• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

os for quadcore

gorobei

gorobei

Diamond Member
running W2K (with oc'd e4300 to 3ghz) on my workstation rig. Got a C2Q6600 to upgrade and now I find out that 2K only supports 2 cores.

Is it worth it to make server2003 function like a workstation or just get vista x64 Basic edition?

I generally prefer the low bloat of 2K and the absence of "activation" given that I like to tweak the parts every so often.

 
Originally posted by: gorobei
running W2K (with oc'd e4300 to 3ghz) on my workstation rig. Got a C2Q6600 to upgrade and now I find out that 2K only supports 2 cores.

Is it worth it to make server2003 function like a workstation or just get vista x64 Basic edition?

I generally prefer the low bloat of 2K and the absence of "activation" given that I like to tweak the parts every so often.
Click to expand...

Hard choice. They really nerfed Vista Home-{whatever} very badly / stupidly in ways that might be hard for you to deal with if you're used to W2k or a server OS.

e.g. "Simple File Sharing", no real usability of group policy, no real usability of file security ACLs / Permissions, no real account based security restrictions, activation headaches, lots of "pretty" with lots less "stable", no ability to join a domain, no RDP server, etc. etc.

But if you don't care about the broken security / professional type networking and sysadmin stuff, yeah Vista Home is a good cheap choice.

If you want something that works like a modern version of W2k but with "workstation" features then go with Vista Business, it's only about $110 or so for the OEM version IIRC. You get activation headaches, and some more bugs / slow downs with networking performance and file I/O performance (though it's somewhat better in SP1), but otherwise it is mostly fairly fully featured.

NTBACKUP kind of blows chunks in every verion of VISTA if you really used / liked the old XP version, though IMHO that sucked in its own ways. I'd get a real 3rd party backup solution whatever you do.

server2003? Yeah I guess if it supports your chipset and has drivers for your hardware and your workstation oriented software / drivers won't refuse to install on it... I'd worry a bit about security and software/driver compatibility mainly. Otherwise I'm sure it's as good as W2K.

There's always the Server 2008 they're giving out 1-year trial versions of at their heroes happen here events and stuff... probably less nerfed than Vista Business, though I don't know how good it is as a workstation OS.

Not to be a LINUX / UNIX fanboi (well I am, but I'm just objectively saying here...) .. but if you have some apps. that need 4 core support and 64 bits are you sure they don't run well on LINUX or whatever? A few of the distributed computing things and most major database stuff etc. will do that fine. And if you remaining windows specific needs are along the lines of what you could have done fine in W2K, hell, just run W2K in a virtual machine and run the rest of your non-performance-critical stuff that way...
It isn't like a lot of Windows apps. use 4 cores very well and 64 bits. Photoshop doesn't, Visual Studio doesn't... Microsoft Office doesn't... etc.


 
I thought Win2K, XP Pro and Vista all supported up to two sockets not two cores. In theory, you should be able to run two quad cores under Win2K since it's by the socket and not the core.
 
I thought Win2K, XP Pro and Vista all supported up to two sockets not two cores. In theory, you should be able to run two quad cores under Win2K since it's by the socket and not the core.
Click to expand...

Win2K can't distinguish between cores and sockets, they added that in XP.
 
Originally posted by: gorobei
running W2K (with oc'd e4300 to 3ghz) on my workstation rig. Got a C2Q6600 to upgrade and now I find out that 2K only supports 2 cores.

Is it worth it to make server2003 function like a workstation or just get vista x64 Basic edition?

I generally prefer the low bloat of 2K and the absence of "activation" given that I like to tweak the parts every so often.
Click to expand...

Well Windows 2000 server supports 4 cpu's, which would solve your problem whilst enabling you to keep the familiarity with 2K Pro.

No activation, and doesn't really need tweaking to use as a workstation.

Just a thought if you were able to get a copy. 🙂
 
Thanks all for the responses. Very helpful


-Trying to avoid XP and VISTA as long as i can, even skipping them for the next MS OS if possible. Just too many low adoption-infrequent drivers issues.

-Its a stand alone machine(or at least as close as i can get) no internet connection, no full time network connection(crossover cable for any big transfers), no need for shares.

-I do 3d cg work, so a quad core does scale linearly in terms of performance when rendering and simulation. If nothing else, it allows you to render one scene and continue working on another scene or app. (Back in in the old days, TDs would light a scene and take a walk. The first frame would be done 20 minutes later.)

-Thanks Canterwood, I forgot about 2K server. I think that's what I'm looking for. Found a couple of places selling OEM multi packs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top