• 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.

Windows2003 Server as a workstation OS?

X

xenos500

Senior member
Im considering using Windows server 2003 on my system, I like some of its features. So far I havent thaught up any downside. I think It would do well, obviously I would modify it the best I can to be as un-server as possible. This OS runs great on my server....worlds better than 2000server. Why wouldnt it be a good choice in stripped down form for my desktop/workstation?
 
Originally posted by: xenos500
Im considering using Windows server 2003 on my system, I like some of its features. So far I havent thaught up any downside. I think It would do well, obviously I would modify it the best I can to be as un-server as possible. This OS runs great on my server....worlds better than 2000server. Why wouldnt it be a good choice in stripped down form for my desktop/workstation?
Click to expand...

There is no reason to do this, after you finish hacking it all up your running XP with all the patches. There are numerous server only features you just don't need on a desktop OS. If you plan on doing development or similar activity, go ahead. If not, I think it's overkill for no benefit.

Bill
 
Let's see, hack up a $600 OS so it acts and looks like a $100 OS? No thanks.

Using Windows 2003 Server as a desktop OS is analogous to commuting to work using an 18 wheeler.
http://www.msfn.org/win2k3/tweaknt.htm
Click to expand...
The first sentance of this page should be a serious turn-off for you "This clever little tool will change your Windows Server 2003 into thinking its Windows XP Professional, or Home Edition."

-Spy
 
heh, the article even says:
I'm aware that a lot of people like this functionality, but I'd recommend against it because the stability of such software and the OS itself is in doubt. I didn't run into any problems with Norton AV 2003, Partition Magic 8 or the OS itself, but it hasn't been fully tested long enough. Whilst TweakNT has changed your Server to a Workstation, all the server functionality is disabled as you can see from one particular screenshot below:
Click to expand...
The only reason I can possibly think of to do this is to simply say you have, it would offer no additional benefit to you whatsoever.

Like Bill said, the only useful reason to run Windows 2003 server on your desktop system is if you have to be testing .Net/IIS 6 applications on your workstation.

-Spy
 
If you really need more than 10 people to be connecting to your box at one time, you should be running a server, not a workstation.
 
Originally posted by: STaSh
If you really need more than 10 people to be connecting to your box at one time, you should be running a server, not a workstation.
Click to expand...
correction, you should have a dedicated server and not be serving it from your workstation (regardless of what OS it's running).
 
Originally posted by: spyordie007
Let's see, hack up a $600 OS so it acts and looks like a $100 OS? No thanks.

Using Windows 2003 Server as a desktop OS is analogous to commuting to work using an 18 wheeler.
http://www.msfn.org/win2k3/tweaknt.htm
Click to expand...
The first sentance of this page should be a serious turn-off for you "This clever little tool will change your Windows Server 2003 into thinking its Windows XP Professional, or Home Edition."

-Spy
Click to expand...

I would definatly drive an 18 wheeler to work.

The main reasons I would use the server os:

software raid 5 support
better multiprocessor support?
more controll over applications
more stability
better documentation and support through microsoft

I think the tweak is nuts, but why does that software not install on 2003 server?

 
software raid 5 support
Click to expand...
If you are going to go RAID5, I'd rather go hardware RAID5. If you are going to be cheap about RAID5, why spend nearly $1000 on the OS? (Unless you are going to pirate the OS, in which case flush your support argument right down the toilet)
better multiprocessor support?
Click to expand...
Better? No. More? Yes. But then, if you are using a machine with 4 or more CPUs, you should be running a server.
more controll over applications
Click to expand...
Eh? What kind of control? Like limiting what can and can not run? I can do this with Windows XP.
more stability
Click to expand...
As was mentioned, Windows 2003 Server is essentially Windows XP pre-patched. Therefor it will be just as stable as XP, assuming you properly patch XP.
better documentation and support through microsoft
Click to expand...
Unless you have some service agreement with Microsoft. support via phone/email/website/whatever will be the same. And, in fact, Microsoft might not even bother to offer you support if you use a Server on the desktop, as it may (I don't have access to, nor would I read, for the sake of this post, the EULA) violate the terms of the EULA.

\Dan
 
*hardware raid support is by far superior, and you can have your system volume on it. I see no reason to use Raid 5 on a workstation anyways (RAID-0 on the other hand...)
*multi-processor support is going to be the same, except that Windows XP Pro does not support more than 2 CPUs (if you have a quad CPU box for your workstation than you can also afford hardware raid-5).
*control over applications is identical
*the server OS is only going to be "more stable" up until you start enabling the things you are going to want for it to act like a desktop (such as hardware acceleration & directx)
*I would argue that the documentation for Windows XP is not only more abundant but also easier to find (google). Besides Microsoft will only provide the "better" support if you buy it retail ($600+ for Windows 2003 Standard Server) and they will still tell you not to run it as a desktop OS.

The software doesnt work on Windows 2003 Server because the software vendor intended for it to run on a Workstation.
 
Alright, I no longer care to install 2003 Server. in 2003server One more question though: in 2003server I noticed that in device manager, for hard drives. There are more options for disk write cache.....what is this about? Any bennifits?
 
the additional option I have available is "Enable Advanced Performance", I'm under the impression that this option will also use some of your RAM as an extra write casche.

All my 2K3 servers have SCSI HDs for their OS so you may have something else if you are using IDE drives.

-Spy
 
What does using ram for write cache accomplish?
Click to expand...

Speed improvements. Instead of writing directly to the disk the data is left in memory and just marked as dirty, once a set time period elapses or memory gets tight it'll be evicted to disk, since the data was accumulated in memory it can also be written to the disk in a smarter manner (for instance issuing one large 100K write request to the disk instead of 10 10K requests). The downside is that since things are held in memory if you hard reset or BSOD that data is lost because it was never flushed to disk.
 
Originally posted by: Twista
This? I read in a forum that its suppose to make the system faster but i cant tell.
Click to expand...
Yes that is to what we are refering, it can make the system faster at carrying out some tasks however could sacrifice data integrity in the event of a system failure.

EDIT: I would not reccomend making use of this feature unless you have your server on a very good UPS and make regular backups of important data (noting that your screenshot has it turned on under your install of Windows 2003 Server turned into XP Pro.). I would also reccommend against using this on your system drive on any hardware. Else a single loss of power, BSOD, or otherwise could result in system corruption.
 
Originally posted by: spyordie007
Originally posted by: Twista
This? I read in a forum that its suppose to make the system faster but i cant tell.
Click to expand...
Yes that is to what we are refering, it can make the system faster at carrying out some tasks however could sacrifice data integrity in the event of a system failure.

EDIT: I would not reccomend making use of this feature unless you have your server on a very good UPS and make regular backups of important data (noting that your screenshot has it turned on under your install of Windows 2003 Server turned into XP Pro.). I would also reccommend against using this on your system drive on any hardware. Else a single loss of power, BSOD, or otherwise could result in system corruption.
Click to expand...

Oh well ;p thanks for that reply and if my system corupts just re-install or repair for me.
 
I was actually looking to find out from twista since he is the one who's been posting most of the "server as a workstation" stuff.

BTW are you sure that's not 120 days?

-Spy
 
Originally posted by: spyordie007
I was actually looking to find out from twista since he is the one who's been posting most of the "server as a workstation" stuff.

BTW are you sure that's not 120 days?

-Spy
Click to expand...


roaches.
 
I know you dont want to hear it, but you are breaking the license agreement by doing this; pirating software is still pirating software.

And the evaluation version flat out says when you are trying to install it that it is a limited time use evaluation version.
 
EDIT: I would not reccomend making use of this feature unless you have your server on a very good UPS and make regular backups of important data (noting that your screenshot has it turned on under your install of Windows 2003 Server turned into XP Pro.). I would also reccommend against using this on your system drive on any hardware. Else a single loss of power, BSOD, or otherwise could result in system corruption.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about it that much, the only thing that might be problematic is the registry since if any of system hives get corrupted you can't boot but in the past that could happen just with normal usage and not many people got hit. Unless you have stability problems or very flakey power it's usually worth the risk, all the people using RAID 0 have a better chance of data loss and there's a lot of them around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top