Windows 2003 as a desktop?

T

Taco

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2001
Messages
1,465
I know when it first hit the market some people were doing this and saying it ran a bit quicker, any truth to this? Should I try out 2003 with my new system(its a beast ;)) or stick with XP?
 
Stick with XP. Leaving the dubious legality of 2003 aside, XP is intended for desktop/gaming use whereas 2003 is not. I expect claims of "a bit quicker" either way are purely subjective.
 
Stick with XP. People will make lots of outragous claims about it being the next sliced bread on a desktop, but it just ain't so. (it is the next sliced bread in the server room, though)

damn, beaten to the punch
 
Figured as much, wanted to make sure since I rarely reinstall my OS. Thanks for the prompt replies.
 
I must dissagree with the above statements, however. I was using WinXP and switched to Server 2003 and made all the nessesary changes and, on my desktop (Dual AMD 2800, 1 gig ram, GeForce 5900 ultra), I see and feel quite abit better performance. As an example, I use Flight Sim 2002 and on WinXP, I would get between 30 and 33 FPS. On the same settings, resolution, ect. on Server 2k3, I see over 50. Also, the OS is not as "Bloated" so when I get my desktop up and running (With Anti Virus, Motherboard Monitor, WinAmp, and various other software running) my memory useage is around 140 megs. WinXP was over 250.

So, as it is mainly a Server os (And I would not recommend buying it just for a desktop), I would stick with XP, however, I have noticed it (Server 2k3) does perform better than Win XP as a desktop os.

Just my 2cents :)

Joe
 
It's not a bad desktop... Just expensive. If you have access to it freely (MS classes) why not try it out...?

It's just the newest core+server components, which you can disable...

It seemed faster at switching logins, and faster at boot. :) Of course these are shooting from the hip comments, I haven't done any testing.
 
Just be aware that Win2k3 server doesn't have the same driver compatibilty with XP that Win2k server and professional enjoyed. So you may buy something with XP drivers only to find out that it won't install in Win2k3 server. If I remember correctly, I had a USB card with that problem or something... XP driver, but no Win2k3 driver.

Edit for clarification: Most XP drivers "seem" to work fine in Win2k3.
 
Actually, I seem to remember having used an XP driver once.
Not supported, and, as they say, not guaranteed not to cause instability, corrupt your harddisk, burn down your mother and insult your house.
But perhaps not impossible.
 
Many*** XP drivers work for 2k3, just like 2k drivers work for XP. Not all, just like there are 2k and XP specific drivers...
 
One valid reason I could see using Server 2003..
1. If you needed more than 2 processors; like four or eight + processor for serious video, music, or 3d rendering and crunching
1a. and setting up a small win32 render farm/cluster for the above is beyond the budget

t'aint nuthin wrong with geeking out... :)
 
HHunt said:
Actually, I seem to remember having used an XP driver once.
Not supported, and, as they say, not guaranteed not to cause instability, corrupt your harddisk, burn down your mother and insult your house.
But perhaps not impossible.
Click to expand...
Best. Description. Evar.

And yeah, the biggest issue is going to be overall compatibility. Your mileage may vary depending on what you use and do, but the gist is that even the core components (i.e.—the kernel) are optimized for server tasks. Some of these things may be adjustable, but actual all-around performance-wise, there is not really enough different between the two OSes at their core (XP and 2k3 Server) to mitigate any huge performance increase. This is why the claims of performance increase are mostly anecdotal ("looks better to me") and based on nominal issues (like booting).

You can go ahead and try it, but don't expect some kind of cutting-edge increases in performance or your water to turn into wine.
 
Damn, I wanted wine... ;)

(i.e.—the kernel) are optimized for server tasks.
Click to expand...
re is not really enough different between the two OSes at their core (XP and 2k3 Server) to mitigate any huge performance increase.
Click to expand...
These seem to conflict a little... The logic of the second quote means it wouldn't be a bad desktop OS, and having a slightly newer core (optimized in general, not just server tasks) would seem to be a viable choice. Now, if that's rooted in reality or not... remains to be tested.

However, there is an 'other' benefit. You get experience on a the next server OS, which will be showing up in a corporation (if it hasn't already) near you. :)

Ditch my 'main' rig for 2k3 as a desktop OS, nah... I'm still running 2k because it's working just fine.

Load it on a slightly less used machine and turn it into a low-use web-surfer/server... sure. Yes, I know the uses are on opposite ends of the scale. But the machine doesn't get used much except to pull up some random info off of the web, stores data, HTPC, so that's what it has become.

Anyways... I don't think it's a bad choice as a workstation/gaming PC, maybe not as good as XP, but probably isn't much worse.
 
I've been running Win2k3 Server on my PC for a while. I like the feel of it a lot better than XP. I've had no driver compatibility issues, it's the OS has been rock solid. The instructions on the site QHalo posted, http://www.msfn.org/win2k3/, are absolutely necessary if you plan to use Win2k3 as a workstation/gaming machine. But once set up, I like it, and I have had no reason to use XP or 2000 since.

One note: You cannot install Doom 3 without editing and reburning Disk 1. Doom 3 runs fine, it just makes you work to install it on 2k3.
 
There is no reason to use Server 2003 as a desktop OS. A properly tuned Windows XP installation should be just as fast or even faster than Server 2003. If you decide to go with 2003 you will run into driver issues if you have not already. You may also have some game problems as others have already mentioned. I too was sucked into this 2003 being faster than XP mumbo-jumbo but after installing and using it I did not find that to be the case. I was also a little turned off when 2003 blue screened as I loaded my sound card drivers.
 
I'm presently running Server2003 on one of my slowest machines. I tried it as a joke at first to see how well it would run. I think the specs are as follows:

P-III 350MHz
128MB RAM
10GB HDD
[plain old integrated mobo graphics]

It started up and ran like an absolute champ!!! I decided to keep it running as my primary DNS and file server to see how well it would work in my network and it has been just wonderful to have. I'd say that the first thing I noticed is that Server2003 has been trimmed down to the minimal needs for a server. There are no fancy graphics or eye candy frills with this OS. I have often used guides and my own personal checklist to do the same thing to a standard XP Pro installation but it was nice to see Server2003 come that way out of the box. I think I've had it running for 3 months now without a single hitch. Next I'm going to try server clustering to see how well that goes!

As far as running Server2003 as a desktop OS, I can see the appeal for many of us. Considering the fact that it is already set up the way I'm sure many of us like it to be. Either we want all the frills we can stand, or we want nothing unnecessary that will hog our system resources. Sadly, the latter is the one that takes the most work to get to. I think it may just be a matter of trial and error though (and an expensive one if you ask me) considering there may be software compatability issues with Server2003 depending on the apps you're running.
 
jmroberts70 said:
I'm presently running Server2003 on one of my slowest machines. I tried it as a joke at first to see how well it would run. I think the specs are as follows:

(snipped)

It started up and ran like an absolute champ!!!.
Click to expand...

Just don't install Active Directory or it will run as slower than a snail with those specs. :p
 
Phoenix, I'd like to explain myself better to you, but I can't respond right now. Someone I care about has just had her house robbed, and I'm trying to do all I can from 1300 miles away. Suffice to say, my schedule just got packed.
 
SJConsultant said:
Just don't install Active Directory or it will run as slower than a snail with those specs. :p
Click to expand...

hmmm. I'll have to check on that one. I think I setup all that stuff by default -'course I'm not using it at all at the moment so I can't say for sure. I'll have to check when I get home tonight (if I have the time). Thx
 
dont forget the fact that if this isnt an "ahem" legal copy, it wont update........trust me....i have a very close friend who tried

D:!
 
Ha! I have tried to use Windows update using my Copy of Windows 2003 server, mine works even though it is a cd copy. My father wanted to get away from the buggy Windows XP Pro so I installed 2003 server on it. You see he don't know to much about computers, he uses his at work and uses the one I built for him for letters and email. I use mostly on all computers 2003 server except my file server which still runs XP Pro.


If anyone is interested of how I got Windows Update to work on Windows 2003 server, please let me know or Private message me.
 
Scorpionjwp said:
Ha! I have tried to use Windows update using my Copy of Windows 2003 server, mine works even though it is a cd copy. My father wanted to get away from the buggy Windows XP Pro so I installed 2003 server on it. You see he don't know to much about computers, he uses his at work and uses the one I built for him for letters and email. I use mostly on all computers 2003 server except my file server which still runs XP Pro.


If anyone is interested of how I got Windows Update to work on Windows 2003 server, please let me know or Private message me.
Click to expand...
Posting that your willing to give info on how to get around copy protection isn't kosher.

I also think it's funny most your workstations are running server OSes, and your server is running a workstation OS. Heh... :D
 
I ended up going with XP. It just doesn't seem to be worth all the questions.
 
My workstations are regular computers and so Is my file server, the file server just happens to have more HD's and can store more info. I started out with nothing but Windows XP Pro and switched most to 2003, I was not having trouble with XP Pro on the file server, so I left XP Pro on it. The reason to switch, I can do more with a server OS than XP Pro, and it is stable.

Well I'm sorry that I am not rich enough to afford a decent program like 2003 Server. If I had to choose between the price of XP or 2003 server, I will downgrade my OS to Window 2000 to save money. The day I buy 2003 server is the day I win the lottery.
 
To pirate or not is your call, just don't encourage it around here per the rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top