![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Windows 2003 Server as Client OS
- Thread starter John D
- Start date
TheRapture
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 31, 2000
- Messages
- 6,885
Depends on what you are going to be doing with it. Server OS's have a bit more ovverhead...some programs don't like installing on a "server" OS. that being said, you can tweak it a bit and it runs quite well, even for gaming. But unless the user knows what is going on and how to work around the OS, forget it....
Oh dear, not again 
All we have to do here is apply the common sense and logic that was present in the 30,000 other threads asking the same general question. All of the tweaks that people do to turn it into a client OS, basically just turn it into XP Pro. So why not just use XP Pro? You save time, and you benefit from drivers optimized for performance, as opposed to drivers optimized for a stable server, even if it means doing away with some speed. Server OSes are for servers. Desktop OSes are for client machines.
All we have to do here is apply the common sense and logic that was present in the 30,000 other threads asking the same general question. All of the tweaks that people do to turn it into a client OS, basically just turn it into XP Pro. So why not just use XP Pro? You save time, and you benefit from drivers optimized for performance, as opposed to drivers optimized for a stable server, even if it means doing away with some speed. Server OSes are for servers. Desktop OSes are for client machines.
The answer to this depends on whether or not you also put stickers on your car to get more horsepower. After awhile you realize the pursuit to squeeze every last "megahurtz" out of your desktop OS nets you nothing compared to all the time you wasted.
After awhile you realize the pursuit to squeeze every last "megahurtz" out of your desktop OS nets you nothing compared to all the time you wasted.Whatsisname
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2000
- Messages
- 10,201
*their
I did some quick benchmarks on how it compared to XP pro a while ago.
(One of the HDs I used died before I could do anything more.)
In short: In HL2, 2003-server is a few percent slower, but you'd be hard pressed to notice the difference. It takes a few extra steps to turn on and off the right things, but not neccesarily more time than it takes to set explorer to sensible defaults in a new XP.
If it's cheaper than XP for you, go for it.
(One of the HDs I used died before I could do anything more.)
In short: In HL2, 2003-server is a few percent slower, but you'd be hard pressed to notice the difference. It takes a few extra steps to turn on and off the right things, but not neccesarily more time than it takes to set explorer to sensible defaults in a new XP.
If it's cheaper than XP for you, go for it.