Why Workstation a 2003 Server

[prathapml]

Chill out on the fire, all.....

[un4given1]

It wasn't a question of whether someone might have a reason to use it or not. I was simply reposnding to his statement, which I quoted above. If you read my post again you will see that the "'1337' 15 year old" I was speaking of was not directed at you. It was simply part of my explanation of "respected member." If you must know, I know you aren't a 15 year old. I happened to look into your website and your birthday posted in your profile. I know you are 25, unless you lied about your age, which I have no reason to believe.

[un4given1]

Why every time I post my experience does someone pop out with that line? I believe when someone is posting something they should post something to back it up. A website, a study, their experience. It says "Hey, I'm not just some fool posting my opinion... here's the proof." Everyone certainly is entitled to their opinion... but when your opinion goes against proof then that's when I have a problem.

[Zxian]

I'm gonna put my two cents in here...

I can't say that I've ever set up servers to handle the workload of a small company, let alone a big one, but the idea of "workstation-ing" Server 2003 seems kinda odd to me...

As prathapml already stated, it's Windows Server 2003, not workstation. That means that plenty of people in Washington state spent a lot of time developing the code to make it run as a server.

It's kinda like, IMO, is the stupidest racing vechicle, trucks. What was the truck originally meant to do? Haul lots and lots of cargo around, get dirty, and go places that a normal car can't. Why on earth would you spend your time modifying a truck to make it go fast? Even if you spend millions of dollars on it (like they do in the real world), it will never, ever, ever be as fast as a stock Ferrari 430 or Porsche 911 Turbo (both of which cost considerably less).

Windows XP was designed for the common user, the person who has to sit down at their desk and do work. Server 2003 was designed to handle those hundreds/thousands of people all working at their computers and all the information transferring that goes on between them.

If Server 2003 worked that much better as a workstation, why hasn't Microsoft developed a new theme (to make it look different), and taken all the good bits out of it and repackaged it as a new OS? They could make a lot of money from that... but they haven't, which probably means that this isn't the case.

[Coco]

I just wanted to add a few things here. First I'll say, I'd never run 2003 as a workstation, but all the points for why have been made.

What I wanted to comment on was the comment some of you made claiming 2003 is more stabile then XP? I've personally never once seen XP crash or BSOD unless it was a HW error. To be fair, viruses like blaster have shut it down, but besides from that I've never seen an XP box crash from software errors (of course 2003 has viruse issues too). Also, I am currently a tech for a small company roughly 100 machines which I take care of right now. About 80% are running XP. So from where I'm standing it's pretty hard to beat that stability.

Sure, someone has most likely crashed XP because of something other then a HW error, but it's rare. The guy who compared XP to ME as far as I'm concerned just lost any possible chance of being taken seriously. I realize XP isn't perfect but it's very stabile and compairing it to ME just makes it sound like you've never used it at all.

On that note, I have used 2003, and I also haven't seen it crash for anything other then HW errors either. So, as far as I'm concerned they are both pretty **** stabile and moving from one to the other for stability reasons doesn't seem like a good idea.

[1chaoticadult]

I just wanted to add a few things here. First I'll say, I'd never run 2003 as a workstation, but all the points for why have been made.

What I wanted to comment on was the comment some of you made claiming 2003 is more stabile then XP? I've personally never once seen XP crash or BSOD unless it was a HW error. To be fair, viruses like blaster have shut it down, but besides from that I've never seen an XP box crash from software errors (of course 2003 has viruse issues too). Also, I am currently a tech for a small company roughly 100 machines which I take care of right now. About 80% are running XP. So from where I'm standing it's pretty hard to beat that stability.

Sure, someone has most likely crashed XP because of something other then a HW error, but it's rare. The guy who compared XP to ME as far as I'm concerned just lost any possible chance of being taken seriously. I realize XP isn't perfect but it's very stabile and compairing it to ME just makes it sound like you've never used it at all.

On that note, I have used 2003, and I also haven't seen it crash for anything other then HW errors either. So, as far as I'm concerned they are both pretty **** stabile and moving from one to the other for stability reasons doesn't seem like a good idea.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you. I have used both Windows Server 2003 Stanad and Xp Home/Pro and I have not seen a BSOD unless I caused it (bad installations, etc.) XP and Server 2003 have both been very stable for me. Even more so with nLite

.

[Siege00]

Wow... that got a bit heated I'd say. Here's my 2 cents.

I was and still am a total advocate for WinXP Pro. It is VERY stable, and suited my purposes just fine until last September when a colleague introduced me to using Server 2K3 as a workstation. As I'm a TA/software engineer, I thought the idea to be wonderful. As a gamer, I thought in horror, "I can't do this."

However, since the transition, I have grown to love Server 2K3 as much, if not more than I loved XP (except the MSN Search beta won't install ).

Server 2K3 is VERY stable as well, and will typically have a lower footprint than XP will based on the services you start. For work purposes (building software against MS technologies and networks, integrating with MS Platforms, running VMWare virtual machines that aren't restricted) the transition was mandatory, and I have not had problems with games that were produced this year, last year, or even Jane's Fleet Command that was produced a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away.

The main advantages that I've come across for Server 2K3 is running fully scalable virtualized servers, running MS Server platform software (ie. Sharepoint and BTS 2k4), being able to expand my workstation (it's a monster) beyond XP's limits, and running software Raid 5 arrays.

I haven't noticed any stability differences between XP and Server, some performance differences, but that's my configuration, and with the article on this site, no UI differences. I haven't had any trouble running software, and I run the gambit from graphic and media applications, dev applications, productivity, and games. No problems. Softimage to VS.NET to Photoshop to Premiere to FarCry.

As far as which to use, this needs to be based on an individuals requirements and resources (hey, Server ain't cheap). However, for anyone in the App Dev world, I would highly recommend trying it out. It really is nice to work with as a workstation and it comes with VS.NET Ent Arch.

I love them both, but probably will stay with Server until we see and experience what MS has planned next for us. BTW... it even runs like a champion on my laptop, but without an MSDN Subscription, several copies of VS.NET Ent Arch., or a licensing from your employer, there'd be no way that I'd make the investment.

Again, my 2 cents.

Siege