2003 server / XP pro differences?

[guardian alpha]

I can't seem to find a single reliable source of information when it comes to comparing these two operating systems. I know windows 2003 server uses the latest nt kernel (5.1 IIRC), but that's about it.

What are their primary differences?

Security-wise?

Preformance-wise?

FPS(for games)-wise?

Stability-wise?

Usability-wise?

Driver support (including 64 bit)?

Any links or information would be incredibly helpful, because if it is up to snuff I might consider using 2003 pro as a desktop OS rather than XP.

[gore]

Originally posted here by guardian alpha
I can't seem to find a single reliable source of information when it comes to comparing these two operating systems.

Welcome to my world That's why I do it myself.

I know windows 2003 server uses the latest nt kernel (5.1 IIRC), but that's about it.

Little more than just that though.

What are their primary differences?

Security-wise?

Windows Server 2003 was made to be a server so generally speaking loosly, it can be locked down and is better suited for security than XP, though Microsoft say XP with SP2 is the most secure Windows ever, but that's only to make you upgrade so they can get you to again in 2 years.

Preformance-wise?

Without a doubt 2003 kicks the **** out of XP here. No comparison at all.

FPS(for games)-wise?

2003 wasn't made for games, it's a server OS. Though no one ever listens to that, or should.

Stability-wise?

2003 has it here too. Again, 2003 was made to be a server up all the time. And in all my tests it never once crashed.

Usability-wise?

XP wins here.

Driver support (including 64 bit)?

Microsoft doesn't have much of anything good that runs on 64 bit, but if you can use the driver in XP it may actually work in 2003 for SOME things. I think a card is the only thing I've made this work with and it's not recommended. Both should have similar driver support though.

[XTC46]

Server 2003 - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...ew/family.mspx

Windows XP Pro - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...s/default.mspx


You are trying to compare a desktop OS with a server OS. They are made for different things so there are MANY differences. Both are resource intensive but should be fine for gaming if you have the cpu power for it. Server 2003 offers alot of SERVER services with it as opposed to XPs pretty little bubble images and fun games. Reliablity wise, I have had server 2003 crash on me more times than XP, but then again we have 100+ people logging into server 2003 becasue it is used as a terminal server. The question is what do you want to do with it. If you are looking for just an os to toss on your box Id go with xp, if you are building a server than go with 2003 server.

[ZT3000]

Be aware that many programs check for operating system version before/during install and will prevent installation if they find Win2003 Server, possibly greatly limiting your program choices.
Also the Server versions of backup software, among others, is prohibitively expensive.

I know of a guy who runs Win2K server on his notebook as a desktop OS, just to be different I guess.

[guardian alpha]

See guys, the big thing is this. Win2k3 server is also fit as a very viable desktop, and it's been proven time and time again. In fact, I can't think of a single thing 2k3 doesn't have that xp has. It's quite the other way around, with win2k3 having a plethora of thigns that windows xp will not have. Turning windows 2003 server into a stable and fast workstation takes less than five minutes, and you still get identical functionality of XP with the new 5.1 kernel stability/speed.

However, my MAIN concern is not if it can be a desktop. I know it can be a damn good workstation My concern is how well it handles directX/opengl cause and latency timing. The NT 5.1 kernel has a lot of optimizations and code streamlines to improve the system overall, so I would assume this also may mean better FPS for gaming.

Gore, I know you've used it quite often as a primary workstation enviroment. Any last thoughts? And any reason why I -shouldn't- use win2k3 server pro as my primary workstation desktop, since it has the latest kernel, identical+more functionality than xp, and streamlined code?

edit: guide on server to workshop conversion, meaning you get the workstation usability with the newer kernel speed and server stability

http://www.msfn.org/win2k3/index.htm

[gore]

I can't think of anything. I know you can get drivers for your video card for it so I'm pretty sure you should get good game play out of it as you've asked, and hell, it comes with Windows media player for some reason so you get that as well

I must point out though that every system I used had an Nvidia video card in it so I really can't say ATI works as well, I just don't know. So if you have Nvidia then from my experience you should have no problems.

I should point out as well that the only games I play are Doom and UT heh. It does make a good desktop system, because it's faster than all other versions of Windows I've used recently and it's stable. Go for it.

[guardian alpha]

You must spread your AntiPoints around before giving it to gore again.

Thanks for your input about your past experiences, and long live Nvidia

[SDK]

Windows NT, 2000, XP, 2003 all use the same base code. Over time, old code is remove and new code is add. You'll see that Windows XP 64 bits is not the same code that Windows XP 32 bits but Windows 2003 64 bits code with XP specific program.

Security : Windows 2003 is the first OS build on secure by default. It took SP2 for XP to be made secure dy default.

Performance Wise : Same Base Code = Same performance. You could run Half-Life 2 on Windows 2003 and have the same performance that you get from a XP machine as long that you kill some server service on 2003.

Stability : Same Base Code = Same Performance. Peoples would thing 2003 is more stable but that just because you install less software on a server and you test them more before doing so.

Usability : Same.

Driver : 64 bits and 32 bits OS are two world a part!
Check this link : Might help you
http://blogs.msdn.com/stoey/archive/...27/361880.aspx

You can also check Paul Thurrot Review of 64 bits OS here
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/...4_preview2.asp
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/...64_preview.asp

[RoadClosed]

We tend to forget the networking components "built in" Let's say these OS' are the same, but in 2003 you get, active directory controls, DNS, IIS, basic SMTP, all the "server" stuff. But in essence they are the same. Traditionally with MS desktop OS systems you are limited by the number of clients that can connect, otherwise you could just use XP instead. The kicker is, you can make it secure and load opensource components on it like DNS, or Apache or a mail server and have a nice cheap, secure server.

The reason I wouldn't use it as a desktop is cost. But if I had a copy laying around I would. In the past games didn't work well with server OS because they couldn't access the hardware directly due to security in the hardware abstraction layer, but times change. You pay more for more services and tools built into the software. Like the various differences in Linux distros. Same core, just more features to make your life easier.

[gore]

No problem. I do what I can