Does the version number of the Windows XP and Windows 2003 kernel matter?

S

Super Mario

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 22, 2003
Messages
466
If you notice, Windows Server 2003 uses the NT 5.2 kernel where as Windows XP only uses the NT 5.1 kernel?

Does that mean that the NT kernel in Windows Server 2003 is more up to date and offers better performance than the one in XP because it has a higher version number? Or should you not read too much into the version number? Even if it is an updated version which is better than NT 5.1, that in of itself is still not enough reason to use Windows Server 2003 over Windows XP for gaming and desktop use as you will likely run into problems because there are many other differences in both operating systems and 2003 is meant for serving and not workstation/desktop and gaming use.

But that difference in the version number is only the difference in the kernel with the kernel being newer in Windows Server 2003? So why doesn't Microsoft apply the NT 5.2 kernel to Windows XP 32-bit versions so the desktop editions of the 32-bit Windows versions has the most up to date kernel as well? ZCan you read to much into that? Or are the same updates to the kernel applied to NT 5.1, but with the only difference being the user doesn't see it because the version number is still the same? Another words, can Microsoft apply the same updates to NT 5.1, but without changing the version number?

I'm sure Ramma-Sao would be best at answering this question.
 
In truth it doesn't matter, because they server two different platforms. I'm hoping this doesn't dig up the old Server 2003 for gaming debates, because it's been beaten to death already, several times over. Windows XP and Windows 2003 Server shouldn't be compared because they are not competing products.

If you're going to be playing games and using it like a desktop computer, you go with XP (one of the several flavors).

If you're going to be "serving" apps and files, and multiple people will be using the computer at the same time, you want Windows 2003 Server.
 
You're a Linux guy aren't you Super Mario? Just curious. I wouldn't even consider something like this to ever come into question between an OS called SERVER and anything else non-server for desktop use. Especially when talking about "gaming".

Edit based on your response to djnes Ok I somewhat see your argument there.
 
djnes said:
In truth it doesn't matter, because they server two different platforms. I'm hoping this doesn't dig up the old Server 2003 for gaming debates, because it's been beaten to death already, several times over. Windows XP and Windows 2003 Server shouldn't be compared because they are not competing products.

If you're going to be playing games and using it like a desktop computer, you go with XP (one of the several flavors).

If you're going to be "serving" apps and files, and multiple people will be using the computer at the same time, you want Windows 2003 Server.
Click to expand...


Certainly they aren't designed to be competing products as they are intended for different purposes. But so were Windows 2000 Professional and Windows 2000 Server. Windows 2000 Professional and Windows 2000 Server both used the NT 5.0 kernel. That is just the kernel and is only a small part of the OS. Is that actually the kernel or memory handler, or are those the same thing?

You are right that it would be silly to try and argue Windows Server 2003 is a better OS for everything just because it is NT 5.2 instead of NT 5.1 because there is much more to it than just that. Windows XP is built for desktop use and Windows Server 2003 is built for serving. But why not apply the latest NT 5.2 kernel to the Windows XP desktop platform? Why doesn't Microsoft do it? Is it only necessary for the features that Server 2003 contains? If so, then why does Windows XP x64 use the NT 5.2 kernel? Some people have specifically pointed out that Windows XP x64 is based off of Windows Server 2003 rather than Windows XP 32-bit? I then popinted out that I thought Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 32-bit were the same excpet that one was for servers and one was meant for desktops? I never got an answer about that?

I think the debate here is should the NT 5.2 kernel be applied to Windows XP? Not whether Server 2003 is better for desktop use. Because Server 2003 is not! But it is likely that implementing the most up to date NT 5.2 kernel to the desktop XP platform would help performance?
 
Grimmda said:
You're a Linux guy aren't you Super Mario? Just curious. I wouldn't even consider something like this to ever come into question between an OS called SERVER and anything else non-server for desktop use. Especially when talking about "gaming".
Click to expand...


No, I am not debating about that!! Server 2003 isn't better for gaming than XP!!! Never was because there are so many things about it that are worse than XP because it is NOT MEANT for desktop use. However, what if the NT 5.2 kernel were implemtned to the desktop OS Windows XP? I mean, JUST THE NT 5,2 kernel, NO OTHER features from Windows Server 2003. I repeat ONLY AND ONLY the updated NT 5.2 kernel!! Nothing else!!! That's the debate here? Would performance be better? Is the only reaosn Microsoft isn't updating the Windows XP kernel to NT 5.2 because they don't want any one of the same product to get the same updates that a newer release obtains, even if the newer release is designed for different purposes???

Read this here to see what I am talking about: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?act=ST&f=34&t=49923
 
AGAIN, this question is regatding is the NT 5.2 kernel better?? IT IS ONLY about the kernel, NOTHING else about Server 2003!! That is why it warrents discussion about it being implemented into a workstation OS. Heck, Windows 2K Pro is better for gaming than Windows Server 2003 because Windows Server 2003 is deisgned for servers. However, what if the workstation OS was updated with the most recent NT kernel? Isn't it likely it would be better?

I am stating that just so this doesn't turn into a what's better for gaming thread between Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP. It is merely the question about it being good if the NT 5,2 kernel was used in the Windows XP desktop OS.
 
Super Mario said:
AGAIN, this question is regatding is the NT 5.2 kernel better??
Click to expand...
Better for what? It's newer, has some improved components, I'd wager. However, the iteration in 2K3 Server is quite likely flagged in such a way that, as far as client uses are concerned, offer no discernable difference.
 
It's not necessarily the kernel that matters. It's the services, optimizations, and driver optimizations that matter. For a gaming PC, speed is the primary focus for drivers and tweaks. For a server, stability is all that matters, even if you have to sacrifice some speed.
 
djnes said:
It's not necessarily the kernel that matters. It's the services, optimizations, and driver optimizations that matter. For a gaming PC, speed is the primary focus for drivers and tweaks. For a server, stability is all that matters, even if you have to sacrifice some speed.
Click to expand...

Certainly, all of those things are by far very important. But the kernel matters too. Yes, it probably isn't better for really anything.

I guess now my question is, why does Windows XP Pro x64 use the same NT 5.2 kernel that Server 2003 uses?
 
Probably because it is the newer kernel, and the one that is currently the mainstream focus on development right now. It is probably certain that the flags compiled into the XP64 version are different than on 2K3. I would bank on it.

If you want to use the general "better" in terms of the most up-to-date and compatible with the newest MS technologies, then 5.2 is absolutely better. However, the general "better" does not always apply to some specific things (at least, not yet).
 
who knows why they don't put the 5.2 kernel with XP. Many linux applications and libraries designed for the 2.4 version of the kernel won't work for the 2.6 version, it could be the same story for the NT kernel. Why don't you call up MS and ask?
 
Why does X64 pro use 5.2? Simple, the x64 support work was done in the Server 2003 SP1 branch, and thus they didn't want to backport all those changes to XP, (5.1) code branch.

Same with kernels, server was done in a different code branch then xp. (Server forked from the XP branch)

Does it matter? Not really, other then 5.2 is a "newer" kernel then 5.1.

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top