[colore]

hello

is it true that win 2003 is better than xp for desktop usage?

which win 2003 version is best for desktop usage?

my win 2003 version is
5.2.3790.3959
is there any new? whats the current version?

thanks

[cluberti]

colore, on Sep 29 2007, 11:55 PM, said:

is it true that win 2003 is better than xp for desktop usage?

That's highly subjective, and depends on what you do on your desktop. If you need to prioritize background tasks, need to host more than 10 simultaneous incoming network connections, or run full IIS, then 2003 would be better. If you are running a gaming rig, XP or Vista will likely be just as good - and cheaper to run too, as an OEM XP license is USD $99, whereas a Server 2003 Standard edition OEM license runs at least USD $400 to start.

colore, on Sep 29 2007, 11:55 PM, said:

which win 2003 version is best for desktop usage?

my win 2003 version is
5.2.3790.3959
is there any new? whats the current version?

The current version of Server 2003 is 5.2.3790.3959, which is the SP2 build number, and yes it is the latest.

[weEvil]

colore, on Sep 29 2007, 09:55 PM, said:

is it true that win 2003 is better than xp for desktop usage?

In my opinion, yes. Never crashed on me by itself. Only when I do something like overclock too much.

Its a little problematic with drivers sometimes. I tried to install some drivers for my HP Printer. Supposedly the 'OS is not supported'. Took me a couple of hours but I got it to work with some modifications in the .ini files.

Its a good OS if you want to put in some extra work. Also, many of the features like DirectX, Themes... and etc come disabled by default. So you have to turn them all on manually.

Quote

which win 2003 version is best for desktop usage?

my win 2003 version is
5.2.3790.3959
is there any new? whats the current version?

They're all the same. There's just small differences in between the Standard, Enterprise... etc. Just the tools and such.

Also, upgrade to Server 2003 SP2 if you have not done so already.

[mau-yong]

I have been using 2003 since it came out up to this time and it is much better than XP in most ways except, finding an antivirus for it.

Most antivirus that we're comfortable with does not install on Server OS. There are ways around this though and in my opinion, that is the "not better" part of using 2003 as desktop.

[xms3500]

Anti Virus isn't a problem just use NOD32 it works well, the problem is a GOOD Firewall that doesn't crash Server2003.

[jftuga]

I have been thinking about doing this myself, switching from XP to 2003. I am not a gamer. Here are the advantages that I see:

there is no WGA in 2003
less patches to install
Volume shadow copy
software RAID support
arguably more secure

What are some other advantages? If an application's installer requires XP, is there a general known workaround for this?

Also, I can also vouch for Nod32 on 2003...it works great.

Thanks,
-John

This post has been edited by jftuga: 04 October 2007 - 02:52 PM

[nmX.Memnoch]

jftuga, on Oct 4 2007, 03:52 PM, said:

there is no WGA in 2003

Yes there is...even on volume licensed versions. There's even activation on OEM and Retail versions.

This post has been edited by nmX.Memnoch: 04 October 2007 - 03:24 PM

[GrofLuigi]

Advantages are buried inside. After playing some time with it, I'm very strongly convinced that XP is really just a crippled version of 2003. Off the top of my head examples:

- TCPIP max conn. limitation
- Number of network users limitation
- Number of processors/cores limitation

There are many more I can't remember right now, found in KB articles. There was no other reason to cut stuff out other then target speciffic markets.

Disadvantages are: Installers acting up, i.e. not wanting to install themselves for the same reason as above. To sell you another (more expensive) version.

GL

[nmX.Memnoch]

Considering that XP was release nearly a year and a half before Server 2003 it'd be hard for it to be a cut down version of Server 2003. Actually, it's quite the opposite. Server 2003 was based off of the XP SP2 code base.

And yes, they are targeted at completely different market segments. XP is a desktop OS and Server 2003 is a server OS. Imagine that.

XP Professional does NOT have a core limitation. It has a limitation on the number of physical CPUs it can use (which is 2). You can install XP on dual quad-core system and it will recognize and use all eight cores. For that matter, XP Home works the same way, except that it can only use a single physical CPU. But it is multithreaded in that you can run XP Home on a quad-core CPU and it will recognize and use all four cores. Period.

XP has a 10 user connection limit to prevent it from being used as a server OS. The network tuning is different from Server 2003 anyway so even if it had a higher connection limit it wouldn't be the best solution.

The TCP limit you speak of on XP is not on the number of connections. It's a limit on the number of half-open connections. This is something that you want limited to reduce the possibility of DoS attacks.

The only case where I can see using Server 2003 as a "desktop" OS is if you're doing any sort of development and using that workstation (instead of a dedicated development server).

[colore]

any benchmark to compare win2003 and winxp for desktop use?

[Muppet Hunter]

I understand that the general desktop performance of xp and 2003 is very similar. Another advantage of 2003 is that the support period is substantially longer before M$ ultimately pull the plug