Using windows server 2003 as regular desktop os?

[Kinesis]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

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...

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

Oh I so totally agree....

 

[chorner]

who cares .... maybe some people would like to learn how to use Server 2003's features and learn how to setup a DNS etc. using it, while also having it as their day-to-day desktop. Nothing wrong with that. Maybe he'll like the hassle; and learn the innards of server alot faster that way.

Honestly if some kid, or university student can't afford the software, but is crucial to them learning then I say f* off to everyone else, and pirate the damn software. Learning is learning ... and one day when the kid learns to use the software instead of reading about it in a textbook, he'll be able to make enough money to eventually go out and buy his next copy. It all evens out. Now if the school provides it, obviously theres no need to pirate ... but come on.

I know you'll flame me and say "stealing is stealing" but with software being used as a learning tool its a little different. Its damn expensive; even with your student discounts to go to school, study, pay for everything, learn to be self-sufficient and have some fun at the same time so you don't go nuts.

jinduy, install the damn copy of Server 2003, have fun with it ... and tell everyone else to F*off thats what you get when you ask for peoples opinions on a forum, only the cranky a@@'es reply

Just like theres no need for a $200,000 Ferarri to drive to work .. doesn't mean you shouldn't have fun with it!

 

[mrchen]

Why the hell does everyone flame on windows xp, ive notice people are talking about windows xp being the worst os, and they usually switch to windows 2000 pro, or 98. The truth is windows xp is a very stable os.

 

[SpeedFreak03]

Originally posted by: mrchen
Why the hell does everyone flame on windows xp, ive notice people are talking about windows xp being the worst os, and they usually switch to windows 2000 pro, or 98. The truth is windows xp is a very stable os.

I didnt know people flamed on XP! And if someone switches from XP to 98, then dont take any advice from them. Its usually the other way around (people switching to XP, not from it). So where the hell did u get the idea that people flame on XP (except in a thread with a lot of linux lovers lol)?

 

[EeyoreX]

who cares .... maybe some people would like to learn how to use Server 2003's features and learn how to setup a DNS etc. using it, while also having it as their day-to-day desktop. Nothing wrong with that. Maybe he'll like the hassle; and learn the innards of server alot faster that way.

Honestly if some kid, or university student can't afford the software, but is crucial to them learning then I say f* off to everyone else, and pirate the damn software. Learning is learning ... and one day when the kid learns to use the software instead of reading about it in a textbook, he'll be able to make enough money to eventually go out and buy his next copy. It all evens out. Now if the school provides it, obviously theres no need to pirate ... but come on.

I know you'll flame me and say "stealing is stealing" but with software being used as a learning tool its a little different. Its damn expensive; even with your student discounts to go to school, study, pay for everything, learn to be self-sufficient and have some fun at the same time so you don't go nuts.

jinduy, install the damn copy of Server 2003, have fun with it ... and tell everyone else to F*off thats what you get when you ask for peoples opinions on a forum, only the cranky a@@'es reply

Just like theres no need for a $200,000 Ferarri to drive to work .. doesn't mean you shouldn't have fun with it!

The short answer to this tiraid:

He states in his original post and in his thread title he wants to use the OS as a desktop OS. Not for a learning tool. He even goes so far as to say

i understand that it's main purpose is to be a server but how bad can it be as a desktop os?

Any, reasonably intelligent person (or maybe one that took the time to read the sublties of the post. Oh wait, there was no subtlty...) would see that his purpose is stated to use the OS not as a server but as a desktop. Any reasonably intelligent person will not suggest that by turning off the server services, or turning on services that render the server no longer a server, would not try to claim that the OS is being used as a "learning tool". He does not state it is "crucial" for him to learn the server, and in fact that doesn't seem like a goal at all. Certainly not a stated goal, nor even an implied goal. In any case, based on the few quotes I see in your post, my fiend, you likely to be a fine candidate for some "enforced vacations".

\Dan

 

[chorner]

Dan, dudeeeee .... how dull can you be?

He asked wether he could use Server 2003 (and NOT XP or any other OS) as a desktop OS, and the simple answer to that is YES he can. As stated, he can obtain Windows Server 2003 free from his school for personal use; again not some other OS like XP Pro, Windows Server 2003. So, any reasonably intelligent person that took the time to read the "subtleties" (p.s- that is how you spell it, and is a rather crude use of the word in this sense ... you're a moron) of the post would suggest that yes indeed he CAN -as this is a fact- use Server 2003 as a "desktop" OS if he so pleases.

As for stating "who cares .... maybe some people would like to learn how to use Server 2003's features ...." it was a general statement; alas you're boasting intelligence so you should've picked up on that, no? If you had read the other posts of general banter trying to tell him "he can, but why would he want to -use Server 2003 as a desktop OS-" you would understand the rather general nature of my post.

Sounding intelligent, and being intelligent is a whole different ballgame pal ... sorry to break your bubble.

\Cody

 

[txxxx]

A friend of mine also used it as a Desktop O/S alternative, it worked well with applications and general performance was a little more responsive than WinXP Pro, although maybe due to kernel differences, drivers for his Audigy soundcard didnt work.

So its possible. The only problem I can see you having is a few issues with applications like Norton AntiVirus, which actually do check if your running a server based O/S.

 

[EeyoreX]

Cody, dooooood... I'll skip the name-calling. Not only am I am also more mature than to feel the need, I also manage follow my own sage advice:

A selection from your response:

If you had read the other posts of general banter trying to tell him "he can, but why would he want to -use Server 2003 as a desktop OS-" you would understand the rather general nature of my post.

Now, if you were a fraction as intelligent as you imply you are, you would see, from "read[ing] the other posts of general banter" that I actually contributed to this "he can but..." discussion. I may not have such a good memory for things. And I admit to being a horrendous speller. But if that's the worst of my problems, I'll be okay.

Well, yes. You can run it as a desktop OS...

I have a suggestion for you, Mr. Spelling Police and supposed human intelligence meter. Take your own advice, and actually read all of the posts before you open your proverbial mouth. When you take the time to try and insult someone else and their intelligence, better make sure you aren't saying or doing something stupid in the process, after all "Sounding intelligent, and being intelligent is a whole different ballgame pal ..."

\Dan

PS: I humbly apologize for my misspelling. I suppose our friendly Officer Spelling Bee never misspells a word. I am terribly sorry for all those who were offended by my obvious dreadful error?

 

[chorner]

Dan,

Incase you didn't understand, you made a smirk remark about "any reasonably intelligent person...." which was in direct response to my statement. So, we'll leave it at that ... you insulted me directly in the first place so obviously its only natural I would come back at you. I really don't see how you equate intelligence with reading all of the posts, as somebody of more intelligence wouldn't need to actually read ALL of the posts to make an educated addition to the discussion.

As for my post, it was an addition to the conversation as I could see the thread was turning in that direction anyhow. Thats all; now as for why you were so offended by it we don't know ... one could only speculate Please not that I said "who cares .... maybe some people would like to learn how to use Server 2003's features ....." and more importantly note that I said "maybe SOME PEOPLE ..." as in general; and that under the circumstance he (or anybody who wished to mess around with S2003 ) would infact enjoy it.

Why so bitter? Did you try and convert 2003 to a useful desktop machine and fail? Funny how ironically I mentioned only the cranky a@@es reply .... case in point Dan.

P.S- Apology accepted and btw, by your Signature one can easily tell you're having a power struggle with yourself over your own measure of intelligence. Perhaps you think you're superior?

Interesting quotes you chose .... but why chose the quote and publicly display them? Are these quotes not of personal favourites?
Why do you feel the need to share quotes so obviously tied in with the intelligence of others?

"Now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet

virii defined: Incorrect pluralization of "virus", used by people who want to make themselves look smarter.


I bet you fantasize all the time about how "powerful" you are -when infact it is only a daydream-, and rehearse hero scenarios through your mind on a daily basis, taking much longer than needed to do any chore you take on because of incessant distractions, and lack of memory ... merely because you fantasize of your own intelligence.

Do you ever do things when around others, or on your own, and rehearse how others might have perceived that as being intelligent, or of a superior thinking? I would put money on the table on that one ...

Take it easy Dan, don't let your inferiority complex get in the way!

 

[spyordie007]

no need to argue guys.

Q. Can you run Windows 2003 Server as a desktop OS?
A. Yes; however it will offer you nothing that you would need on a desktop OS that Windows XP Pro does not offer. Once more it is by far more expensive, you will have a number of applications that may not work and your multimedia experience will be somewhat deminished.

And on to other stuff:

Just like theres no need for a $200,000 Ferarri to drive to work .. doesn't mean you shouldn't have fun with it!

An interesting analogy however you are missing the point; a Ferarri is a passenger car taken to the extreme (best) therefore if you can afford to drive a Ferarri to work it is perfectly reasonable thing to do. If you want a fair analogy than consider this, "using Windows 2003 Server as a desktop OS is more akin to driving an 18 wheel Mac truck to work"; it will still get you from A to B however Windows XP Pro is more suited to your commuting needs (and it costs about 1/3 as much) therefore it is the best option to use as a Desktop OS.

If you want to learn 2003 server than I totally understand your desire to learn its features, etc. If that is the case learn to use it as a server and not as a desktop (which will greatly resemble XP Pro after tweaking).

Lastly,
Fact: Windows 2003 Server is not more stable or faster than Windows XP Pro. once you have enabled multimedia components on it and run it as a desktop OS. It is only more stable when not running multimedia components because it's not running the multimedia components that will make the system "less stable."

I dont think I'm making any gross spelling errors here but can you see my point?

-Spy

 

[chorner]

dude ... he's NOT PAYING FOR IT. So why nto use it if thats what he has access to, and further more is FREE.

Btw, your analogy smells If Server 2003 were like a 18wheel Mac Truck, then explain to me how in relation you could strip down a 18wheeler of all its bells and whistles (in direct comparison, Servers "extra features" in this case) and have it perform as well as your average "sports car" lets say (and in direct comparison, this would be your Windows XP).

Answer : you can't. You can however strip a Ferarri of its sport brakes, high performance engine, short shifter etc. and still have it perform as well as your regular sports car, assuming you stripped it of the "extra performance features" and replaced it with the same engine etc. as the sports car. In this case, in a direct comparison .. you would have your stripped down Server 2003, to be like your average sports car in every way, but is labeled Server 2003 (hence, a Ferarri, with its performance parts ripped out .. but still the same shell.

Understand now? Never was it really meant to be taken so deeply; but the analogy holds better than your 18wheel Max truck

If I had Server 2003 for FREE, and knew it could be used perfectly fine (and as well as Windows XP pro) then you could bet I would be all over it, even if I had to strip it down and turn on a handful of services ... hell, I go into XP pro and turn off half the useless run services as it is .. be the same with Server 2003, except now I don't have to install a new OS if I descide I want to mess with Servers extras.

Thank you and good day lol

 

[chorner]

"...but how bad can it be as a desktop os?"

Not too bad at all ... actually perfectly fine.

Nowhere do I see a "shove XP down my throat because oh nooo you wouldn't want to have server and turn on a few services ... even though its FREE"

lol unbelieveable!

 

[Wik]

Heck yeah I would run it as a desktop OS if all I had was Win98. Tweak it to your needs as a workstation box and enjoy.

 

[JonnyBlaze]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
no need to argue guys.

Q. Can you run Windows 2003 Server as a desktop OS?
A. Yes; however it will offer you nothing that you would need on a desktop OS that Windows XP Pro does not offer. Once more it is by far more expensive, you will have a number of applications that may not work and your multimedia experience will be somewhat deminished.

is windows xp is a ferrari, 2k3 would be a suv ferrari. just as fast and stable, if not more, but can do alot more. its got iis6 built in which winxp only has 5.

and i dont understand why you think the multimedia experienced is diminished. iv never had my pc so intergrated into my home thearter as it is now. running a server os here, i can have enormous control over what my son can / cant do on his pc in his bedroom also. its great.

to anyone who wants to trk 2k3 as a desktop os, you got nothing to loose.

JBLaze

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
I find Windows 2003 more tweaked and tuned then Windows XP. I wish there was a workstation or desktop version.

Sigh. It's called XP SP1.
Bill

 

[Sunner]

For one thing, I find it odd that a university would offer 2K3 Server and not XP.
Assuming you can get both for free, or close to free, there's no reason to run 2K3 on your desktop unless you actually need to run it for development purposes or something similar.

That's a good enough reason, no? That there is no reason.

Aside from that, as many have pointed out, there are many system utilities that won't work properly/at all on the Server versions.
I had Win2K Server setup on one of my desktops at home once, to get myself up to speed a bit about AD, and even some games wouldn't install on it.

And if you don't like the truck analogy and prefer the Ferrari one, how about this?
Win2K3 Server is a Ferrari 360 Challenge while WinXP is a regular 360.
Sure, you can make the Challenge behave just like a regular 360, but why not just get the regular 360 and save yourself the trouble?

 

[geekender]

Just fyi, but the MSDN Academic Alliance is great for schools to help out their students. Its around $800 a year, not 25k to 30k. We get all of the OS's (including Longhorn) in one price and can distribute it to all of our CIS students free of charge.

 

[InlineFive]

Originally posted by: jinduy

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.

awesome that's what i want... i hate xp's eye candy

You can turn off the eye candy and make WinXP look just like 2000/2003. That's what I do and there isn't a difference. Besides, sometimes Server 2003 has game issues if you care about that stuff where as XP doesn't.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: geekender
Just fyi, but the MSDN Academic Alliance is great for schools to help out their students. Its around $800 a year, not 25k to 30k. We get all of the OS's (including Longhorn) in one price and can distribute it to all of our CIS students free of charge.

If you have Longhorn now than it is Illegal. Longhorn will not be released (no not even for schools) until 2005.

 

[chorner]

who said he had it? lol ... doofus

 

[chorner]

btw, .99 will never equal 1

It may only ~= 1 , as infinite as you may place 9's after .99 it is still a very SMALL fraction away from being 1.

1 is just the best answer, not an exact answer.

But; I guess thats why you wrote it .999 != 1 : in programming terms, that would be .999 does NOT equal 1 haha

 

[stash]

Ok first off, chorner, grow up.

Second, spyordie...Longhorn is available to download for MSDN subscribers. It is the preview version that was also handed out the PDC conference at the end of October. Now I doubt that a school with an MSDN subscription should or would be distributing Longhorn to its students. But there are legititmate copies of the OS available.

 

[Wik]

I spent the holiday weekend out of town visiting friends. We wanted to do some gaming, and needed to use a Windows 2003 server machine as a gamer. We enabled directx, installed the latest video drivers, and turned performance towards applications instead of back ground services. It worked just fine playing games like COD, MTA, RON, and many others.

 

[poppyq]

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

Don't know about you but I thought if you had a crash that would take away from 100% stable. Maybe the rules of math HAVE changed

 

[poppyq]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

Originally posted by: geekender
Just fyi, but the MSDN Academic Alliance is great for schools to help out their students. Its around $800 a year, not 25k to 30k. We get all of the OS's (including Longhorn) in one price and can distribute it to all of our CIS students free of charge.

If you have Longhorn now than it is Illegal. Longhorn will not be released (no not even for schools) until 2005.

I have longhorn at work, granted I don't use it, but we have it and I can guarantee you it's not illegal