Any reason not to use MS Server 2003 as a desktop OS?

[sir_rob]

Any reason not to use MS Server 2003 as a desktop OS?

I have an unused license and would like to login in to my main computer remotely, regardless of if someone is using it locally or not and without disturbing them.

Anything that I should be aware of?

 

[bbz_Ghost]

Talk about a proverbial can of worms, sheesh... (with respect to the answers you'll get)

I have used 2K3 as a "workstation" before, and I'll most likely do it again in the future. As far as 32 bit OSes go, it's probably the best performing OS Microsoft has ever produced tied to tremendous hardware support. It's a server OS, so compared to the "workstation" class products, it multitasks better, and the kernel was updated in respects that boost performance noticeably over XP.

You may encounter driver issues with some hardware. Typically the setup.exe installer won't install XP drivers on 2K3 when it detects the OS; the workaround is to use Device Manager directly to update/upgrade the driver by browsing for the .inf file in the driver installer files. Sometimes this isn't directly possible so you have to try the setup.exe route and when the files get extracted to a temp directory (not always the same place for every driver, you'll just have to search for them when the extraction happens) and then once you find them, copy them to the Desktop or whatever so you can do the Device Manager installation method.

If you have a legit copy or license and you're not using it, I say go for it. You can find a good guide to setting 2K3 up as a "workstation" HERE.

Good luck...

 

[sir_rob]

Thanks for the info! I think that I will try it out! I have no problem monkeying around with drivers. If that is the biggest concern, then I am not worried. I have had many creative sound cards (translation: I have a lot of experience messing around with drivers just to make hardware work).