XP Pro or Server 2003?
 

Given the option, which OS would you go with? I've been running IIS and a third party ftp server on my XP, but I've tasted Server 2003 and am tempted to switch entirely over.

Granted it's not that big of a leap, but I am wondering as to whether all the software I run will work on Server 2003? I mostly use Office, some other similar tools, RAD apps, internet apps and various games.

Is there something XP can do that Win2003 cannot?

Golden rule of windows:

Never use any MS OS that doesn't not contain the number 2 in it. For me it's Server 2003 all day. It stays out of your way while being even more stable than XP. 2003 is the true sequel to win 2000...XP is the NT version of ME.

Well if you're running a server, then no question about it you go for the server operating system: 2003.

If you're running a desktop, you use the desktop OS: XP.

For a workstation I would stick with XP.

Workstation: XP
Server: 2003

I heard games run faster on 2003 :)

If you tweak the services properly server 2003 is faster than XP and more stable. I've used a server OS on my desktop for over a year now.

for tweaks for 2003 server... do you happen to have a link for any of them?.. im going to be installing it this weekend

I like 2003 as a desktop server :-) I mostly development on my machines and I use 2003 on some of them.

I have had problems on some machines with 2003. i.e. one machine didn't have drivers for all it's hardware for 2003 or some of the software didn't work in 2003. I had to get new software for DVD burning and playing.

You could always buy a new hard drive, throw 2003 on it, and see how it goes, they are cheep enough, and you could always go back to XP if you choose.

There are quite a few programs out there that you will have to have a "corporate" or "enterprise" version to install on a Server OS.

Example: norton antivirus 2004/5 will not install on Windows 2003 Server. They do this so you are forced to buy the Enterprise Edition.

I personally wouldn't run 2003 Server unless you're using specifically for server purposes. Games aren't going to run faster than they would on XP. Come on, it's the same architecture. There are noticable differences between Windows 2000 Server platform and the Windows Server 2003 platform. You aren't going to find a whole lot with the XP vs. 2003.

If however, you have more than one computer on your network, 2003 Server will allow you to setup AD (if you know what to do with it).

unreal tournament 2004 will not install on 2003.

I still use 2000, personally. Not as bloated as xp and it does fewer stupid things with my music file organization and search function.

That said, 2003 seems to have a lot of the bloat that is in xp turned off. If it weren't for the utk2k4 issue, I'd probably be using it.

2003 Server is like the bigger brother of XP Pro, from what people using it tell me its faster, more reliable and uses fewer resources... gonna pick up a copy or two in the next few days (can get educational copies, not pirating!)

If I remember right, 2003 Server does not have DX included. That's why you can't run a lot of games.

It does, it just isn't enabled. You can enable it.

I've run The Simpsons Hit & Run on Server 2003. Ran better than it ever does on my XP Pro.

With some games you'll have issues, with some you won't.

See http://www.msfn.org/win2k3/ for good tips on how to enable workstation features and turn 2003 into a powerful desktop OS.

i think you got that backwards, if you tweak (kill) some services in XP, ull get a faster OS than you would in 2003 server.


among other tweaks, you can speed up xp dramatically just by going to my computer/properties/advanced/performance settings

the whole point of 2003 server is to do just that, act as a server with many services running in the background. which eats up ur resources.


this is a good site for tweaking your xp services
http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm

when i was gaming i was using the "bare bones" config.

BlackViper really isn't a good resource to use for killing services. If you read HardOCP or go to their forums, they have plenty of evidence that shows that the speedup you get is largely a placebo effect and disabling services tends to cause more problems than it may solve. The services you "can" disable are ones that generally won't eat up much/any CPU time, so the only thing they'll use is RAM - and not much. If you're low enough on RAM that freeing up an extra meg or two makes a difference, you should buy more.

I love disabling services that I don't use, if only to try and make my computer just a little less vulnerable :(
I wish I could remove all the parts of IE that aren't actually part of windows explorer.

Try nlite mazagmot
http://nuhi.msfn.org/index.html