champ Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Does anyone know a website with a list of pros and cons for windows 2003 server?or could tell me a list of pros and cons.Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fizban2 Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Microsoft Server 2003 R2 homepagehere you go, lots of good info here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andregcasal Posted May 20, 2006 Share Posted May 20, 2006 Pros and Cons i don't know, but i can tell you that i just finished reading a review in http://www.baboo.com.br/ that effectively compares XP Pro SP1 with Server 2003 Enterprise and Server 2003 wins in all benchmarks. Graphics, memory, HD, etc...André Casal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbolt 2864 Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 Didn't I hear that Server 2003 is more secure? I might be wrong....Server 2003 is faster than XP, unless if you install DCPROMO, then it will take forever to load at the startup. And I use 2003 as a backup OS / Workstation, not a server. I use XP as my main OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andregcasal Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 Yes, Server 2003 has a better kernel and new security features, thus making Server 2003 better than XP in everything. Of course that if we are going to compare them we must do it in raw installations, with no software installed at all, no modifications or regtweaks. Conclusio? Server 2003 is better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delprat Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 (edited) Of course that if we are going to compare them we must do it in raw installations, with no software installed at all, no modifications or regtweaks. Conclusio? Server 2003 is better that's obvious : with no modifications, Server 2003 doesn't uses themes.Instead of comparing XP/2003 "out of the box", we should copy XP settings on 2003 and 2003 settings on XP... Then differences will be very small.But that's not important : better kernel or not, 2003 and XP does'nt focuses on the same goals Edited May 21, 2006 by Delprat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbolt 2864 Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 XP is a better OS for me. Doesn't need to much tweaking and can run more applications.You can use themes in 2003, you need to enable them through the services, its been disabled by default. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scubar Posted May 21, 2006 Share Posted May 21, 2006 2003 has been better than XP in every aspect ive used it for, both as a server, workstation and desktop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuMz Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 2003 has been better than XP in every aspect ive used it for, both as a server, workstation and desktop.Any problems running games? Direct3d or OpenGL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andregcasal Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Server 2003 is faster than XP in everything, graphics, memory managment, HD, really everything. It has a better kernel and is made for speed - servers need speed Benchmarks don't lie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuMz Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Server 2003 is faster than XP in everything, graphics, memory managment, HD, really everything. It has a better kernel and is made for speed - servers need speed Benchmarks don't lie But don't we slow it down when we follow the guide of converting it to a workstation? It would be interesting to see benchmarks of Server 2003 converted to "XP Like" workstation VS. Server 2003 untouched VS. Xp byitself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andregcasal Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 (edited) See things this way, Server 2003 is exacly Windows XP but more updated, more secure and with the workstation features turned off. By turning them on, you have a Windows XP Professional but with all the new and cool features from Server 2003 If you search a bit you'll find that all that's needed to transform Server 2003 into a Workstation is registry tweaks, so we don't actually add software nor install files or anything. Just turn on the workstation features But it would be nice to see a definitive benchmark comparing Server 2003 Workstation to XP. Edited May 24, 2006 by andregcasal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuMz Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 If you search a bit you'll find that all that's needed to transform Server 2003 into a Workstation is registry tweaks, so we don't actually add software nor install files or anything. Just turn on the workstation features What I mean to say is that we slow down the machine by enabling the themes service, audio service, full video acceleration, etc. All those things use up more ram / resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jftuga Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 One reason that I would pick 2003 over XP is volume shadow copy. http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserve...DE91BA1033.mspx-John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbolt 2864 Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 I encountered some problems playing games with 2003. Though i used the latest updates and drivers the problem still persisted. Oh well, 2003 is a server OS, not a gaming OS, so I wouldn't expect it to run games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now