[Coolsights2000]

Hi! All!

A little backgound music here..........

I got a hold of a Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition CD..
With a CD Volume Label of NRMEVOL_EN CD ...
I slipstream SP1 into it too........

It is cool so far Just enter the CD key and go no activation required..

Just install and go.

It has way less updates needed after the install too 
It already has IE6 SP1 and WMP 10 in it......

Looks like IE6 functions the same way Windows XP Pro does
That is the extra blockers 

What I also like is it come up looking like Windows 98SE and W2k no themes.....

The files all seem to be newer date and newer versions
Than what xp has..............
........

Now to the Question :?:

If there is anyone here using Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition
Please comment the good and the bad on it ...

Also I don't care about using the server part I am just looking at using it as my main OS cause all the file versions are newer ..........

Thanks MaC!

[Daemonforce]

Coolsights2000, on Oct 17 2005, 06:13 PM, said:

Hi! All!

A little backgound music here..........

I got a hold of a Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition CD..
With a CD Volume Label of NRMEVOL_EN CD ...
I slipstream SP1 into it too........

It is cool so far Just enter the CD key and go no activation required..

Just install and go.

It has way less updates needed after the install too 
It already has IE6 SP1 and WMP 10 in it......

Looks like IE6 functions the same way Windows XP Pro does
That is the extra blockers 

What I also like is it come up looking like Windows 98SE and W2k no themes.....

The files all seem to be newer date and newer versions
Than what xp has..............
........

Now to the Question :?:

If there is anyone here using Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition
Please comment the good and the bad on it ...

Also I don't care about using the server part I am just looking at using it as my main OS cause all the file versions are newer ..........

Thanks MaC!

I just don't like the auto-security settings preset from the installation. It's gone a long way since .NET Server RC2 and I don't like the new bugs in IIS and the indexing service. I just shut them off. I'm probably going to go back to Windows 2000 Advanced Server because of these two issues.

[InTheWayBoy]

I use it in my lab, and truthfully I don't find much different from 2003 Standard. There are differences, but for normal usage it's not that drastic. The Resource Management feature could be nice, but too much upkeep.

As for the OS itself, it's basically Windows XP Server, so it shares most of the tech and adds a little (lot) more. It's built for serving, so it drops some things...but you can 'hack' those in from what I've seen. There are various threads talking about turning 2003 into something more suitable for a workstation. Having used both XP and 2003 on the same system, I can't say I really see the pay-off for the extra work. But it is fun to play with, and technically it is better than XP so...

[Coolsights2000]

Found this link in the FAQ
http://win2k3.msfn.org/index.htm

It is a little out of date but if you think bigger it is fine and works ...
Great for a starter kit... It told how to turn off that extra security stuff
that you don't need on a work station .......

I like to play so if it is missing something from XP or W2K I'll
do a search and find what to put back...

My next run will be to add the M$ games back ...
I'm still a flaky on INF files so I hope I got all the files ...

Ok you all answer my question with what I was thinking and seeing just better versions
but missing stuff..........

Cool Now it is time to play.........

Also I'm not sure yet but is the server going or not...
What do I look for,,,,,,,

I skipped the part in the beginning to set up the server...
The part where it wants you to add roles to your server...

Thanks Mac!

[cluberti]

The differences between all versions of Windows Server 2003 are listed here:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003...reeditions.mspx

[nmX.Memnoch]

InTheWayBoy, on Oct 18 2005, 01:12 AM, said:

I use it in my lab, and truthfully I don't find much different from 2003 Standard.

Speaking strictly to the 32-bit versions, Enterprise Edition provides support for 8 CPUs and 32GB RAM (using PAE) to Standard Edition's 4CPUs and 4GB RAM. Those are the primary differences someone using it as a workstation should be "concerned" with.

PAE will still limit each application to 4GB of virtual memory...but this was put in place for running multiple SQL Server databases on one machine. There are other differences such as Clustering support in Enterprise Edition, as well as some Active Directory services if you're using it as a Domain Controller.

I wish they would do more to show the differences between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions on the page linked above instead of just including a bunch of foot notes at the bottom...

[cluberti]

"PAE will still limit each application to 4GB of virtual memory..."

No, actually, the virtual address space for each process is limited to 2GB of memory unless you use the /3GB switch, which still only allows 3GB of memory. Just a nitpick .