Jump to content

Why Workstation a 2003 Server


Recommended Posts

Is it because it's faster and more stable? I remember when people installed NT Server because of the stability? I would like to hear about people's experiences.

Also, I've also read about adding MCE on top of just XP. Can this be done with 2003?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


If you use 2003 Server as a server, it is very stable. If you use 2003 Server as a workstation you could lose some stabiltiy.

That's becuase some stuff that is turned off by default, means less that can possably go wrong. As a workstation it can be just as stable but by turning more stuff on you are increacing the odds that something could fail.

I have seen no advantage to running 2003 Server as a workstation and many disadvantages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. Run the server as a server. :angry: Tweak XP properly and it will run steaming fast!

I think the main problem is when people refer to "win2k3" or Windows 2003.

That name loses sight of the truth - that it is Windows Server 2003.

If you have been following MS products for a while, you'd know how the product line is differentiated and designated. The code branches out to cover variants across the spectrum - normally.

Until now, you had a Windows NT (v4) - workstation and server editions.

Windows 2000 (v5) - professional and server.

Note the important sequence of the name - its windows nt (base) first, and THEN its wkstn or Svr. Its win2k (base) first, and the fact of being pro or svr comes later.

Whereas recently, they changed the entire positioning. Windows XP is the consumer and workstation edition.

And Windows Server 2003 is the server edition (note that its a windows SERVER first, and 2003 is a fact that comes later). Lose sight of this and you won't have optimal performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most folks switch the Win2K3 role because they can and because they think it is Win XP on steriods. I don't think the folks paying for Win2K3 with 25 Cals even dream of Win2K3 as a workstation. It's mainly the folks with nothing better to do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well........guess someones gotta speak for the other side!

I like Server 2003 in work station mode.........i've always hated WinXp.......with its host of updates and attendant problems.

I play all the big games and run all the big apps without any problems. Maybe i'll give Xp a try again now that SP2 is out and see if its any stabler which is another reason I like Server 2003.

Before Servoer 2003 I used to prefer Windows 2000 Pro to XP for the same reasons.

I've always thought of XP is to Windows as ME was in its day!.............. crap.

Anyways that my 2 cents worth on the topic

odwoh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus loads of pointless services automaically set to on by default, msn, the search puppy, UPAP, and god knows how much other crap installed. Personally all the games/apps I've used all work under win 2003, so I've no need to install XP.

I certainly don't think it's Win XP on steriods. More like Win XP without all the garbage that it includes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus loads of pointless services automaically set to on by default, msn, the search puppy, UPAP,  and god knows how much other crap installed.  Personally all the games/apps I've used all work under win 2003, so I've no need to install XP.

I certainly don't think it's Win XP on steriods.  More like Win XP without all the garbage that it includes.

This isn't even an excuse. You are on the greatest source of unattended installation! FIX IT! Remember it's configured to work for the MAJORITY of the population. We are all tech nuts and don't like those things that really do protect the standard consumer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

2003 Server as a server or workstation kicks XP in the nuts. I've tried several tests dual booting them off of the same machine with the same hardware configuration, 2003 Server as a workstation or server out performs XP in every aspect. XP is full of holes and SP2 doesn't even come close to 2003 out-of-the-box stability. 2003 Server Standard can easily replace XP and do everything you need it to do. I've ran 2003 Server Standard for almost 2 years from the same install and uptime of months with zero BSOD or problems...can't say the same with XP. When I worked for Dell I encountered so many problems with XP I learned to hate it with every fiber of my being. Want a stable workstation? Install 2003 Server Standard. Want a stable server? Install 2003 Server Enterprise. I defy anyone to claim XP even with SP2 is better vs 2003 Server Standard...it just isn't true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I defy anyone to claim XP even with SP2 is better vs 2003 Server Standard...it just isn't true.

I will claim exactly that! I will claim that as the Director of IT for a multi million dollar company that runs Windows Server 2003 as a server and all XP workstations. I will claim that having worked in other companies that ran everything from Linux, 2000, 2003, NT and every other flavor of server. I will claim that having worked in environments with thousands of PCs ranging from Windows 95, 98, NT, 2000, XP. If you are having stability problems with XP then that's just an indication you didn't install it right or you are unaware of any issues your hardware may have working together. Your statement is ignorant. Any IT Professional will argue your statement. Every respected member of this site has already argued this statement in the preceeding posts. And when I say "respected" I mean the guys over the last 2 years who I have learned really know what they are talking about. I mean the ones who it's obvious that they do this for a living and aren't some "1337" 15 year old who is on the computer at 3am in a dark room with a bag of doritos by their side. I know you said you worked for Dell, but that doesn't really mean anything. For all I know you could have been an assembler, or a mail room guy, or worked in their cafeteria. Hell... I'm Dell Certified... know what that means? It means I was able to search their website to answer 10 questions for which all of the answers were on their website in 3 hours time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different strokes, different folks.

Since NT4 I've always used server versions as my workstation. Always. Never had a problem with it. I have an MSDN license, so price is not an issue. Does that mean I don't know my a** from my elbow?

Why? For one simple reason: I develope on my "workstations", and I need to have a real version of IIS. IIS on XP (last I looked) does not support virtual web servers. I need that. I cannot work using virtual directories. So, simple problem, simple answer.

One drawback that bugged the hell out of me, was not being able to have those "zone" games on my box. However, here on MSFN, I found the solution to install those, and I am now happy as a pig in ... cow dung!

My point is simply that perhaps someone has a valid reason, and that should be respected. That's all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I defy anyone to claim XP even with SP2 is better vs 2003 Server Standard...it just isn't true.

I will claim exactly that! I will claim that as the Director of IT for a multi million dollar company that runs Windows Server 2003 as a server and all XP workstations. I will claim that having worked in other companies that ran everything from Linux, 2000, 2003, NT and every other flavor of server. I will claim that having worked in environments with thousands of PCs ranging from Windows 95, 98, NT, 2000, XP. If you are having stability problems with XP then that's just an indication you didn't install it right or you are unaware of any issues your hardware may have working together. Your statement is ignorant. Any IT Professional will argue your statement. Every respected member of this site has already argued this statement in the preceeding posts. And when I say "respected" I mean the guys over the last 2 years who I have learned really know what they are talking about. I mean the ones who it's obvious that they do this for a living and aren't some "1337" 15 year old who is on the computer at 3am in a dark room with a bag of doritos by their side. I know you said you worked for Dell, but that doesn't really mean anything. For all I know you could have been an assembler, or a mail room guy, or worked in their cafeteria. Hell... I'm Dell Certified... know what that means? It means I was able to search their website to answer 10 questions for which all of the answers were on their website in 3 hours time.

Ok first of all, you should trying being more tact and less condescending. Secondly, don't throw up your "extensive" resume...this isn't a job interview I don't care where you work or what you do. I worked TECHNICAL support for Dell not in the mail room or lunch room as you boldly claimed I did. Nor am I some "1337" 15 yearold up at 3am eating potato chips--that's quite immature to just automatically call anyone who doesn't agree with you a teenager. For all I know YOU are the young person picking the fight. I wasn't rude nor being an assh*le in my post YOU however predictably were in yours. I quit coming here before for a reason, now I wish I never came back to give this place a second chance. Instead of having a civil intelligent debate you turned it into a juvenile flame war. Only thing left for you to do is to run to the teacher and get me in time out--AKA ask a moderator to ban me. I don't need to prove myself to you or anyone else my age, my work experience, or my credentials, I stated my OPINION based on my own personal EXPERIECE to add to this discussion. And based upon my experience with XP and 2003 Server in my current job, my personal use, and past technical background I do insist 2003 is more stable as well as trouble free as a workstation vs XP. Didn't "install it right" you said? Hah, what a crock. I've personally build and serviced hundreds of computers myself in which a portion of those were XEON server machines...but that doesn't matter nor should anyone care. I simply added my opinion to the discussion in hopes at least one person would take something positive out of it. Now if you'll excuse me I'll log out and refrain from coming here again. Take solice in the fact that I won't be back to read your drivel. Good day.

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...