[Marthax]

Hi everybody!

I've been reading lot of comments lately about Windows 2003 being better than XP as a workstation OS. I really don't know much about 2k3 Server, but this really got me interested. I'd really appreciate comments from anyone that has been using both XP and 2k3 Server as a WORKSTATION. What makes it better or worse? What are your experiences? You catch my drift.

Thanks in advance!

Marthax

[nitroshift]

This was discussed here before. Have you tried to search the forums?

[Marthax]

Yeah, but I always keep getting the message that I'm using too short search terms when I'm searching for "Windows 2003 vs Windows XP". Maybe you could help me out. What am I doing wrong?

Nevermind, I figured that the search at the bottom works far better than the one at the top so used that one instead and I found what I was looking for. 2k3 it is!

Thanks for the help.

Marthax

This post has been edited by Marthax: 12 January 2007 - 05:00 PM

[datarelm]

my personal experiences with 2003 as a workstation wernt the most pleasant...its ok with alot of work to convert it over. XP is better for a desktop than 2003, 2003 disables alot of services by default. Thank nuhi for nlite

[rjdohnert]

Depends on your usage. I personally like Windows Server 2003 in terms of development and testing as its more stable and can take the punding of constant changes. The dislikes I have of using it is the minute you tell someone, "Oh, I run Windows Server 2003 on my desktop" they automatically proclaim you to be a pirate. If you are not a developer and have no reason to use the OS then stick with Windows XP. If you still decide you want to use it, get Windows X Windows Server 2003 conversion pack.

[gamehead200]

Windows XP = Desktop OS
Windows 2003 = Server OS
It's as simple as that!

Yes, Windows 2003 has some performance tweaks here and there but you can achieve the same result with Windows XP by doing a little research and by slimming it down with nLite.

If you REALLY want to use Windows 2003 as a server OS, legally that is, you would have to purchase it for approximately $1000 US, whereas Windows XP only costs about a tenth of that price. If money isn't a factor, then this might help you convert your legally purchased version of W2K3 into a "workstation" OS.

[cluberti]

gamehead200, on Jan 26 2007, 04:10 PM, said:

Windows XP = Desktop OS
Windows 2003 = Server OS
It's as simple as that!

Well, not exactly true - Windows 2003 x64 and Windows XP x64 are both running the exact same 5.2.3790 kernel.

[gamehead200]

cluberti, on Jan 26 2007, 07:41 PM, said:

gamehead200, on Jan 26 2007, 04:10 PM, said:

Windows XP = Desktop OS
Windows 2003 = Server OS
It's as simple as that!

Well, not exactly true - Windows 2003 x64 and Windows XP x64 are both running the exact same 5.2.3790 kernel.

Right, but the features in each one of them distinguishes one from the other.

[CoffeeFiend]

rjdohnert, on Jan 26 2007, 11:25 AM, said:

Depends on your usage. I personally like Windows Server 2003 in terms of development and testing

You're right about "depends on your usage", but your usage (much like mine) is really the exception. I need IIS6 to test server middleware I write, as well as a bunch of server components, and sometimes I have to use (interact with and test) software that will only install on servers - stuff like that. XP Pro with its crippled IIS 5.1 just doesn't cut it here. But even for developing most apps (i.e. not load testing server middleware and such), XP Pro is just fine.

But for ~99% of the folks out there, there's just no reason. The cost is prohibitive (providing it's legit). It's more complicated. There's tons of server stuff they don't need nor understand (arguably could be called "bloat" in this case, being essentially dead weight). There's basically nothing to gain from using it for the vast majority of people, they're just going to run into software compatibility issues (been there too many times already)

As for the "more stable" claims, I very much disagree. Both are very stable, unless you do really bad things to it. Haven't had any more trouble with my XP boxes as the 2003 ones. I've seen some screwed up XP installs, but I've seen many screwed up 2003 installs too (in both cases because of mostly the same things). I just don't see where people get those "reliability" figures like that, because it doesn't appear like that to me at all (well, 2003 if left alone to do its server job, with acceleration disabled, no sound and all is VERY stable, but in a desktop OS scenario, it's quite different). Stability comes mainly from having good hardware and good quality drivers - with that both versions will be very stable (again, unless one starts to mess with things they shouldn't).