Windows 2K3 and gaming (or Win64bit)

[Snooble]

Hey all -

I was wonderin if anyone here uses Windows 2003 for their home rigs. Kind of curious as a friend has a copy he doesn't want (is a vendor) and it's never been used.

I'm pretty tired of all the bloat of Windows XP, but I kinda like it's ease of use for things. But if Win2k3 can be more or less on par for gaming/stability/compatibility I see no reason not to use it (especially if it cuts out alot of bloat)


Or is anyone trying Windows 64Bit? If so how is it going?

[Zlash]

Boy these threads never get old...

[dariob]

Stick with XP. Windows 64 is beta, and 2003 is for servers.

[Pixeleet]

Hey all -

I was wonderin if anyone here uses Windows 2003 for their home rigs. Kind of curious as a friend has a copy he doesn't want (is a vendor) and it's never been used.

I'm pretty tired of all the bloat of Windows XP, but I kinda like it's ease of use for things. But if Win2k3 can be more or less on par for gaming/stability/compatibility I see no reason not to use it (especially if it cuts out alot of bloat)


Or is anyone trying Windows 64Bit? If so how is it going?
Dear God, make it stop :p

[Smack19]

I agree WIN2k3 is for servers and should really be left to that role.

[DeFex]

the extra bloat from being for servers will be much worse than XP. install it if you want to learn about running a server :)

[djnes]

If you think XP has a lot of bloat, and you don't know how to optimize the OS, you should stay FAR FAR away from any server OS.

[hokatichenci]

I would never suggest anybody run 2k3 server as a gaming rig. I have W2k3 running as a router and minor gaming machine. Gaming performance is very weak, the only thing it really does right and stable are small footprint emu's. When I first installed 2k3 over a year ago support for it seemed to be very thin regarding desktop type applications. Maybe things have changed, but I had to spend a lot of time hacking driver config files to get things to play nicely. I have to admit though, 2k3 is the first thing I've really been satisfied with from MS. Hope that helps,

-hoka

[KoolDrew]

m pretty tired of all the bloat of Windows XP

Then disable all the "bloat"

[Nasty_Savage]

Start here, I have not done this myself, as I am using mine as an actual server, but it does give some insights on how a few things work.

Win2k3 Server as a workstation (http://www.nicoritschel.com/freehosting/userfiles/NastySavage/Win2k3wk.pdf)

[Super Mario]

Why didn't Microsoft release a desktop version of Windows 2003? Is Windows 2003 basically what was going to be the server version of Windows XP, but the server version of Windows XP got delayed for over a year and MS decided to rename it to Windows Server 2003 when it was released? I have seen that Windows Server 2003 uses Windows NT kernel 5.2 where as Windows XP uses NT kernel 5.1? Should one assume that 5.2 is better than 5.1? I mean I have heard many people say that Windows XP is better than Windows 2000 because of the recompiled kernel which is 5.1 and 2000 uses NT kernel 5.00? So why wouldn't MS release a desktop version of Windows 2003 with a recompiled kernel update? Am I missing something, or not looking at this right??

[dariob]

Why didn't Microsoft release a desktop version of Windows 2003? Is Windows 2003 basically what was going to be the server version of Windows XP, but the server version of Windows XP got delayed for over a year and MS decided to rename it to Windows Server 2003 when it was released? I have seen that Windows Server 2003 uses Windows NT kernel 5.2 where as Windows XP uses NT kernel 5.1? Should one assume that 5.2 is better than 5.1? I mean I have heard many people say that Windows XP is better than Windows 2000 because of the recompiled kernel which is 5.1 and 2000 uses NT kernel 5.00? So why wouldn't MS release a desktop version of Windows 2003 with a recompiled kernel update? Am I missing something, or not looking at this right??

Unless you are running a server, I would forget about it. MS is concentrating thier desktop OS efforts on Longhorn.