Should I switch to server 2003 from XP

[TheSiege]

So I can get a decent deal on server 2003 and i am wondering if i should switch.
My server is currently running dual P3s at 950mhz 2 gigs of ram and about a terebyte of hard drives. The only reason i thought about switching is because of VPN functionality. besides multiples users being logged on at one time what are the other benefits of server 2003 with VPN and what are any other perks?

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: TheSiege
So I can get a decent deal on server 2003 and i am wondering if i should switch.
My server is currently running dual P3s at 950mhz 2 gigs of ram and about a terebyte of hard drives. The only reason i thought about switching is because of VPN functionality. besides multiples users being logged on at one time what are the other benefits of server 2003 with VPN and what are any other perks?

What do you need in 2003 that isn't present in XP?

Why do you need VPN?

 

[TheSiege]

well that is kinda what i am asking, what does it have over XP, but i used VPN for family members to access my files

 

[dclive]

What do you want to do that you can't do with XP?

Which version of XP?

 

[TheSiege]

xp pro, vpn on xp pro only allows one connection, but this alone isnt worth getting server 2003 so i am wondering what else server 2003 can do that xp pro cant

 

[dclive]

Remote Desktop can accommodate most needs, rather than going to VPN. Have you tried that?

Again, can you tell me why you'd want to go to 2003? Perhaps I'm not understanding your answers, but I have yet to see a reason, aside from VPN. What are your exact needs that aren't being met now?

 

[Megatomic]

The way I'm reading his request is that he can get 2003 but doesn't know if he should or not. Is there anything he can utilize in 2003 that he doesn't have in XP Pro that would be worth the switch? Apparently the deal on 2003 is good enough that he's willing to consider the move.

 

[TheSiege]

exactly, and so far the only reason i have for switching to 2003 is vpn capabilities

 

[postmortemIA]

Server does much faster remote connection.

 

[dclive]

How so? What do you mean by that?

 

[postmortemIA]

I don't know, just response is stellar with same connection. Ever connected to server with remote connection and then to xp machine? you'll notice the difference.

 

[RebateMonger]

What are your needs? It sounds like you are a single user?

If you REALLY need Server 2003, then I'd likely recommend SBS 2003 instead, since it's cheaper and has many more features. But most single users have no need for either product.

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
I don't know, just response is stellar with same connection. Ever connected to server with remote connection and then to xp machine? you'll notice the difference.

I have. RDP is the same, and performance is the same. What, exactly, are you saying is different?

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: dclive

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
I don't know, just response is stellar with same connection. Ever connected to server with remote connection and then to xp machine? you'll notice the difference.

I have. RDP is the same, and performance is the same. What, exactly, are you saying is different?

ditto, I've connected to both and, as long set the "Experience" to modem in the connection options, they both are just as quick and responsive.

To the OP, just know that for every connection into your 2003 server, you will need to purchase a CAL. The cost of CALs is a big reason to go with SBS instead. But if your current needs are being met, I would just stick with what you got.

Also, if you want more VPN connections, you might consider OpenVPN on your Windows XP machine. It's a bit complicated to setup, but then so is VPN under Windows 2003 (it is VERY different on 2003 compared to XP).