server 2003 vs Pro XP

  • Thread starter Thread starter hard 2 decide
  • Start date Start date
H

hard 2 decide

I was wondering, we are haveing a debate over here where
I am. I currently have xp home, but I could upgrade to
xp pro or server 2003 (if money was not an issue). Now
my arguement is that it would be smarter to upgrade to
server 2003 (if even possible) because if should have
more options and theoretically be more stabe. I mean xp
pro is designed to be an OS for one comp where Server 03
is for literally hundreds. So, What do you guys think,
do you think it would be smarter (if possible) to go to
server 03 or xp pro and why. And does anyone know, does
server 03 have the same compatibility of xp and does it
have the plug n play as well. thanks for any responces.
 
I was wondering, we are haveing a debate over here where
I am. I currently have xp home, but I could upgrade to
xp pro or server 2003 (if money was not an issue). Now
my arguement is that it would be smarter to upgrade to
server 2003 (if even possible) because if should have
more options and theoretically be more stabe. I mean xp
pro is designed to be an OS for one comp where Server 03
is for literally hundreds. So, What do you guys think,
do you think it would be smarter (if possible) to go to
server 03 or xp pro and why. And does anyone know, does
server 03 have the same compatibility of xp and does it
have the plug n play as well. thanks for any responces.

hard 2 decide:

I use Win XP Pro/Home, Win2k3 server, SBS2k3.
For desktop usage, stay with Win XP.
MS server op systems are designed/tuned for different usage than a desktop
op system.
 
Server is designed to allow a lot of user to connect onto and share files on
the server PC.

This is also the question of compatibility. Just like the compatibility
questions between Windows 9x/ME/2000 programs/drivers and XP, so it is the
same with Xp programs/drivers with 2003.

Y.
 
Also, all those who know a lot, would logon screen and/or
boot screen randomizers from xp work on server 03????
 
A server os is just that. Should be used as server and not for everyday
computing such as documents, gaming, email, music, etc, things you'd do on a
workstation os. If you want a server get win2k3, if you want a os for your
desktop pc to use for your everyday computing needs, then get XP.
You're comparing apples and oranges. They are intended for different uses.
 
so would it be a bad move to switch to server '03? it
could allow me to host my own webpage among other
things, and it seems to run exactly like XP. But like I
was saying, it seems as though it would be more stable
and therefore more worth it. I was just wondering how xp
is "more fine tuned for desktop use".
 
Windows 2003 will NOT run any antivirus and software firewalls. Many pieces
of software will NOT run on it. If you want a desktop OS go with XP all the
way.
 
Hi!
There is not really a 2k3 vs XPPro...They are two totally different ball
games.Win 2003 server is a full blown server O/S, with all the relevant
server programs and processes. XP does not have these.
regards.
ssg MS-MVP
pronetworks.org
 
Sorry, didnt mean to say "any", it's most

Here's a few things Windows Sever 2003 doesnt include that XP has.
System Restore
Fast User Switching
The Welcome Screen
Support for MS Bluetooth Keyboard + Mouse
MS Intellitype
MS Intellipoint
Universal Plug & Play

--Firewalls--
Kero Firewall - BSOD on bootup. too bad, this is my favorite firewall.
Mcaffee - works! but its pretty useless firewall, didnt like the
configuration.
Tiny Firewall - works! but its quite tricky to configure.
Sygate Firewall - works! but Internet Sharing refuses to work with it.
Norton Internet Security - works! but very troublesome.
 
I run the free version of gridsoft's AV on my Windows 2003 Server, I would
not recomend it for a desktop OS, mine is used on my test network for
learning and teaching. But 2003 does support loading software that runs on
Windows, it has the compatability tab just like XP, so it is possible but it
would be very expensive to do this. Server 2003 Enterprise edtion cost $2500
and standard is $1000 if I remember right, I'm using the eval version for
study. You have to reload every 120 days.
 
yes it will, it runs symantec antivirus and zone alarm
pro, it is server software, what kind of weakly secured
network would that be if you couldn't run that stuff....
 
so server 2003 is like xp but with more right? does it
have all the usb support and program compatability and
all that like xp??
 
hard to decide:

IMO, yes if you are a desktop user.

Win XP Pro does that very well.

Not true.
No offense, but if you are using XP Home, how much of a techie are you?
Win2k3 server even when setup as a standalone server (not a DC) is a very
robust product with a very rich feature set that requires some
knowledge/experience to setup/maintain/tshoot. You may get it up and
running, and soon find you are in over your head.
therefore more worth it.

Win XP is not less stable than the MS server op systems, IMO & experience.
If you have stability problems with XP Home, you will probably have problems
with Win2k3 server.
Learn to tshoot your XP Home problems. Win2k3 server is not easier to
tshoot.

MS server op systems are designed/tuned to provide services to network
requests at a higher priority than say processing requests from a Word or
FrontPage type of app that is running locally.
Also, they run more network related processes, and monitoring software.
However, some of these items can be disabled.

Win XP is designed/tuned to server the logged on user interactively, whereas
the server op system is designed/tuned/biased to serve network requests, not
the logged on user.
 
but it is possible to do all these things. Why is it
worse to run/do stuff like that on a server os? (just
wondering) being that is is supposedly more stable and
should be ble to support like 100 computers accessing
word (a documentation program that you say severs are not
designed for, yet every server I have ever connected has
always had word) and working on it. I don't see why it
isn't a good move and you wouldn't benifit.
 
Windows 2003 will NOT run any antivirus and software firewalls.

Chris:

Win2k3 server family comes with at lease two f/ws, and some versions include
ISA (a very robust f/w).

I run AV on all of my servers.
 
so does this mean any xp software would work?> even logon
screen and/or
boot screen randomizers from xp work on server 03????
 
Chris Lanier said:
Sorry, didnt mean to say "any", it's most

Here's a few things Windows Sever 2003 doesnt include that XP has.
System Restore
Fast User Switching
The Welcome Screen
Support for MS Bluetooth Keyboard + Mouse
MS Intellitype
MS Intellipoint
Universal Plug & Play
Click to expand...

What about Plug & Play doesn't work on W2003 Server?
 
you people don't know shit

i run windows server 2003
i run zonealarm
i run symantec antivirus
i run games such as medal of honor, max payne 2, and red
alert 2, generals and tons of other shit
research your shit, just because it's server software
doens't mean it's normal functions are turned off.....

http://win2k3.msfn.org/shutdown.htm
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Windows Xp Pro - Digit Problem 1
Office 2003 on Win7 Pro - also XP 10
Recover files from server 2003 backup on XP Pro machine 2
upgrading xp pro to server 2003 2
Server 2003 Vs XP pro 4
DHCP server count against the XP max 10 conenction? 1
Pb VFP6 using Windows XP Pro and Windows SBS 2003 Server 1
Windows XP Pro Remote Desktop & SBS 2003 R2 1

Back
Top