Windows 2003 Server or Windows XP?

[Nothinman]

I'm taking the Windows 2000 MCSA classes right now. My instructor calls Windows 2003 Windows 2000.1. IOW, it is a much more incremental increase over 2000, much more so than 2000 was over NT server. Of course, I haven't had a chance to look at the features myself.

While that's mostly true, 2003 comes in a much more locked down state. It's a lot 'safer' than 2000 is right after install.

 

[spyordie007]

"windows NT server" was Windows NT 4 whereas both Windows 2000 Server and Windows 2003 Server are both Windows NT 5. There isnt an enourmous differance between them for that very reason. Microsoft doesnt plan on releasing NT 6 until Longhorn (which is still in the Alpha software stage).

-Spy

 

[techwanabe]

The .1 in the increase over Win 2000 server seems to be due in part to closing security loopholes, yes. That is something which was mentioned. And if do updates, you'll notice MS seems to offer security updates pretty often these days. Between hackers and all the hype over security since 9/11, there is a much bigger emphasis on this. I took a series of security classes last fall and became more aware of some of the issues.

One of the security changes over with 2003 over 2000 is that the Everyone group has read only permissions if I remember correctly. Of course alot of the patches and updates applied to 2000 will be "in the box" for 2003. But it makes me wonder how "worth it" it will be to put the expense into W2003 when you can get much of the same thing with a well patched version of W2k with proper security and permission settings.

 

[spyordie007]

But it makes me wonder how "worth it" it will be to put the expense into W2003 when you can get much of the same thing with a well patched version of W2k with proper security and permission settings.

Because if you are building a new server it will take considerably less work to get it running securly than with Win 2K. I imagine a new license will cost approximatly the same shortly after it is released and retailers stock equilizes.

Besides there are a few new features that are worth the upgrade such as the file share recovery tools. That alone will make upgrading my file servers worth my while, no more going back to tape backups because a user does something stupid like deletes or writes over their important files.

Between hackers and all the hype over security since 9/11, there is a much bigger emphasis on this.

This doenst really have that much to do with the security since 9/11 at all. Windows 2000 has been on this path since it was released in late 1999, if you'll remember even shortly after it was released they offered about 100MB worth of security and program updates. Ever since than it has been a continous stream of updates and service packs to update the features that I spend over an hour disabling when I do a new server install.

-Spy

 

[techwanabe]

This doenst really have that much to do with the security since 9/11 at all.

I was commenting on the more general mentality there seems to be - ie emphasis is on peoples minds more. I'm sure MS has been working on their stategies well before that as you say. Your point is well taken about 2003, esp on a new server. I'm sure at my office, any knew servers we buy and set up after 2003 is out will have 2003 rather than 2000.

 

[MikeDub83]

My school has a Microsoft Campus agreement and I can buy Windows XP for $5 a copy and Visual Studio.Net for $8. I wouldn't be suprised if he could get 2003 Server for $20.

 

[Shamrock]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Shamrock
everyone said the same thing about Windows 2000, and it has been the BEST gaming OS so far! now you are recommending XP over 2k3 server? hahaha, just reminiscing, I recall no one wanted Win2k because it was a "server" oriented OS. It became WIDELY used gaming OS

Give W2k3 server a chance, if you dont like it, or it starts behaving badly, just delete it

You use Windows 2000 Server for games?

Personally, no I dont...but I know several who do, and yes they run very stable, and I know of one person who runs games on Win2k Advanced Server, and wont give it up

 

[SolrFlare24]

You can do it, but it will require a decent amount of work to enable all the workstation features and get it up and running ok for gaming. Also, all that said, its compatability with games will be fluid at best, and since the whole 2K3 line is designed for servers only, I wouldn't expect it to evolve like win2K did over time.

That said, if you want to use it for a server, go to town, it also works very well for heavy processing of stuff since a lot of the windows xp fluff is removed or completely disabled by default. But for me, I'd stick with something else for a gaming workstation, but go to town with 2K3 for heavy tasks and of course, serving.

 

[Nomans]

Thanks again to Jliety, I was able to get Windows 2003 Server to work as a gaming workstation AND UT2003 is running super on the server. The final point is, Windows 2003 Server (I'm running RC2 now but I do believe the final release will behave the same) has BY DEFAULT Direct3D AND sound DISABLED, thus renders the machine useless in terms of gaming. Once you have upgraded the video driver and sound without unlocking Direct3D and sound, in my case NVidia detonator driver 43.45 and SB Audigy 2, it seemed to have corrupted something in the system that postenabling Direct3D/Sound and reinstalling the video driver and SB Audigy didn't fix the problem. I had to reinstall a fresh copy Windows 2003 Server, enable Direct3D and sound, then upgrade video driver + install SB Audigy2 before installing UT2003.

Just want to share some fun with whoever wants to consider Windows 2003 Server as a some sort of gaming workstation on the side...

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Nomans
Thanks again to Jliety, I was able to get Windows 2003 Server to work as a gaming workstation AND UT2003 is running super on the server. The final point is, Windows 2003 Server (I'm running RC2 now but I do believe the final release will behave the same) has BY DEFAULT Direct3D AND sound DISABLED, thus renders the machine useless in terms of gaming. Once you have upgraded the video driver and sound without unlocking Direct3D and sound, in my case NVidia detonator driver 43.45 and SB Audigy 2, it seemed to have corrupted something in the system that postenabling Direct3D/Sound and reinstalling the video driver and SB Audigy didn't fix the problem. I had to reinstall a fresh copy Windows 2003 Server, enable Direct3D and sound, then upgrade video driver + install SB Audigy2 before installing UT2003.

Just want to share some fun with whoever wants to consider Windows 2003 Server as a some sort of gaming workstation on the side...

Thanks for sharing your personal experiences, Nomans. I'm thinking about getting it running in VMware to play around with it a bit first to see if it's worth it or not for my main desktop (which kind of needs to do some server duties in addition to being a good desktop).

 

[spliffstar69]

2003 is super fast and it does run Direct X ,Direct 3D Games Yes you are able to play Games on 2k3 With no issues.
currently running Unreal 2003 & Batte Filed 1942 and Never Wintrnights
and its super fast Imo it will become the OS choice for Gamers? Wait and see.
Currently I'm getting FPS gains With XP 1800 and Ti 4200 512ram


I say if your only playing games on 2003 server its a good chance it just fell into your lap.
or you got a good deal on it.

Can you Imagine,

Hi Bob, what you doing... ohh just entering a Death match tourney on our live Corporate Server.

 

[spyordie007]

right....

why did you bump this old thread?

-Spy

 

[spliffstar69]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
right....

why did you bump this old thread?

-Spy

Becuase I can

 

[bsobel]

and its super fast Imo it will become the OS choice for Gamers? Wait and see.
Currently I'm getting FPS gains With XP 1800 and Ti 4200 512ram

There will be no speed difference vs XP. If your getting FPS gains thats because your comparing a clean install of w3k to your older XP install.
Bill

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: bsobel

and its super fast Imo it will become the OS choice for Gamers? Wait and see.
Currently I'm getting FPS gains With XP 1800 and Ti 4200 512ram

There will be no speed difference vs XP. If your getting FPS gains thats because your comparing a clean install of w3k to your older XP install.
Bill

True. Not sure if it's been said already, but by default Windows Server OSes are optimized to give priority to background processes (that can be changed). Still, if you think you see more FPS, it's because of different drivers, a clean install, or your mind playing tricks on you.

 

[owensdj]

If you don't know why you need one of the Server operating systems, then you don't.

Windows XP Pro and Home are both performanced tuned for use in running interactive applications like games, but Windows Server 2003 was performance tuned for use in running service applications like a database or web server. You'll want to use XP.

 

[toant103]

Originally posted by: NoSkillz
What do you feel would be the best operating system for speed, gaming, and just general use? I have an AMD Athlon XP 1600+ with 512 Crucial DDR, DVD-R burner, 2-40 gig HD's, PNY Geforce 4 TI4200 and it's all on a Shuttle AK32 motherboard.

No-Skillz

gaming, XP

 

[spliffstar69]

yes i will have to agree it was on a clean install.

 

[DannyBoy]

How would longhorn react with games?

I have the B5 Build of Longhorn I think

Would that be better or worse for games?

 

[Nothinman]

An alpha of any piece of software is not recommended for daily use.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: DannyBoy
How would longhorn react with games?

I have the B5 Build of Longhorn I think

Would that be better or worse for games?

At this point I wouldnt waste effort on trying to figure out if it is "better" as you know not everything works or works correctly yet so it's very likely that one of it's "features" (IE new file system) would cause your games to either run worse, and of course that wouldnt be a fair comparison.

At this point Windows XP are really the OS of choice for gaming, just about all the (current) games are built for usage under Windows XP and just about all of the (latest) hardware has it's best and most mature driver sets designed to run on the NT 5.x kernel.

Of course it's very hard to speculate at this point as to how current games will run under longhorn considering it still has a few years of development before it gets released and than it will be another year or so before game manufacturers build games with it in mind.

-Spy

 

[bsobel]

I have the B5 Build of Longhorn I think

Is that one of the preconfigued laptops with longhorn provided by MS to ISV's for intial development purposes, or are you a theif?

Bill

 

[DannyBoy]

Originally posted by: bsobel

I have the B5 Build of Longhorn I think

Is that one of the preconfigued laptops with longhorn provided by MS to ISV's for intial development purposes, or are you a theif?

Bill

Neither, I was given a copy from a friend that works for c-dilla labs.

Its not c-dilla labs anymore, im not sure what they are called, but it is B5 ive just looked on the cd.

Its an offical copy, only works for 14 days though, unless you ring microsoft and activate it, which I am apparently rightfully allowed to do

Back to my questions, is Longhorn planned to be a Desktop OS? It doesnt have anything server related in the documentation provided on Disc

I take it Longhorn is planned to be the future Desktop OS, and 2003 is the Server right?

Dan

 

[spyordie007]

I take it Longhorn is planned to be the future Desktop OS, and 2003 is the Server right?

No, longhorn is NT 6 and 2003 is still NT 5.

I'm sure MS will make a NT 6 server product at some point.

-Spy

 

[bsobel]

Neither, I was given a copy from a friend that works for c-dilla labs.

The fact that your friend 'took' one from c-dilla and gave it to you does not mean your allowed to have it. Anymore than if I took my copy home from my employer and gave it to you. This isn't yet an open beta where 'unknown' people are licensed to have the bits.

Back to my questions, is Longhorn planned to be a Desktop OS? It doesnt have anything server related in the documentation provided on Disc I take it Longhorn is planned to be the future Desktop OS, and 2003 is the Server right?

When XP was originally scheduled, like 2K Microsoft planned to release both a workstation (pro/home) and a server (standard, advanced, etc) versions at the same time. After their experience with 2K's rollout they heard from companies they didn't want the server at the same time, they wanted to wait until at least the first service pack was released. So, Microsoft split the schedules and decided to release XP first with server pushed back 6 months. Over time that 6 month window slipped quite a bit

Longhorn is the next 'Windows XP' desktop release (if you don't count Windows XP 2003 which was just released for the 64bit platform). We'll probably see it very late next year or early in 2005. It won't include a server component, that would be in the release 'after' that. (Businesses just don't want to migrate their servers every 2 years, some are just now going to migrate from NT4 to 2003)

Bill