i dont see why these people even bother posting responce if all there gonna do it moan about how stupid people who try and use 2003 as a workstation are oh well least this will hopefully give them a place to rant about it without doing it in every post sombody makes asking for help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Veteran Posted May 17, 2003 Veteran Share Posted May 17, 2003 ok, i'll play along, but i think this thread should be closed. it serves no point. here are a few reasons that server 2003 should not be used as a workstation. 1. anyone who uses it as a workstation is pirating it. 2. it costs a MINIMUM of $400. (web edition) 3. the NT 5.2 kernel will not run any workstation app (especially games) any faster than NT 5.1 (XP) 4. unless they have more than 2 processors, which isn't likely, they have no need for it as a workstation. 5. the only difference between XP and server 2003 is that it has extra server extentions for it. these include, but are not limited to, IIS 6.0, active directory, .NET framework, etc. 6. it's a server, not a surfboard. 7. everything is disabled by default. to make it into a workstation, you have to use ntswitch/tweaknt, enable services, disable others, change registry/group policy settings, and even then, certain things don't work. any additions to this are welcome. any debates about this are welcome, and i assume there are plenty of people on my side who will argue this with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khephren Posted May 17, 2003 Share Posted May 17, 2003 8. No Solitaire or Freecell (HINT HINT!) I completely agree with gameguy, no reason to switch from 2000 Professional or XP to Server 2003, unless of course you just wanna look "cool" and have the most up to date OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Prophet Posted May 17, 2003 Author Share Posted May 17, 2003 hehe i got sol freecell and the rest :D was easy :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMJ Posted May 17, 2003 Share Posted May 17, 2003 come on guys, stop being so jealous that people have this OS and you don't. here's some facts: > NT5.2 IS superior to 5.1; and it doesn't have a damn bug that can slow some programs down 10-fold either. > NT5.2 is NOT a server *only* OS; it is simply WinXP with all the crap removed and some server apps added, as well as increased core stability (duh) and a newer device driver catalogue. > NT5.2 IS better for gaming for me, both offline and most noticeable online where things feel much smoother. > Can you explain to us why a server ONLY OS would come with MediaPlayer 9, my pictures & my music folders? (if it wasn't just a tweaked XP that is) > People WILL use the OS as workstation, no matter how long you guys spending trying to make them look dumb because you only have crappy XP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Veteran Posted May 17, 2003 Veteran Share Posted May 17, 2003 1. microsoft didn't want people to use it as a workstation. otherwise, they would have released a workstation version. 2. i do have server 2003, and i use it for it's server abilities. right now i am using xp, most of the time i use xp. but when i want to play with IIS or WMS or something, i boot into server 2003. (dual boot configuration) 3. where are the benchmarks that prove the nt 5.2 kernel runs games faster than nt 5.1? 4. that "damn bug" will probably be fixed soon. and in fact, you don't really need the hotfix anyway, as long as you protect your computer well. 5. xp is not crap. xp runs faster than any previous version of windows, and i've used them all. it is more stable than any of those versions as well. in my experience, xp has crashed only twice, and both times are the result of me using beta drivers. 6. people will use server 2003 as a workstation because they are ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Prophet Posted May 17, 2003 Author Share Posted May 17, 2003 yea xp is tops its so much faster then 2k ROFLMFAO rite thats why 2k beets xp by 7sec on boot on my system and shutdown was hell in xp took me 5-10 min b4 it would shut down or restart 2k restarts like it should 2003 boots on 1/2 the time of the other 2 even with all the crap i have installed oh and shuts down in less then 2 min even when i have mass stuff installed game guy i know your opnion that anybody who runs 2k3 as a workstation is a moron or idiot must be rite becouse you know all LMFAO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Veteran Posted May 17, 2003 Veteran Share Posted May 17, 2003 i give up. do what you will prophet. but don't come to me asking for help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=Indy-UK= Posted May 18, 2003 Share Posted May 18, 2003 LOL "Windows" and "Server", now there are two words that shouldn't be associated with each other! :woot: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted May 18, 2003 Share Posted May 18, 2003 LOL "Windows" and "Server", now there are two words that shouldn't be associated with each other! :woot: Having worked with Windows server products for 6 years or so now I have to say that NT4 server for its time and 2000 server now are both good products. How many years experience do you have to come to the conclusion its not good as a server ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessterw Posted May 18, 2003 Share Posted May 18, 2003 I suggest some look at the history of the term "server" in regards to computers. It's not what you think. As far as Windows goes, it is a fine server for its area. In essence Windows servers versions are do-it-all server OS's, though this is changing with the release of a variety of Windows 2003 Server versions/editions. In regards to the thread topic... to each his own really. I used Windows NT 4 Server over Workstation for a long time, largely due to the type of work I was doing on it. This had little bearing because everything that would run on one would run on the other for the most part. At this point in time I wouldn't even think about using any Windows Server OS as my workstation over XP, just doesn't make sense for me. For others it might and I can't say that I would call them ignorant, unless of course they were complaining about not being able to run something or do something that was a result of their choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=Indy-UK= Posted May 18, 2003 Share Posted May 18, 2003 LOL "Windows" and "Server", now there are two words that shouldn't be associated with each other! :woot: Having worked with Windows server products for 6 years or so now I have to say that NT4 server for its time and 2000 server now are both good products. How many years experience do you have to come to the conclusion its not good as a server ? 5 and a half years. Windows has been the most vulnerable and buggy server OS by far. There are OS's that are written as server Os's and then there's Windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Prophet Posted May 18, 2003 Author Share Posted May 18, 2003 game guy why would i ask you for help you only give me and anybody else sh@ for running 2k3 in a non server role i can get help from those that acctuly wana help and acctuly care to help those who want to learn i dont agree with you that windows server 2003 is pure server if it was they would have locked out all gaming/multimedia functions with no way to enable them 2003 is more of a multimedia-server platform then anything else granted you gotta take a few min making it readdy for mm and games but hell it takes longer to get win xp setup so its stable(if you can) then it dose for me to tweak it re-did test machien took me less then 10 min to get windows tweaked out to workstation mode (not just workstation guide mode) pretty easy and if you where gonna run a secure server why use windows theres linux/unix old os/2 4 (also a new os built off os/2 4) that make better more secure servers then windows :) go ahead tell me im wrong and a moron :) oh p.s. i dont complain about things in windows 2003 i ask if others have a solution if not i keep trying to find one do i can help others out :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Veteran Posted May 18, 2003 Veteran Share Posted May 18, 2003 one more thing. if microsoft wanted people to use it as you do, why haven't they marketed "windows xp professional 2003"? think of all the money they could make. especially after you "bought" xp and then "bought" 2003 workstation... *thinks to self* where's tom servo when you need him :rolleyes: he always thinks up the best ways to make people feel stupid. :laugh: :shifty: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Prophet Posted May 18, 2003 Author Share Posted May 18, 2003 probbly becouse ms = a bunch of morons they should have included a pro version though ya never know what there gonna do next xp64bit might say its version 2003 as well LoL and you can only make sombody feel stupid if they dont know what there talking about or have low self asteam i dont have those problems :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garry Posted May 18, 2003 Share Posted May 18, 2003 I just wanted to point out that the reason Microsoft included Media Player was actually because of customer pressure. And the fact that since Windows requires most media player to work, they didn't see the harm in including the actual executable programme too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asmo Posted May 18, 2003 Share Posted May 18, 2003 I agree with both sides.. somewhat. A) If your using windows 2003 as a workstation, most likely you are pirating it, and dont' deny you arn't. B) I'm positive that you can get windows 2003 to run just as good if not better than a default xp install workstation. C) I have yet to notice any difference on my machine between XP and 2k3 once both have been tweaked. D) Nobody else has shown any proof what-so-ever that 2k3 has "better" this or that, it all 'feels' faster, its just a placebo effect beacuse its newer. ie same thing when 2k & xp came out.. HELL when windows ME betas were flyin around, people were sayin the same crap. Use what you want, stupid to argue about it, just remember, in a real world (ie not your basement) what OS are you really gonna choose to run on a workstation? Not just cost, but the fact that you know XP/2k pro will work with workstation apps. Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blowdart Posted May 18, 2003 Share Posted May 18, 2003 anyone who uses it as a workstation is pirating it. Thats a bit unfair. Some of us have MSDN subscriptions :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atom Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 :rolleyes: cmon guys this isnt meant to be a workstation. I really dont care how you use it, but it just seems like such a waste as a workstation. why would someone spend 400 bux for an OS when theyre going to do nothing but play games on it? Whats the point??? does it make u guys "cooL" to be playing HL on 2k3??? i have as many 2k3 keys and cd's that i need to install it on my machine...... BUT I DONT SEE THE NEED TO. will someone please explain to me WHY????? i cant find anything better in 2k3 that would actually justify using it as a workstation. For a server its been fantastic to work with but i dont see any other logical use for it. XP works just as well, better IMO as there is much more support for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeza Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 anyone who uses it as a workstation is pirating it.Thats a bit unfair. Some of us have MSDN subscriptions :D or some are running the evaluation :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessterw Posted May 19, 2003 Share Posted May 19, 2003 Windows 2003 Server was meant to be a server. Plain and simple. Of course that doesn't stop anyone from using it as a Workstation if they like, it just means the focus of the development on the OS was for server functions. To say that the Windows 2003 is more of a workstation than a server because it has multimedia capabilities shows ignorance of one of the core areas Microsoft is trying to push usage of the OS, multimedia streaming, hence the Windows Media services. It includes Windows Media Player because it offers an easy way to view videos or such that may be related to server administration or such. Anyhow, WMP was in 2000 Server too, so why remove it now? Not to mention the fact that 2003 was based on XP and thus removing WMP would have been an unnecessary extra step. In regards to saying that Microsoft should have release a workstation version of 2003... how brilliant is that. For one they had just released XP (relatively speaking) and had learned from past mistakes that customers hate having a new version of a product shoved at them just after they bought the last version. The server version was following close enough on Windows 2000 Server's heels, much less Windows XP's, so they were not going to muddy the waters any further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Veteran Posted May 19, 2003 Veteran Share Posted May 19, 2003 anyone who uses it as a workstation is pirating it.Thats a bit unfair. Some of us have MSDN subscriptions :D or some are running the evaluation :) i'm running the evaluation too. i'm not actually letting anything get out on the internet, but i'm more or less using it on my little home lan. :) i learn by using. so i'm using IIS6, WMS, and routing and remote access. so far i'm pretty impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Prophet Posted May 20, 2003 Author Share Posted May 20, 2003 400$ for a workstation humm thats like 100 more then xp caust me (pro full version i never use upgrades to much work to deal with) so i find that statment invalid yes it was tuned for use as a server dosnt mean it dosnt work as a workstation i can tell ya it makes a better workstation then xp ever did for me and dont ask me to show ya my numbers i got rid of xp in order to get a full copy of standred server (2 full copys well worth the trade :D) and ms dosnt give a rip about what people really think they just wana turn a profit my guess is they had a plan to put out windows xp,se/2003 and ether havent dont it yet or for some reasion changed there mind why else leave in the xp stuff(change versions and you will see it ) well im out gf wants me :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessterw Posted May 20, 2003 Share Posted May 20, 2003 The XP stuff is still in there because Windows 2003 Server was based on the XP platform. Even Windows 2000 Server had the same features found in Windows 2000 Professional (Workstation) and to an extent it even has some of the features found in XP (go figure). This was the whole point of moving to a single code-base (away from having 9x and NT). The $400 statement was in regards to the cost of the cheapest version of Windows 2003 Server (Web Server Edition I believe) and was in comparison to the $80 too $200 range one might spend on XP. Whether you traded XP for two copies of Windows 2003 Server is beside the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Veteran Posted May 20, 2003 Veteran Share Posted May 20, 2003 Whether you traded XP for two copies of Windows 2003 Server is beside the point. he said he traded 2 copies of xp for 1 copy of server 2003, not vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts