• 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.

Using windows server 2003 as regular desktop os?

J

jinduy

Diamond Member
my school is offering me the software for free to dl...i was wondering if it would be okay to install because I have windows 98 as my current OS on a 1ghz p3 machine. i understand that it's main purpose is to be a server but how bad can it be as a desktop os?
 
I would say it could make a good desktop OS. You aren't going to have all the fancy graphics and look of XP, but you will have a good and stable OS.
 
Originally posted by: dmurray14
I would say it could make a good desktop OS. You aren't going to have all the fancy graphics and look of XP, but you will have a good and stable OS.
Click to expand...

awesome that's what i want... i hate xp's eye candy
 
I use iit as a standard Desktop OS and it works great. Especially nice for programming/development and buring CD's.

Just my experience tho... 🙂
 
I tried to use it, but when I went to use the internet it told me to go to a workstation. It took a while but I got it connected. I installed NHL2003 on it and it basically told me to f******. But other than those problems I liked it
 
Yeah you will like it much better than Win98. As for gaming, right click on the desktop, go to settings tab, click advanced, go to troubleshooting tab, and move the "Hardware Accelleration" bar all the way up to "Full". That will let u play most games, so I've read. But remember it is pointless to use a server OS as a desktop. Also, where the hell did ur school get enough money to let people download a ~$1000 OS? Oh well...
 
Hehe my company paid out the ass for that os. I run the eval version of it for my desktop and it runs everything fine. It also has the pretty desktop like xp ther isnt alot of diff cept not a lot of multimedia support.
 
Originally posted by: SpeedFreak03
Yeah you will like it much better than Win98. As for gaming, right click on the desktop, go to settings tab, click advanced, go to troubleshooting tab, and move the "Hardware Accelleration" bar all the way up to "Full". That will let u play most games, so I've read. But remember it is pointless to use a server OS as a desktop. Also, where the hell did ur school get enough money to let people download a ~$1000 OS? Oh well...
Click to expand...
It's probably a trial version with a limited time period, rather than trying to hack up Windows 2003 Server to get it to run like Windows XP Pro I would reccomed that you start with Windows XP Pro. It sounds like the only problem you have with XP Pro is a dislike for the interface, fortunetly it takes less than 30 seconds to change it to look like Windows 2000.

-Spy
 
Originally posted by: Kinesis
I use iit as a standard Desktop OS and it works great. Especially nice for programming/development and buring CD's.

Just my experience tho... 🙂
Click to expand...
Again, no need for a $1000 Server OS to burn CDs, XP Pro will do both of these and it's by far cheaper (not to mention supported).

-Spy
 
Originally posted by: spyordie007
Originally posted by: SpeedFreak03
Yeah you will like it much better than Win98. As for gaming, right click on the desktop, go to settings tab, click advanced, go to troubleshooting tab, and move the "Hardware Accelleration" bar all the way up to "Full". That will let u play most games, so I've read. But remember it is pointless to use a server OS as a desktop. Also, where the hell did ur school get enough money to let people download a ~$1000 OS? Oh well...
Click to expand...
It's probably a trial version with a limited time period, rather than trying to hack up Windows 2003 Server to get it to run like Windows XP Pro I would reccomed that you start with Windows XP Pro. It sounds like the only problem you have with XP Pro is a dislike for the interface, fortunetly it takes less than 30 seconds to change it to look like Windows 2000.

-Spy
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree 100%. But I read that some where and it might help some crazy little warez kid that needs a job with too much time on his hands...get his win2k3 server running

 
You can use it as a desktop if you want to. Are they letting you download the trail and try it for 180 days? If so you can try it, tough have your win98 disk rdy soon b/c the 180 days will run out and theres noway to get back into windows even safemode is locked out.

GL, theres abunch of workstation from server guides.
 
my school offers it to us for free i believe... i currently have windows xp installed , which was also offered to us for free, on my other desktop at home home (i live by my school). other free software includes vs .net 2003, access 2003, and a few others.
 
Well, yes. You can run it as a desktop OS. But if you already have XP why not just use that? It's the same thing. And XP is XP right out of the box. Server 2003 needs to be tweaked eight ways from Sunday to get it to essentially be Windows XP. That's a big PITA if you asked me. Maybe I am just not "cool" because I would rather run XP like XP (even with the "eyecandy" turned off) rather than work to run Server 2003 like XP...

Oh yeah, and things like antivirus software and disk utilities. Be prepared to shell out soe bux for those. The OS might be free from your school (probably while you are a student, once you graduate, no more free software) chances are they are not giving away server versions of antivirus software and other utilites. Most desktop versions will not work with server software. Yet another reason to stick with a desktop OS.

\Dan
 
Originally posted by: EeyoreX
Well, yes. You can run it as a desktop OS. But if you already have XP why not just use that? It's the same thing. And XP is XP right out of the box. Server 2003 needs to be tweaked eight ways from Sunday to get it to essentially be Windows XP. That's a big PITA if you asked me. Maybe I am just not "cool" because I would rather run XP like XP (even with the "eyecandy" turned off) rather than work to run Server 2003 like XP...

Oh yeah, and things like antivirus software and disk utilities. Be prepared to shell out soe bux for those. The OS might be free from your school (probably while you are a student, once you graduate, no more free software) chances are they are not giving away server versions of antivirus software and other utilites. Most desktop versions will not work with server software. Yet another reason to stick with a desktop OS.

\Dan
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better myself. I've seen a number of people say their school gives them "free" software. Normally it's someone at the helpdesk that is confused and thinks he can install the software anywhere he wants. Almost all license agreements for school state it can be installed on ANY computer that the SCHOOL owns not a student owns. Giving away a $1000 server OS seems highly unlikely to me....at least legitimaly.

 
Originally posted by: SpeedFreak03
Yeah you will like it much better than Win98. As for gaming, right click on the desktop, go to settings tab, click advanced, go to troubleshooting tab, and move the "Hardware Accelleration" bar all the way up to "Full". That will let u play most games, so I've read. But remember it is pointless to use a server OS as a desktop. Also, where the hell did ur school get enough money to let people download a ~$1000 OS? Oh well...
Click to expand...

Most schools, including the university I attend, have educational licenses with Microsoft so that, for a riduculous amount of money (25 - 30k$ a year), they can install any microsoft product they want and distribute it to their students.

What's funny is the before we got that deal, the IT department at university were like :" MS is sooo bad, their software sucks and we prefer our student to learn to use linux and Unix for it is better, and definitely the future. But last year, they received a full MS license, and every single computer is now running WinXP with MS Office, MS project, MS Visual Studio...
 
Originally posted by: Mavrick
Originally posted by: SpeedFreak03
What's funny is the before we got that deal, the IT department at university were like :" MS is sooo bad, their software sucks and we prefer our student to learn to use linux and Unix for it is better, and definitely the future. But last year, they received a full MS license, and every single computer is now running WinXP with MS Office, MS project, MS Visual Studio...
Click to expand...

No kidding. I hate when universities sell out like that. If your going to corporate cubicle work or accounting or other computer end-user only stuff like that, then I could see students wanting MS-only stuff, but if your realy into computer science or studying to be a database engineer or administrator having MS-only is a big mistake. Not a big majority, but most computers that aren't desktops are not running windows, and the vast majority will have network'ed OSes interacting with each other. Linux, Unix, OS X, Netware, whatever.

This is a pretty common phenominon for MS to offer huge discounts to universities and stuff. If you want a REAL opinion ask the people whose job maintain those computers.

At the local university were I attended some classes they are so bad that they have credit card hand-outs and advertisements in some of the hallways and in the campus newsletter/newspaper. And here I thought it was a place of learning, not a mini-mall. I suppose some people would do anything for money and not care about actively contributing the huge problem of big student debt after graduation.

BTW
At my community college they belong to a program (which I assumed was pretty common) were they offered MS operating systems and some stuff like visual programming tools free of charge to students who were in computer-administrative/programming classes. They were the full fledged deal with no 180-day restrictions and you could use them indefinately, but only had the normal support and updates for as long as you attended classes.
(I agree with this program since it doesn't force things down the student's throat)

I had at one point (since uninstalled them) w2k, w2k server, w2k advanced server, w2k advanced database server, and XP. I tried them out for a few days until I got bored and went back to Linux. (I think I'll have to get w2k3 now and keep it on a seperate machine)

However, we had to sign for each copy of the installation CD and they were kept track of to prevent pirating. We had to return the installation media. We didn't download them. 😕
Click to expand...
 
I find Windows 2003 more tweaked and tuned then Windows XP. I wish there was a workstation or desktop version but I guess we will have to wait til the 64 bit version for the Athlon 64 and Opteron arrives cause it's based on Windows 2003.
 
it all stems from the same codebase.

if you really want to run some "cool" windows OS than go find yourself a copy of Longhorn
 
Originally posted by: spyordie007
it all stems from the same codebase.

if you really want to run some "cool" windows OS than go find yourself a copy of Longhorn
Click to expand...


The code base has been improved since XP was released. Windows 2003 is noticeable quicker and more stable. Microsoft took it's sweet time releasing Windows 2003 and the extra work shows. Longhorn should be pretty nice as well since there going wait til 2006 before releasing it.
 
More stable? On what, exactly, do you base that? My Windows XP box has been 100% stable since I installed it. In the month it was released. I have had a total of 1 BSOD or crash. And it was my fault (I tried using a wrong driver, XP didn't like it and made me revert. This was not XPs fault, as I forced the driver install). Unless the rules of math have changed, greater than 100% stability can not be acheived. The codebase is certainly more secure. Care to provide links to some benchmarks or whatever that show me one is faster than the other doing the same tasks. I don't want to see "It's faster to me". That's hardly scientific and not reliable. The bottom line is that if you want XP, install damn XP. Don't install a $1000 server OS and "dumb it down". Use it for the purpose it was designed for: Serving.

\Dan
 
Originally posted by: EeyoreX
More stable? On what, exactly, do you base that? My Windows XP box has been 100% stable since I installed it. In the month it was released. I have had a total of 1 BSOD or crash. And it was my fault (I tried using a wrong driver, XP didn't like it and made me revert. This was not XPs fault, as I forced the driver install). Unless the rules of math have changed, greater than 100% stability can not be acheived. The codebase is certainly more secure. Care to provide links to some benchmarks or whatever that show me one is faster than the other doing the same tasks. I don't want to see "It's faster to me". That's hardly scientific and not reliable. The bottom line is that if you want XP, install damn XP. Don't install a $1000 server OS and "dumb it down". Use it for the purpose it was designed for: Serving.

\Dan
Click to expand...

I get a lot of explorer crashes for some reason but none on the windows 2003 machine. They have the same apps on both machines and the hardware is near the same. I have done 4 fresh XP installs and I always end up with the same explorer crash problems tried to track it down but just can't figure out.

 
Originally posted by: EeyoreX
More stable? On what, exactly, do you base that? My Windows XP box has been 100% stable since I installed it. In the month it was released. I have had a total of 1 BSOD or crash. And it was my fault (I tried using a wrong driver, XP didn't like it and made me revert. This was not XPs fault, as I forced the driver install). Unless the rules of math have changed, greater than 100% stability can not be acheived. The codebase is certainly more secure. Care to provide links to some benchmarks or whatever that show me one is faster than the other doing the same tasks. I don't want to see "It's faster to me". That's hardly scientific and not reliable. The bottom line is that if you want XP, install damn XP. Don't install a $1000 server OS and "dumb it down". Use it for the purpose it was designed for: Serving.

\Dan
Click to expand...

you just gotta go out and give 110 %.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top