Dual Core and Windows...

[Papajin]

Hello all!

Just wondering if anybody is aware of any performance advantages or disadvantages between running a small dual core server on Windows XP Pro vs. Windows Server 2003 (standard)? I'm not looking to a run a full-fledged domain network here, but the machine will be doing light file serving, sql server, as well as being used as a secondary gaming machine -- some or all of these may occur at the same time.

Anyone have any insights on which OS is likely to perform best across the board?

 

[13Gigatons]

I love Windows Server 2003 and it will do all the things you want with exception to the gaming which it really isn't intended for but can be hacked to work.

I'd recommend downloading the 180 day evalution version first: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/downloads/trialsoftware/default.mspx

After 180 days you will know whether it does the job for you.

 

[Nothinman]

Win2K3 is based on XP, they'll perform virtually the same.

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Win2K3 is based on XP, they'll perform virtually the same.

That's not entirely true, they changed a lot under the hood of W2K3 which means not all apps will run exactly as they do with WinXP. Some virus scanners and software firewall don't support 2k3 either. You can install zone alarm but it says that it doesn't support 2003 at all so you can't complain if something goes wrong.

 

[Papajin]

I love Windows Server 2003 and it will do all the things you want with exception to the gaming which it really isn't intended for but can be hacked to work.

I'm actually running on it on the brand new machine now. I was fiddling with the domain stuff, but honestly it seems like a lot of hassle for managing one user (me). I'm not sure it provides any notable benefits over sticking with a peer-2-peer setup on a 3-machine network, so unless I see something that talks me into sticking with a domain, I'll probably go back to workgroups.

Functionally, it not's that far different from XP Pro which I run on my personal machine. It seems a bit more geared towards server use, but other than that, it's functionally identical (though looks more like 2k). Getting my 3d card working didn't take any real effort -- I don't think it's that 2003 doesn't support gaming so much as it's disabled by default for obvious reasons. I did have to install the XP drivers for my Nvidia card which seemed to function just fine, and turning the 3d hardware acceleration on seemed to fix the gaming issue, though admittedly I haven't actually tested it out any gaming yet -- haven't really had the time.

I guess I'm mostly just fishing for whether or not it may be better optimized for dual cpu (or in this case dual core) performance over what XP is, or if they're essentially the same in that regard. I was hoping, depending on responses, that a clear-cut choice would show itself so I could install one and be done with it. I guess if I had to choose right now and performance was nearly equal, I'd probably still go with 2003 simply because I'd have some other functionality waiting on there server-wise if I ever needed it, that XP may or may not provide.

For reference, my setup is basically 1 file server (which is what we're talking about in this thread), 1 personal gaming/development machine, and 1 media server. The file server has a raid 5 setup on it, that will mostly be feeding files to the media server so I can keep most of the hot and loud hard drives remote from the HTPC.

I have licensed copies of both 2003 standard and XP Pro here already which I obtained via Microsoft's Partner Program through their Action Pack subscription, so this is purely a question based on which will perform best, rather than a most bang for the buck sort of question.

 

[Nothinman]

That's not entirely true, they changed a lot under the hood of W2K3 which means not all apps will run exactly as they do with WinXP. Some virus scanners and software firewall don't support 2k3 either. You can install zone alarm but it says that it doesn't support 2003 at all so you can't complain if something goes wrong.

I said it's based on XP, which is true. And the incompatibilities you listed are just another reason to not try running Win2K3 as a desktop.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Win2K3 is based on XP, they'll perform virtually the same.

That's not entirely true, they changed a lot under the hood of W2K3 which means not all apps will run exactly as they do with WinXP. Some virus scanners and software firewall don't support 2k3 either. You can install zone alarm but it says that it doesn't support 2003 at all so you can't complain if something goes wrong.

No, a lot has not changed under the hood with W2K3. W2K3 was the same code base (just newer at release). W2K SP1 and XP 64bit are the same build set, for example.

Now some features aren't available on XP (full IIS), and some aren't available on W2K3 (UPnP support). But that has nothign to do with 'under the hood' changes your claiming.