From the stability wise and the resource usage wise, xp 64x vs. server

[wajed]

1- Which one of the two is more stable? (I think Win server 64x)

2- Which one uses less resources?

3- If you have nLite session file (INF file) (Profile), Can you upload it for me? (maybe after removing some personal data)

Because I never used it before, and I`m not familiar with what comes with it from apps, services, and so.

PS: I`d like to use it as a desktop, not a server.

4- I know this question is out of the topic, but If you have or would like to answer it, it would be greatly appreciated..

In that picture, you see you can make processor schedualing more for programs OR for background services..

Can you explain the difference between these options?

also concerning the memory usage, Can you explain the difference between the two options?

Edited December 16, 2008 by wajed

[fdv]

IMO you are in for endless headaches trying to run Server as a desktop.

Yes, there is a thread telling you how to do it -- I don't have it handy -- but ultimately, there are indeed programs out there that will refuse to run on Server, and you cannot always change them or fool them using the available tools.

As for the difference between foreground / background performance, this is what those buttons are adjusting: execution quanta.

As for stability, I think both are pretty darn equal.

[cluberti]

Considering XP x64 and Server 2003 x64 are almost identical (same exact kernel and build tree, whereas XP and 2003 are not quite as similar), stability and performance-wise, they're going to be the same. The only problems you'll run into are along the lines fdv pointed out - apps that specifically won't install on an OS that reports as "server", for instance.