Windows 2003 vs XP Pro... your thoughts?

S

Stang Man

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 19, 2002
Messages
2,532
what do you think of using Windows 2003 for a desktop OS that sees little to no gaming, and is currently running XP.

i'm looking for some extra speed and less bs than XP, and was wondering if 2003 would give me that.

thanks :)
 
Originally posted by Stang Man
t ...sees little to no gaming...
Click to expand...

Linux.

Unless you're really stuck on Windows, then stick with XP.
When was the last time you saw a new release from Microsoft that had LESS bloat? :)
 
I belive Windows 2003 is ment for SERVERS only. If you do put it on, the machine won't be as fast and more memory will be sucked up. (Kind of like Windows 2000 Advanced Server) I've had this expeirence with Win 2k Advanced server and I tried it with a brand new gamin machine and I did not like the results. I finnaly said this is not right and reformated and put XP Pro on. Just a little personal expeirence I thought I should share. . . . . .
 
I have found that it seems more stable and "cleaner" if you will than MS's other OS's. However it is a Server OS and priced like one (though I don't doubt you can somehow get your hands on it cheaper). It doesn't suck up memory at all at least not in my case. XP Pro is simpler and more programs work with it so just stick with it.
 
Simply put, windows 2003 is a SERVER OS! XP is a desktop OS.

atleast once a month someone posts in thegames forum with something like this:
Dood, i got win2003 pro server and i cant play games on it, what gives??

Still 2003 is a server os, and is ment for servers, not desktop machines
 
You CAN change it to a workstation but at that its still shitty. It just wasn't meant. Just becuase its newer, it means it sbetter for what it does. Serving stuff. not gaming and the such. But if you want to INSIST on doing this, and having a crappy gaming box then:

edit: I can't find the link. And I can't search to find it either. Sorry.
 
i've tried linux.. and as much as i'd like it to be.. it's just not an OS for me or my dad.

the computer does actually serve stuff, but not on a high status server level. mild file sharing, ftp, and email is done on this computer.

main programs i'd use with it:

Photoshop CS
Autocad 2004
Office 2003
FlashFXP
IE :p

right now, i've had this installation for about a month, and not a single game has come onto it.

and it wasn't expensive at all for me. got it inside my action pack subscription and MSDN subscription. :)
 
People will say its a server os, and as much as they say that they are showing their ignorance. They have not used it and don't know what they are talking about. Everybody I have talked to says that they feel it to be more stable than XP. No playing games on it in hope of a speed increase is a frivelous (sp?) pursiut. Is it cleaner, filled with less bloat, easy to turn into a workstation and more stable...YES by all means it is.
I used it as a workstation for about 3 months then I fubarred it and went back to XP Pro as my 180 day free trial ended.

You CAN change it to a workstation but at that its still shitty. It just wasn't meant. Just becuase its newer, it means it sbetter for what it does. Serving stuff. not gaming and the such. But if you want to INSIST on doing this, and having a crappy gaming box then:
Click to expand...

That is rediculous, it for sure wouldn't make the gaming box crappy nor does chaning it to a workstation make it crappy.

It performs like any other OS for gaming you most likely won't see a speed increase. But for a workstation it's very nice, very stable and very clean.
 
umm, i dont get it, im runing server 2003 ion my rig, i play games left right and center, all dx8.1 and up, its not hard to config 2003 for a desktop, runs faster, better, more stable, and is more clean.

just my experience, its a dream for me.. try it and see what u think
 
Originally posted by Stinger836
People will say its a server os, and as much as they say that they are showing their ignorance. They have not used it and don't know what they are talking about. Everybody I have talked to says that they feel it to be more stable than XP. No playing games on it in hope of a speed increase is a frivelous (sp?) pursiut. Is it cleaner, filled with less bloat, easy to turn into a workstation and more stable...YES by all means it is.
I used it as a workstation for about 3 months then I fubarred it and went back to XP Pro as my 180 day free trial ended.



That is rediculous, it for sure wouldn't make the gaming box crappy nor does chaning it to a workstation make it crappy.

It performs like any other OS for gaming you most likely won't see a speed increase. But for a workstation it's very nice, very stable and very clean.
Click to expand...

I would say it's indeed a server OS, and yes, I've used it for a couple years on many boxes.

Systems running Win2k3 are indeed more stable. The reasons?
- Applications have less interaction with hardware (DirectX and some other forms of hardware acceleration are diabled by default)
- The hardware purchased for server systems is usually of higher quality than that purchased for average PCs.
- Servers are not likely to have experimental drivers of any sort installed on them, more stable drivers are the norm.

Sure there are definately updates to the OS that were minor enough that they weren't back ported to XP. But I'm talking about minor issues here (like not having a help file localized right), not crashing or stability issues (those would be back ported if they existed in XP).

I'm not saying that you can't turn it into a gaming box, in fact it probably makes a fine gaming box. All I'm saying is that if you go and install it on your average quality hardware, and enable the various forms of hardware acceleration, and install the latest experimental drivers to get that extra few FPS, then your loosing a lot or what makes your average win2k3 system more stable.

Additionally, if you're just using it for gaming and everyday usage, then things like script engines and such will probably get turned on at some point, negating some of the security advantage of having win2k3.

Lastly, if it's just being used for gaming and everyday tasks, then you're not even using any of new features of the OS...


So that leads me to say, in summary:
While the OS may make a good gaming box, why would you want to use it as such? While more services and utilities do come disabled by default, it will probably require more of your time to correctly configure everything to play games as well as XP, and by that point, you loose much of it's advantages. The one good reason for using win2k3 would be if you wanted to learn about the new programs\tools\utilities that come with the system. Otherwise it seems it would just consume more time that you could be playing your games. If you have access to 2k3 and want to use it, that's cool, just be aware that it may take more time to configure than XP.

Just my opinion at any rate.
 
^ Agreed. Also when buying a server OS many applications won't install unless they are the server variant of said application. Most Defraggers need to be the server version to install on 2003 Server so unless your pirating everything then it would get real expensive real fast to run some of your apps.

I still feel it to be a more stable and cleaner OS than XP any time. It doesn't have all the crap that comes with XP to make it User Friendly so you can be more selective to what is on your machine. And I had fewer problems with it than any other OS I've ever used, granted that is only a handful (~8). The main "selling" points for me was its stability and it being cleaner than XP. Shadow Copies was also pretty cool IMO
 
About the only real advantage I see to installing 2003 in this situation is that it'll impress easily impressed people.

"d00d, check me out!!! My rig's running Windows Server 2003!! PH34r M3!@@#"
 
Originally posted by ShockValue
Linux.

Unless you're really stuck on Windows, then stick with XP.
When was the last time you saw a new release from Microsoft that had LESS bloat? :)
Click to expand...
This was my thought as well.

If you want specifics: Fedora Core 1. It's so damn easy to install and setup, and it takes ~30minutes from start to finish ( including the reboot ).

But, if you don't want linux, windows xp pro would be what I recommend. Just remember to keep updated on your patches, and install an antivirus. Oh, and you will want to use a different browser and email client than the default, for security reasons. I recommend mozilla for both email and web.
 
I've been running win2k3 server for a while now. Very damn stable, and clean as most people have stated.

Runs every game I've thrown at it, and believe me I have a pretty damn big game collection. Thankfully I have a decent job that can feed the need if you will :).

The only thing that sucks is that Diskeeper won't work unless I get the server version :(.

Cheers,

Mr. Pain
 
XP is better for running games, multimedia, etc. While 2003 is better for networking, running a webserver, etc.
 
Originally posted by darktiger
XP is better for running games, multimedia, etc. While 2003 is better for networking, running a webserver, etc.
Click to expand...

For games I'd say the 2 are about on par. To tell you the truth, memory bandwidth (synthetic) benchmarks are about 100-150 MB/s faster under 2k3 for me.

As far as media goes, XP wins hands down. I've had some quirky results with Zoom Player and 2k3, as well as some problems with the PVR software that comes with the Leadtek Winfast TV 2000.

Over all though win2k3 is a lot more responsive, stable, and clean OS to deal with.

I'd say it's been about 6 months since I've had a crash, and/or blue screen, etc.

Cheers,

Mr. Pain
 
I have used Windows Server 2003 and is does feel quite a bit faster than Windows XP, with stock configurations. Once you tweak out Windows XP though it becomes a faster OS and should work better for just about everything non-server related. I have found that I can tweak out XP a lot more than I can Server 2003. I also recently picked up a copy of XPLite, allowing me to make XP even less bloated and run even faster than I had ever though possible.
 
Isn't there a 64bit version of W2k3? I wonder how that would work with my A64 box?
 
are all you 2k3 guys happy to dish out the $AU1.3K to use on ya desktop? it's painfull enough paying for XP...
 
Originally posted by AchTuNG!
are all you 2k3 guys happy to dish out the $AU1.3K to use on ya desktop? it's painfull enough paying for XP...
Click to expand...

Not all of us had to pay that much :)

I recieved a copy from a friend that works at MS.

Cheers,

Mr. Pain
 
win2k3 = more control via .msc files that do not ship w/ XP Pro.
= cleaner environment
= faster kernel and lighter
= similar enough to xp that...

the only problem I have had with 2k3 is O&O defrag. Had to get server edition Besides that, I have been able to install xp drivers and programs from my xp partition. In most cases I am able to run programs straight off my xp partition w/o installing on 2k3 w/o seeing a performace decrease.

Games tested are NFSU and Madden 2k4. Got a slight performance boost from both.

convert to desktop from server here
 
Originally posted by Stinger836
Yes there is a 64bit version of 2003 Server. 2 infact. The enterprise edition and the Datacenter edition will run with the Intel Itanium, not sure about the A64 but they say they are 64 bit so I don't see why not.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/sysreqs/default.mspx
Click to expand...

The version you linked to is for IA64 systems. IA64 and AMD64 software is not compatable. The AMD64 versions aren't yet finished but I think the betas can still be downloaded for free:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/extended/trial/default.mspx
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top