ark 0 Posted December 9, 2001 Hi, anyone used it just for kicks? How does it compare with XP Pro? Any reason to install it? Any reason not to? Any links on this topic? Overkill for a desktop? ark Share this post Link to post
clutch 1 Posted December 9, 2001 I hate to tell you this as it will probably sound rude, but if you have to ask if you should install it as a desktop, then you shouldn't have it at all. The newest .Net betas are actually being splintered from what I have heard, one of which is only to serve as a NAT system and host IIS. It is a *server* OS, not a desktop OS. Share this post Link to post
ark 0 Posted December 10, 2001 Thanks Clutch, that was nice of u to mention that u hate to reply, u were right it did sound rude. Also not much information... If u don't have anything to say, why bother? Did you actually install it? Do u even have it? I've used NT 4.0 and 2000 server as a desktop, had no problem with it, I got good enough hardware to run the server version as a desktop, doesn't bother me at all. But hey.... Share this post Link to post
CUViper 0 Posted December 10, 2001 Any of the server OS's are overkill for a desktop, and .NET isn't any different. Sure, you can probably run it ok, but if you don't need the server capabilities, there's really no reason for you to run it. As for it being splintered, that doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Sure, for a large network, you might want a whole server dedicated to only one task. But for a small network, this is way too expensive, end overkill besides. If MS does decide to go this route, I hope they offer the "specialized" versions at a lower cost, and also offer a complete version for those who only want/need one or two servers for all their tasks. Share this post Link to post
clutch 1 Posted December 10, 2001 Actually, I am a beta tester for a good deal of their OSs, and I am expecting the .Net platform shortly. Now, here's the thing; if you obviously didn't get invited to test AND didn't RSVP for the platform, then you would probably accquire it via w4rez which is something that we try to avoid here. Also, they (MS) have specific things that they want you to evaluate when running it, and using it as a desktop isn't one of them. But, you would know that, since you are getting it through "official" means, right? Share this post Link to post
clutch 1 Posted December 10, 2001 CUViper, As for the splintering of the servers, the idea is to have multiple OSs that can respond to the application specific and appliance server market shift. Basically, why tie up a $900 OS just to host a website, right? Here's the general .NET info page: http://www.microsoft.com/windows.netserver/ and here's the direct comparison page between the versions. http://www.microsoft.com/windows.NETserver/evaluation/choosing/default.asp As you can see, when someone asks "is .Net server any good?", it probably an early Beta that they are dealing with. Many in the IIS community are getting invites to test the newest web appliance OS in the .Net line to see how well it does. My interest is in ADO/ASP.NET functionality, and to see how it likes Outlook Web Access as it would eventually be the hosting OS for our OWA connections. From what I have read, the pricing should be adjusted according to functionality as well. Share this post Link to post
CUViper 0 Posted December 10, 2001 That's good to know..... from the links you gave, it looks as though they'll have the same versions as Win2k, where Enterprise Server = Advanced Server, with the addition of a stripped-down Web Server version. Do you know if they are planning to have other specialized versions as well? I understand why you would want the splintered versions - my only concern was what would happen to those who needed a general purpose server. It looks like this will not be a problem though... Share this post Link to post
ark 0 Posted December 10, 2001 clutch, Whoa, thanks for the links and explanation finally, I don't get it though, why would you want to start out in a rude manner? Just explain the thing without being rude, is it too much to ask? lol I agree that running a server on a desktop is usually an overkill but this server is a little different than the servers before it, a lot more advances and rapid changes are happening in the .net server. It is not at all like NT 4.0 workstation and server nor 2000 workstation and server. This server is gonna be entirely new and improved animal as compared to XP Pro, question is, is it gonna be possible to streamline it enough to run it as desktop? Surely, with Microsoft spending so much effort on it and the new .net technology it just might be a good option for a desktop. ark Share this post Link to post
clutch 1 Posted December 10, 2001 Because I am tired of people getting a hold of w4rez and seeking help for it. You want to know the reason? Well that's why. I think it's horse$hit when people want to know why they can't host a Counterstrike server on their PII 300 with 128MB RAM running Win2K Advanced Server with ISA Server on top of it. If anybody wants to know what to do with .NET server, then it's obviously w4rez and I have no interest in helping him. The links were really for CUViper, as I believe he works in the IT field and would have a high chance of using this software legally. So many w4rez freaks run servers without having a clue as to how to set them up, and those servers wind up hosting all kinds of worms and other BS that attack legitimate networks. Here's the deal, I find it offensive when someone breaks a contract with a company (in this case a NDA with MS) by redistributing it to all kinds of people, and then those people who have no idea what they are doing get it and seek help for their stolen software. That is what I have a problem with. If you *do* get a hold of software legitimately, you will: A. Know what you are doing and have a good idea as to what it's for (and may have gone to a class for it that gave it away; MS does this all the time), and B. Get some sort of documtentation (plus access to secured newsgroups in the case of MS along with direct access to the appropriate testing team when doing beta work for them) with the software to guide you through its workings. That's why I get pissed when people ask a question like "hey, would .NET server (a platform I can't buy anyway) work well as a desktop? Can I host my webpages on it through my AOL dial-up account? What is XML, or EDI? Will they lower my fps in Quake 3?" or similar questions. This was the post that I *originally* wanted to respond with, but I tried having some restraint. If you are looking to *legally* obtain this software, but somehow managed to never see ANY documentation and have no idea what it is supposed to do, then I am sorry for this response. But that isn't likely. Share this post Link to post
ark 0 Posted December 10, 2001 hmmm.... I never asked 90% of the questions u answered... oh my do I feel sorry for you? Anyway I don't have it and since u don't know anything about it u don't have it either or u wouldn't be trying to save your face by flaming a simple question. LOL ark Share this post Link to post
Ge0ph 0 Posted December 10, 2001 I’m 100% with clutch on this. BTW, the original question could have been: Can I use a freight train to run to the store to get some milk? Or the more popular: Should I cut this butter with my chain saw? Neither are things you should be playing with. Using any server for a desktop is overkill and pointless and I doubt many people would spend $700 to $800 for desktop OS. There are other way’s to get it but if you got it by one of the other way’s, you would already know the answer to your question’s. I'm not sure this applies to you but by your questions and your replies it does sound like it does. Share this post Link to post
