Will all/most XP apps work on Windows Server 2003?

[Bodine]

I have a Dell 400SC at my house that I use to test things in the evening or when I work from home. It's currently running Linux, but I'd like to load Windows on it, as well. I have access to copies of Windows Server 2003 from work, but not XP. If I load 2k3, will I be able to run most/all XP apps and utilities? I'd rather not have to purchase XP if I can help it, especially since this 2nd windows box will be used primarily to test thigns before I install on my main XP workstation.

Thanks.

 

[Canterwood]

You shouldn't have too much trouble running apps unless their specifically XP only, but you'll probably need to enable things like video harware acceleration and the audio service which are disabled by default.

Hell, they even included Windows Media Player!!!

Anti virus might be a problem, as most are written for desktop OS's and may not install on a server OS, but most other stuff should work ok.

 

[imported_BikeDude]

FWIW: I even run 2003 on my laptop. Canterwood is correct wrt having to enable things, but it is much less work enabling all the stuff you need in 2003, rather than trying (sometimes in vain) to disable all the annoying features in XP.

And indeed, some software will require you to install the server version. (I use http://housecall.trendmicro.com/ from time to time and do not bother with resident virus scanners -- saves me a lot of grief!)

Oh: Some games, e.g. Rome: Total War refuses to install, but it is possible to edit the .msi file to bypass the version check. (also necessary when trying to install those games under 64-bit Windows )

 

[Bodine]

Thanks. That's the answer I was hoping for.

 

[spyordie007]

I have access to copies of Windows Server 2003 from work

Unless you have licensing to install it on your home machine this is Illegal. A volume license is not a blank-check to install it wherever you want; you are still accountable for each-and-every install.

 

[spyordie007]

(I use http://housecall.trendmicro.com/ from time to time and do not bother with resident virus scanners -- saves me a lot of grief!)

This is a really bad idea. If you knew anything about security you would be putting your effort in to stopping the viruses from getting installed in the first place. Once your machine is comprimised it's impossible to guarantee that it will ever be safe again.

There have only been a million posts here about running server 2003 as a desktop OS. If you actually read any of them you'd know that while it may be possible to run it on a desktop machine there isnt any legitimate need to do so. Really.

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
This is a really bad idea. If you knew anything about security you would be putting your effort in to stopping the viruses from getting installed in the first place. Once your machine is comprimised it's impossible to guarantee that it will ever be safe again.

I agree with your latter point, once it is infected it can be hell cleaning it up again.

But running a non-heuristic virus scanner only presents you with a false sense of security. Why do you think normal users click on all those attachments? Answer: They believe their virus definitions are up to date and up to the task at hand. If it is a new virus, it can in some cases take days before Symantec and the like get their updates ready. There is definitively a window of opportunity.

As an alternative I scrutinize each and every e-mail attachment. Is it from someone I know? Did I request the attachment? Is it even a binary? Is it a binary in disguise (a hex dump usually says a lot)? etc...

In addition I disable Active-X, Java and JavaScript while surfing. (well, this is the handy default anyway when running Windows 2003, but this was the way I surfed long before 2003 as well) Sites I trust eventually wind up on my trusted list.

I also know how to use netstat and other tools to monitor suspicious activity (none btw).

Incidentally, I first ran a virus scanner in '88 or so. Never been infected.

There have only been a million posts here about running server 2003 as a desktop OS. If you actually read any of them you'd know that while it may be possible to run it on a desktop machine there isnt any legitimate need to do so. Really.

Sorry pal, I've done this since Win2k3 came out. It is genuinely an easier OS to set up than XP and you don't have to combat the animated dog in the Find files dialog. Really.

There's also a question of having more memory. Once you cross the 4GB limit you either need Windows 2003 Enterprise or 64-bit Windows. (Don't worry, I only have 4GB on the spot, so I make do with the Standard edition of Windows, albeit at this moment the 64-bit version)

 

[spyordie007]

It is genuinely an easier OS to set up than XP and you don't have to combat the animated dog in the Find files dialog.

I'd hardly consider turning off the animated dog a legitimate reason to run the server OS on your desktop.

There's also a question of having more memory. Once you cross the 4GB limit you either need Windows 2003 Enterprise or 64-bit Windows. (Don't worry, I only have 4GB on the spot, so I make do with the Standard edition of Windows, albeit at this moment the 64-bit version)

Not sure where you're going with this. XP 64bit supports up to 128GB of RAM, so if you're running the 64bit version you arent going to be stopped by the 4GB limit. Besides if you have 4GB it really doesnt matter.

 

[Phoenix86]

If the app is coded for XP, then yes. However, use an OS for it's intended use and you will be happier in general.

Server=W2K3 server
Desktop/Workstation=XP.

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
I'd hardly consider turning off the animated dog a legitimate reason to run the server OS on your desktop.

It is just one of many annoying features that should be disabled.

In addition, I also happen to develop ISAPI applications and it is more relevant for me to test on the Server edition. I also happen to like MS' Network Monitor (another component of MS' Server OSes). I also manage servers and 2003 Server has most of the admin tools installed by default. Etc... etc...

Just because you're not limited by XP doesn't mean it applies to the world in general.

Not sure where you're going with this. XP 64bit supports up to 128GB of RAM

I was referring to the 32-bit version, and then I conceded that 64-bit Windows [any version] would do nicely as well.

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Server=W2K3 server
Desktop/Workstation=XP.

Windows NT didn't bother distinguishing between the Pro and Server editions much. It is the same exact same OS! They both need to be configured according to your needs, and for me it is much easier to tweak NT 5.2 the way I want it rather than spend a lot of time customizing NT 5.1.

(I have been using NT since early '93 -- I kinda know what I'm doing)

 

[13Gigatons]

It's to bad Microsoft never came out with a Windows XP 2003 since Windows Server 2003 is so polished compared to Windows XP 2001. It does run better on slower machines, it's a lot more repsonsive.