server 2003 vs Pro XP

[Daniel L. Belton]

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.

Server 2003 is not designed to be a workstation OS. It doesn't have a
lot of the things a normal user would use on a daily basis. as the name
says... it's a SERVER os

 

[Alex Nichol]

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.

There is no particular reason to expect more stability from a Server
system, but it is a specialised tool for acting as a server and has
substantially less facilities (eg in Multimedia) for the end user than
XP Home or Pro do. Only upgrade at all if there are facilities
supported on Pro only that you realise you have a *need* for (see at
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_home_pro.asp

As otherwise Home and Pro are identical. Don't get one of these systems
just to look macho

 

[purplehaz]

First, when did I ever say word doesn't work on a server os? And second I
have never seen a server come with word pre-installed on it, nor do I know
any network admins that would install word on a server. It's just not
needed. I said you shouldn't use it for everyday computing and used document
creation/editing as an example. Sure the server can be used to store the
files for sharing across the network, but document creation should be done a
workstation with word or whatever app installed.
Not sure why you think win2k3 server is more stable. XP and win2k3 are built
on the same engine. Server seem more stable cause you dson't install all the
buggy software on it like you would on a desktop os.
If you need 100 people accessing documents over a network on another
computer, then yes, you get a server version, that's what it's for. What is
the point your trying to make?
The reason you use desktop os for everyday computing is security, hardware
compatability, drivers, tuned better for intense graphics(games), cost, ease
of use for newbies, and compatable software titles. Some programs, services
just do not work on a server.

 

[purplehaz]

http://win2k3.msfn.org/shutdown.htm

whoever said you CAN play games and such is CORRECT...read
the site

So let me get this straight. You pay anywhere from $1000 to $4000 for the
server os, then tweak it to act like a $300 os? Interesting way to waist
money........

 

[Cari MS-MVP]

Intellipoint and Intellitype v5 work just fine on 2003. At least they do on
mine! (Internet Pro keyboard and Intellimouse Explorer mouse)

Cari
www.coribright.com

 

[Chris Lanier]

That's just what other users have reported not working. I could care less,
i use the 120 day trial and you dont need all the extra software on it, its
a server.