2003 server / XP pro differences?

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Little more than just that though.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Preformance-wise?

---

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

Quote:

---

FPS(for games)-wise?

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Usability-wise?

---

XP wins here.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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.

No problem. I do what I can ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by 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.

---

Its not really a viable workstation or desktop because of the price. What business or individual in their right mind would buy a $1000 OS for a workstation? Lot easier on the budget to get a $300 OS.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...g/pricing.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/products/in...e-55ca8ec542d5

Pricing isn't an issue because they offer it for a free 180 day trial of 2003 Server enterprise edition. Combine that with student pricing.

Also, SDK, they don't run on the same codebase. Not only is the kernel different (5.1 instead of xp's 5.0) but a LOT of system files and dll's have been reprogrammed for streamlined use. I'll be benchmarking 3dgames later to show the difference, and see if I get results like others on the net (with 2k3 having improved fps by the just the upgraded kernel alone)

Also note that I am using the 32 bit version of 2003, SDK, NOT the 64 bit version.

Do you have factual links concerning the XP 5.0 and the W2K3 5.1 kernel changes? Or that point to a kernel change? I'm simply curious and would like to read it. (Searching the net I came up empty handed).

You can get student pricing on Windows 2003 Server???

According to: http://www.microsoft.com/Education/StudentSelect.aspx

Student licenses* are currently available for:
• Microsoft® Office Standard Edition 2003
• Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003
• Microsoft Office 2004 for Mac Standard Edition
• Microsoft Office 2004 for Mac Professional Edition
• Microsoft Windows® XP Professional Upgrade** **means not a full version

According to: http://www.microsoft.com/Education/A...Discounts.aspx

Featured Academic Edition Products are:
• Microsoft Windows XP Professional Edition Upgrade with SP2, Part number: E85-02670
U.S. Estimated Retail Price: $99.95
• Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003, Part number: 269-06753
U.S. Estimated Retail Price: $199.00
• Microsoft Office OneNote® 2003, Part number: S26-00163
U.S. Estimated Retail Price: $49.95
• Microsoft Exchange Server Standard Edition 2003 with 5 Client Access Licenses (CALs)
Part number: 312-02614
U.S. Estimated Retail Price: $779.00
• Microsoft Visual Studio .NET Professional Edition 2003, Part number: 659-01132
U.S. Estimated Retail Price: $99.95

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by guardian alpha
Pricing isn't an issue because they offer it for a free 180 day trial of 2003 Server enterprise edition. Combine that with student pricing.

---

There is no student pricing for Windows 2003 server. As stated above, there are educational discounts for things like exchange if you are part of a education insitution.

As for the 180 day trial you cannot use it in a production enviroment legally.

Quote:

---

DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS

• Not for Production Use. You may not demonstrate, test, examine, evaluate or otherwise use the Software in a live operating environment or with data that has not been sufficiently backed up.

---

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...rial/eula.mspx

So buying the $1000 OS would be the only legal way to use it as a desktop system. Who wants to format their system every 180 days anyway. Not me.

Wow, everyone is out to get me on this? And just like most people feel windows can't be made secure, people here will come to understand that windows 2003 can be made into a hell of a workstation.

First, documentation on the kernel 5.1 improvements as requested:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...e/scaling.mspx
http://www.directionsonmicrosoft.com...0803piiws2.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...e/default.mspx

Those are the ones I can find in a brief search, will post more links later if I'm bored. And as for the student pricing, I don't get it from MS. My college purchases in bulk with a contract from MS and thus we get them at our school student discout. They bite the bullet on it a chunk of the price because they encourage the learning/use of multiple Operating Systems regardless of version type.

Now, for the love of God, lay off the pricing. I never asked about the pricing, and as I just explained in my previous paragraphs... I didn't ask because I already know about the pricing :)

edit: more on kernel modification for 2003

http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/software/...2133899,00.htm
http://toastytech.com/guis/srv2k3.html

Also note this in my useragent (not to mention the kernel version is plastered on most dll's): UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)

1) Nobody is out to get you. Your lack of Neg points shows that.
2) Nobody is saying Win2K3 server cannot be dumbed down to workstation status.
3) Let us know if your institution gives breaks on Win2K3 server. I might want to take a night course. ;)
4) Thanks for the links, as I said I could not find any. I will read them.
5) Read item #1 again.

:D

Quote:

---

Now, for the love of God, lay off the pricing. I never asked about the pricing, and as I just explained in my previous paragraphs... I didn't ask because I already know about the pricing

---

Pricing is in my book one of the main reasons that you would not want to use it as a desktop OS. (Besides all the add on components that you would not use that could be exploited in some way if not uninstalled)

Quote:

---

Those are the ones I can find in a brief search, will post more links later if I'm bored. And as for the student pricing, I don't get it from MS. My college purchases in bulk with a contract from MS and thus we get them at our school student discout. They bite the bullet on it a chunk of the price because they encourage the learning/use of multiple Operating Systems regardless of version type.

---

In your situation this might work, but the next noob that looks at this thread might want to know.

Quote:

---

Besides all the add on components that you would not use that could be exploited in some way if not uninstalled

---

So turn off the services :) XP and 2003 have almost identical service listings, save an item or two that xp just doesn't have. Those one or two things ... how in the hell are they going to be exploited on a desktop that is behind (typical user) a firewall with stateful filtering and with the services not running in the first place? And just like with UNIX V services, a non-admin can NOT suddenly turn on or have access to the services within the 2003 enviroment.

Quote:

---

In your situation this might work, but the next noob that looks at this thread might want to know.

---

It's too late for the thread to turn bad, because it has. Everyone seems to think OMFGBBQ windows 2003 will have no edge over XP, despite the documented kernel and system file changes to NTFS and file-system handling. Except gore. Strangley enough gore is the good guy here, encouraging the transformation of 2003 into a hell of a desktop.

So, thank you all for your wonderful insights, but I'm going to benchmark 2003 compared to XP and report the difference in results.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by guardian alpha

It's too late for the thread to turn bad, because it has. Everyone seems to think OMFGBBQ windows 2003 will have no edge over XP, despite the documented kernel and system file changes to NTFS and file-system handling. Except gore. Strangley enough gore is the good guy here, encouraging the transformation of 2003 into a hell of a desktop.

So, thank you all for your wonderful insights, but I'm going to benchmark 2003 compared to XP and report the difference in results.

---

Look, we dont disagree with you. I do agree that Win2k3 does have potential over XP as a desktop system. But, as far as the common person doing that practically, I would not see it due to price and what I mentioned above. Geeks are another story. I would love to see some gaming and other app benchmarks. What do you plan to use to benmark the systems? Same hardware? If your really interested in doing a full benchmark, PM me as I might be interested in helping.

I also think that just because a thread has some disagreement in it does not mean it has gone bad.

Quote:

---

What do you plan to use to benmark the systems?

---

Sisoft sandra for normal system stress-testing, and 3dmark for 3d fps testing.

Quote:

---

Same hardware? If your really interested in doing a full benchmark, PM me as I might be interested in helping.

---

Same exact computer. Won't need any assistance in it, really. But both operating systems are going to be configured and optimized in the strongest ways I know how. While this mostly entails the obvious service disabling, maybe a ntfs tweak here and there, the systems will end up almost identical in configuration options.

Quote:

---

I also think that just because a thread has some disagreement in it does not mean it has gone bad.

---

It's not that people disagreed, that part is fine. It's that only one person really answered my origonal questions, while the rest someone got caught up in their opinion without stating that they may have used/never used it before, and then pricing. If someone reading this thread later ends up thinking 2003 is a great idea for desktop, do you honestly think they won't change their mind once they finally see what price it is in stores/webstores? Even moreso, how many people reading this thread in the future and deciding to use 2003 will even bother to purchase a legal version?

THis post got me somewhat curious, so I looked into it a bit more and asked around. I also was playing with server 2003 a little just to get a little more familiar with it. It actually would make a great desktop OS. IF you take the proper precasuisons and shut down the un needed services (which everyone should do anyway) and do the normal security steps (AV, Firewall, etc) it should work failry well. There are some bugs in 2003 that still have not been worked out (but thats true for any OS) Id say go with 2003, if for no other reason than to just try it out.

A friend of mine says all his home computers are running server 2003, only 2 of which are actually functioning servers. SO I think Im gonna give this a spin as well, when I get the time/money to build a new box for it.