Win XP or Server 2003

[roy1984]

Windows Server 2003 with SP1

config into windows 2003 pro then u can have a powerfull gaming console

Windows 2003 SP1, the annoying Security center on tray will not exist

[tarquel]

windows 2003 pro

Now theres a new one lol

There's only Server 2003 Std, Ent, Web, Datacenter Editions so really you mean stripping it and modding it until it sort of resembles XP Pro lol

Regards,

N.

[Aegis]

Hi,

All you really big techno geeks, I would like to all tell your one thing, you can F***ing tweak the 2003 to a workstation, but getting the games to work is really dificult, I tried it and was no brainer that some games just refuse to run, unless you reiengeer them in some way, which would void your warranty for the game, My personal 2 cents, the OS is amazing for all the things that you can do with it provided you use it as what it was meant to be used for, Terminal server, Media streaming, File server, Web server, if you just wanna play games best assured it is best done with XP

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dunno why so many people are complaining that you shouldn't game on a Server 2003. There is nothing wrong with the games. It's just the installers, which checks what version of Windows it is. That's why Doom 3 will install on XP-64, but not on Server 2003, even though they share the same code. If you don't get what I'm saying, take a look at my screenshot: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?act=At...pe=post&id=6989. I installed Server 2003, but somehow "converted" it to a regular XP Pro install, still using 2003 files.

[Clint]

Hi,

All you really big techno geeks, I would like to all tell your one thing, you can F***ing tweak the 2003 to a workstation, but getting the games to work is really dificult, I tried it and was no brainer that some games just refuse to run, unless you reiengeer them in some way, which would void your warranty for the game, My personal 2 cents, the OS is amazing for all the things that you can do with it provided you use it as what it was meant to be used for, Terminal server, Media streaming, File server, Web server, if you just wanna play games best assured it is best done with XP

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dunno why so many people are complaining that you shouldn't game on a Server 2003. There is nothing wrong with the games. It's just the installers, which checks what version of Windows it is. That's why Doom 3 will install on XP-64, but not on Server 2003, even though they share the same code. If you don't get what I'm saying, take a look at my screenshot: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?act=At...pe=post&id=6989. I installed Server 2003, but somehow "converted" it to a regular XP Pro install, still using 2003 files.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Look at my post a couple steps up.

[Maleko]

XP unless your running a server, hence Windows SERVER 2003

[Aegis]

Hi,

All you really big techno geeks, I would like to all tell your one thing, you can F***ing tweak the 2003 to a workstation, but getting the games to work is really dificult, I tried it and was no brainer that some games just refuse to run, unless you reiengeer them in some way, which would void your warranty for the game, My personal 2 cents, the OS is amazing for all the things that you can do with it provided you use it as what it was meant to be used for, Terminal server, Media streaming, File server, Web server, if you just wanna play games best assured it is best done with XP

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dunno why so many people are complaining that you shouldn't game on a Server 2003. There is nothing wrong with the games. It's just the installers, which checks what version of Windows it is. That's why Doom 3 will install on XP-64, but not on Server 2003, even though they share the same code. If you don't get what I'm saying, take a look at my screenshot: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?act=At...pe=post&id=6989. I installed Server 2003, but somehow "converted" it to a regular XP Pro install, still using 2003 files.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Look at my post a couple steps up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Take a look at this: http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/Articl.../2816.html?Ad=1

Server 2003 internally is tweaked beyond your control so as to be more optimized for server tasks. Switching it to XP Pro solves the problem .

[Clint]

XP unless your running a server, hence Windows SERVER 2003

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure it says SERVER on the box, we can all read.

But can you be more specific...?

I'm just sick and tired of hearing those exact words..."Its a SERVER"...coz it says so on the box.

Well, just take a look around...how many products/hardware do you see that has the same "core" or components but are just locked down or simply packed in a different box?

This is even more relevant now when x64 versions is out of both 2003 and XP....it's the same core my friend...as the x32 versions..but less the crippled memorymanagement in XP.

2003 server will always be a better OS if tweaked right, sure there is some differences that you cannot alter even in the register...ie Memory Management/Cache and so on...but they are actually working better than in crippled XP...period.

Edited June 28, 2005 by Clint

[NiNAMO]

win2k3 = win2k server

winxppro = win2k pro

so, you can see that M$ did a lot to make them look different, take care.

the only truth is win2k3 has a lot of tools only made for server while xp has an "enough" friendly gui for you, got it? but, who care which is a bit faster if his hardware is strong enough? if you couldn't get satisfied by them, use nlite. lol

I did not choose 2k3 only because of the inconvenience, I'm a lazy man.

if you are a man that like to do everything by yourself, I strongly recommand that you use 2k3.

btw, their core are the same.

[Maleko]

but they are actually working better than in crippled XP...

thats cause a server has to run more stable than a deskop user.

They would put more effort into server software, charging more for it so that servers run it.

XP pro, cheaper cause its not as "tweaked" for the home user.

[hoak]

Your needs and perferences are going to be individual; try both -- Microsoft offers free demos of both operating systems that you can give a whirl to see how well either meets your needs.

I perfer Server 2003 but it costs a whale load more then XP for performance and stability improvements that some may consider marginal. Getting 3D graphics cards to work on Server 2003 can be a chore but it's certainly doable if you go through a few hoops and you'll likely see better performance there as well if you make the effort.

[Perfect]

hi, as many said, 2k3 is more stable..

if u whant to solve all graphic and sound acceleration, u can transform your 2k3 server into 2k3 workstation:

just a look at http://win2k3.msfn.org/index.htm

regards

[raskren]

hi, as many said, 2k3 is more stable..

if u whant to solve all graphic and sound acceleration, u can transform your 2k3 server into 2k3 workstation:

just a look at http://win2k3.msfn.org/index.htm

regards

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for bumping this really old and quite useless thread.

[Zxian]

hi, as many said, 2k3 is more stable..

if u whant to solve all graphic and sound acceleration, u can transform your 2k3 server into 2k3 workstation:

just a look at http://win2k3.msfn.org/index.htm

regards

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do people say things like this?

XP is about as stable as it gets, and Server 2003 is simply tailored towards running in a different manner... namely as a server. That means that it is better suited towards handling mutliple tasks at once, processor scheduling over multiple processors (not just the one or two you see in workstations), and other situations that aren't as critical for a workstation.

I'll say this yet again (you can probably find this elsewhere). XP is not unstable! Poor drivers or bad software are unstable. If you recall correctly, there was an Uptime Project running a while back... the lead computer was running XP-SP1 for over a year! No reboots, just running running running. That's stability if I ever asked for it. I remember the UNIX servers at my university went down at one point because a student's assignment (Computer Science student) had mistakenly started asking for the same IP address continuously... so the server shut everything down.

I personally think that this is a dumb thread/poll. It makes no sense whatsoever.

[Andromeda43]

I just love it when MS takes an OS, tweaks and fiddles with it and bills it as "More Stable" and then charges a greatly increased price for it.

They've done that with every new version of Windows all the way back to good ol' 95.

Personally, I can crash XP Pro just as easily as I could '98.

Stability is all in the eye of the beholder.

I'm sure that 2003 Server is just great for doing the job that it was specially designed to do.....but for the average home user, it's just another MS P.O.C.

Cheers,

Andromeda43

[Zxian]

Personally, I can crash XP Pro just as easily as I could '98.

Stability is all in the eye of the beholder.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like how? There are so many more ways to make any Win9x OS crash than there is for NT-based systems (the shared memory of Win9x is a big gimme there).