Win XP or Server 2003

[suryad]

I would go with whatever works best. since I am comfortable at extracting for my own purposes the most from XP, I will stick with it. The cost and the probs with drivers in 2k3 is not worth it to me. Sure 2l3 is a bit more stable but I dont know if it is any faster than XP because personally I have not played with it. But to me that dont justify the cost difference. If you want speed then get Gentoo and compile it from scratch and watch it rip!

[InTheWayBoy]

I think the real question here is how much do you want to spend? Sure between the two there are some differences that make you choose one over the other...but no one seems to have talked about price. Granted, I didn't read all the pages, but all I see back and forth is technical data.

If you are flying legal eagle, then no one would shell out $500 for an OS just to run games. If you do, then you have too much money and need to send me some

Of course, I go back one page and see a couple other people talking about price concerns...so nevermind.

Edited October 11, 2005 by InTheWayBoy

[Link21]

Here is a question I am interested in asking.

Is there any advanatge of Windows Server 2003 over Windows XP because it uses the NT 5.2 kernel where as Windows XP uses the NT 5.1 kernel?

Another words, is it true that Windows Server 2003 uses a newer and improved kernel because it uses NT 5.2 where Windows XP uses only NT 5.1? Can you read to much into that version number when deciding which OS is more up to date?

For instance, why would you use the Linux 2.6.4 kernel when the 2.6.8 kernel is the most up to date? and fully tested to be perfectly stable?

If that is the case that NT 5.2 is indeed a more up to date version of the NT kernel than NT 5.1, why doesn't Microsoft just apply the NT 5.2 kernel to Windows XP so that way both the server and workstation OS both use the most up to date NT kernel? Because Windows XP is suited for workstation use and Windows Server 2003 is suited for server use, so why not slap the most up to date NT kernel onto both of the products?

I mean both Windows 2000 Pro and 2000 Server both used the NT 5.0 kernel and were both designed for different purposes with one being for a desktop and one being for a server. Why does the server and desktop version of Microsoft's next OS use a different kernel version? Why don't they both use the most up to date NT kernel?

Edited December 14, 2005 by Link21

[Nerwin]

Windows xp Pro....

[Link21]

Anyone know the anser to my question regarding the NT 5.2 kernel being better than the NT 5.1 kernel because it has a higher version number?

[xorg]

i'm runnin Win2k3 (Standard Edition) on my pc.

as far as games go, the only one i can't get running is Battlefield 1942 (Any Suggestions)?

bf1942 works fine on xp though...?

[Clint]

i'm runnin Win2k3 (Standard Edition) on my pc.

as far as games go, the only one i can't get running is Battlefield 1942 (Any Suggestions)?

bf1942 works fine on xp though...?

If your problem is installing it, then it's just a matter of grabbing the free Application Compatibility Toolkit

from Microsoft...then emulate XP and it will install.

Edited December 18, 2005 by Clint

[n7Epsilon]

I have tried Server 2003 and here's what I found:

1. Server is initially faster at bootup because by default lots of services are disabled, but if you enable the stuff you need its memory usage will be almost the same as that of Windows XP

2. It does seem to be faster, but that's because all visual effects are disabled and DirectX is turned off, but once enabled, it's almost as fast as XP

3. There are some important features missing (unlike the Welcome screen, now that's ok to be missing) like:

- No UPnP support (which is a nightmare for configuring every single port manually on router's NAT. (unless someone fixes this i will stay with xp)

So my verdict is:

Yes the NT 5.2 kernel is more optimized than NT 5.1 (that's why Vista will use it so that it builds on 2k3 server not XP) but the OS that this kernel is in (2k3 server) leaves something to be desired in terms of compatibility...

- If someone could just port the NT5.2 kernel to XP, everything would be perfect !

Else, I will stick to either XP or Linux (MEPIS)

[xorg]

i'm runnin Win2k3 (Standard Edition) on my pc.

as far as games go, the only one i can't get running is Battlefield 1942 (Any Suggestions)?

bf1942 works fine on xp though...?

If your problem is installing it, then it's just a matter of grabbing the free Application Compatibility Toolkit

from Microsoft...then emulate XP and it will install.

I'm able 2 get bf1942 installed fine, it's just i can't play the game. all it does is the screen goes black for a second (like it would, starting up any game), and then gets out of itself.

[Clint]

i'm runnin Win2k3 (Standard Edition) on my pc.

as far as games go, the only one i can't get running is Battlefield 1942 (Any Suggestions)?

bf1942 works fine on xp though...?

If your problem is installing it, then it's just a matter of grabbing the free Application Compatibility Toolkit

from Microsoft...then emulate XP and it will install.

I'm able 2 get bf1942 installed fine, it's just i can't play the game. all it does is the screen goes black for a second (like it would, starting up any game), and then gets out of itself.

Ok, I see...well, then they have some kinda OS checker within the game itself (startup sequence)...I'm sure it can be dealt with but thats out of my range I'm afraid.

[Fencer128]

So my verdict is:

Yes the NT 5.2 kernel is more optimized than NT 5.1 (that's why Vista will use it so that it builds on 2k3 server not XP) but the OS that this kernel is in (2k3 server) leaves something to be desired in terms of compatibility...

- If someone could just port the NT5.2 kernel to XP, everything would be perfect !

Else, I will stick to either XP or Linux (MEPIS)

I fail to see how anyone has determined that the server kernel is more "optimised/better" than the xp kernel.

Does anyone actually know what the kernel differences between 5.1 and 5.2 are? Failing that, what the kernel is defined as?

I suspect that comparing XP kernel features of 5.1 with those of server's 5.2 will show minimum differences in shared abilities. Most of the differences will probably involve server type operations that fall outside the remit of XP or a client OS.

Apart from the fact the server is more secure out of the box than xp, and has the ability to run as a server os with many server-side services (the obvious) - I see no real difference between server and xp at all.

As for vista - maybe I'm wrong but I thought it was mostly new code? - no legacy kernel code from server brought into Vista.

From this perspective I find it difficult to understand why so many people think server 2003 is "better" than XP for client duties? It seems it's assumed just because server's kernel has a 0.1 increment version number over XP's. How can you compare chalk and cheese when you're a mouse?

Cheers,

Andy

EDIT: IMHO this is such an ambiguous poll that I acually feel guilty for bumping it

Edited December 23, 2005 by Fencer128

[n7Epsilon]

I believe it is more optimized because after configuring Server 2003 to act as a workstation (and turning on many services) to make it act like XP, it still functions faster than a default XP SP2 installation (with some services disabled)...

Edit: The kernel is defined as NTKRNLPA.EXE or NTOSKRNL.EXE as well as other select core system files (like winlogon.exe), it handles memory allocation and interaction with hardware through the Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) which is chosen and installed during setup...

At least, that's what I saw on my machine (2.6GHz Northwood HT / 512 MB PC3200 DDR RAM)

Edited December 23, 2005 by ChipCraze23

[techniquefreak]

Depends what machine you use it on... On my dell cpi-a xt400 400 Mhz 128 Mb ram machine server 2003 works better than xp pro or 2000 pro ... (of course when tuned as "workstation") ... Suprisingly though...

[Link21]

Depends what machine you use it on... On my dell cpi-a xt400 400 Mhz 128 Mb ram machine server 2003 works better than xp pro or 2000 pro ... (of course when tuned as "workstation") ... Suprisingly though...

Are you saying that Windows Server 2003 runs better as a desktop OS on that PC than XP or 2000?

[emodel]

Last time i tried, it didnt let my HD go to sleep (power management thing)...

Has it changed since sp1 ?

(i know servers arent supposed to shut down HD, but well the option is here, so it SHOULD work if enabled)