Windows XP Pro versus Sever 2003

[charlietee]

I am built a system using a Gigabyte GA-8N8XP-SLI, AMD 64 3200+, 2 80gig Hitachi SATA II hard drives, 2 gigs of Kingston Value Ram.

Is there anything Server 2003 will do that Windows XP Pro will not ???

 

[pcthuglife]

yeah, crash repeatedly and provide horrible error logs that tell you nothing... Sorry, im one frustrated day away from ripping my 2003 server apart...

 

[vegetation]

Sure, you can host more than 10 connections at the same time. Big issue if you need to use the system for, uh, server purposes.

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: vegetation
Sure, you can host more than 10 connections at the same time.

XP can host the same number of TCP connections. Perhaps you were thinking of the built-in file/printer service? (I've tried to read MS' EULA, and I've concluded that your own server software will run just fine on XP -- no need to fork out money for a server license)

As for the OP's question: Win2003 is cleaner. With XP you'll have to tweak and configure it a lot before it starts acting rationally. Explorer alone is quite a drag (and by all means: Remember to switch off "simple" file sharing mode!). I find it is much easier to install Win2003 and enable to features I need, rather than install XP and disable all the junk I hate.

YMMV.

 

[vegetation]

XP can host the same number of TCP connections. Perhaps you were thinking of the built-in file/printer service? (I've tried to read MS' EULA, and I've concluded that your own server software will run just fine on XP -- no need to fork out money for a server license)

Yes, I think for a server file serving ranks pretty high on the list. Also, IIS takes a high consideration. Sure, you can bypass with 3rd party software but then you might as well have installed linux if you're not going to use MS's brew.

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: vegetation
Sure, you can bypass with 3rd party software but then you might as well have installed linux if you're not going to use MS's brew.

FWLIW: We write our own server software. It's just easier this way (the Windows way).

Edit: Come to think of it... This explains why Dell refused to sell us servers preloaded with Windows XP! Not everyone roll their own! (I think I managed to convince management to stop buying Dell servers - albeit for different reasons)

 

[spyordie007]

XP can host the same number of TCP connections. Perhaps you were thinking of the built-in file/printer service? (I've tried to read MS' EULA, and I've concluded that your own server software will run just fine on XP -- no need to fork out money for a server license)

Actually I'm pretty sure that you need to use Server for this and you need CALs for all your connecting users. The OS doesnt have a mechanism for stopping you, but the EULA still requires you to be running Server.

As for the OP's question: Win2003 is cleaner. With XP you'll have to tweak and configure it a lot before it starts acting rationally. Explorer alone is quite a drag (and by all means: Remember to switch off "simple" file sharing mode!). I find it is much easier to install Win2003 and enable to features I need, rather than install XP and disable all the junk I hate.

I disagree, it takes longer to hack up server 2003 to act like XP Pro. (audio, video, performance changes, etc. ect.) than it does to "clean up" the XP gui (appearance>windows classic; hey I'm done!). XP Pro is also a lot cheaper.

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
Actually I'm pretty sure that you need to use Server for this and you need CALs for all your connecting users.

That would be one helluva expensive web server then to require a seperate CAL for each concurrent connection.

I disagree, it takes longer to hack up server 2003 to act like XP Pro. (audio, video, performance changes, etc. ect.) than it does to "clean up" the XP gui (appearance>windows classic; hey I'm done!). XP Pro is also a lot cheaper.

I like the XP look, so I actually enable themes on 2003. I've done this several times (install 2003), at work, home and my laptop. It's a breeze. I've also set up XP more than a handful times, and XP is definitively more work IMNSHO. (get the Explorer settings straight, ALL the settings, disable the silly quick user switch thingy, curse at animated dog that I've yet to discover how to disable, remove the "welcome to XP" introduction thingy that pops up at every startup, disable a bunch of services you don't need like indexing service, etc... Always wary that you missed something, because you won't notice until it pops up to annoy you)

 

[Sy]

Windows Server 2003 +SP1 can do GUID Partition Tables. That may not mean a lot to you right now. But when you decide to build your 3.5 TB array with 8 500 gig drives, you will see the light! Unless you are talking about Windows XP Pro X64 edition which can do GPT too.

~Sy

 

[Nothinman]

FWLIW: We write our own server software. It's just easier this way (the Windows way).

Sounds like a huge waste of time when there's already software out there to handle most tasks.

 

[imported_BikeDude]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Sounds like a huge waste of time when there's already software out there to handle most tasks.

I almost went into great detail of what we do where I work -- but can you really not imagine any form of servers that doesn't merely do file/print/web/sql/dns/mail/dhcp?

 

[Nothinman]

I almost went into great detail of what we do where I work -- but can you really not imagine any form of servers that doesn't merely do file/print/web/sql/dns/mail/dhcp?

Sure I can, but I really doubt that's relevant here.