Win XP Pro vs Windows server 2003

[cokaznrebel]

Whats the difference? i may give it a try cause i got it in that Beta 2003 pack, but is it anything new past win xp pro? I hear windows server 2003 has some cool stuff,, anyone try it out?

[nVidi0t]

I have the Windows 2003 Enterprise edition evaluation version, and I have to say, it's great.

It's basically got the features of Win2k Advanced server, with a lot more user friendliness, sort of like the move from win2k to XP.

It doesn't really compare to XP, it's for server operations, such as file serving/streaming media/database server, so it has in built tools for administering each feature.

So answering your question, it goes miles past XP, XP is a workstation OS, even installing IIS on XP causes problems in most cases.

[cokaznrebel]

What about basic windows tasks, as i really wont be running much of a server(though may try it). does it make better use of RAM, better for just like surfin the web and litenin/encoding mp3s or something? any distict advantages?

[VeritechK7]

go with xp pro... 2003 could be used for kicks but then it would really depreciate its real value.. [serving a good number of client computers]. if you're only using it for the functions you mentioned then it's useless you won't get any real value from using ...maybe some bragging rights.. I guess

[nVidi0t]

Originally posted by cokaznrebel
What about basic windows tasks, as i really wont be running much of a server(though may try it). does it make better use of RAM, better for just like surfin the web and litenin/encoding mp3s or something? any distict advantages?

Better use of memory, yes, but for anything else you mentioned, you would be better off with XP.

2003 has a lot of overhead, there are a lot of services running, so unless you have 1GB+ of RAM you an expect things to go a little slower.

The best thing to do is to set it up on a seperate machine to test. I use a 2003 box as a proxy server/media server for all the machines in my place, and it's been absolutely flawless so far.

[Blakhart]

2003 has a faster tcp/ip stack than xp, and has a drive cache boost under drive properties/hardware, that is not available in xp or 2k.
It may be the best kernel and hal for games, as far as M$ goes. I have had good reports on it all around, and am running the final ver as a game server. Keep in mind you will have to enable just about everything you want to use, servicewise. It comes with few to no sevices running, you have to select what kind of server(s) you want, and set it all up by hand.


Gonna install it on the game box to see if my assumptions are correct.

[Ryo-Ohki]

Well, not really into Windows 2003 as of now, but I've replaced 2000 Pro by 2000 Server/Advanced Server on all my rigs for over a year now. Can't say I noticed a real difference in performance or memory usage, but the Server version has far more interesting features, and runs any application just as well as Pro would. If you're running several networked PCs, being able to use a WINS and a DNS server and using the advanced routing options IS a bliss. Not to mention Terminal Services, which is A LOT more handy than remote desktop.

I say go with it, if there's good support for your hardware. :)

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by Ryo-Ohki
I say go with it, if there's good support for your hardware. :)

Where do I find out if there is support for my hardware? I'm assuming there is some hardware compatibility list somewhere.

[deejaya]

This may help (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hcl/default.mspx)