XP Pro versus 2003 Server

[ironman666 0]

Hey everyone. don't know if this has been asked of (i'm guessing it has) but what would you guys consider to be better as a workstation: XP Pro or 2003 Server.

 

I've read the guide to turn 2003 Server into a workstation and it seems easy enough understand. I like the fact it is somewhat tight and locked down (despite the changes that are required). another argument, which is semi-convincing for me, is that its the "latest & greatest" in terms of fixes and stability.

 

but of course, with XP Pro i don't have to worry about what appz to get or which gamez would work (though the only game i've been playing is Starcraft). plus it has been working just fine for me, so its not like i NEED the alternative.

 

Any suggestions or comments would be appreciated.

[sapiens74 0]

XP Pro is

 

 

You can enable and disable user friendly options which are nit available in server.

 

 

Besides server is expensive

[DS3Circuit 0]

Drivers ..... drivers are a big thing .... just because some are certified for XP, doesnt mean they will work / work consistently with 2003.

 

My $0.02

[akiss 0]

no problem with 2003 it works fine and is too fast..no problems with any driver...

[BladeRunner 0]

Using WinXP now £0

Upgrading to Server 2003 £399

 

No competition.

[akiss 0]

nice way of thinking BladeRunner..lol

i agree with you...

[ViolentGreen 0]

XP pro is made to be a workstation. Server 2003 is made to be a server.

[ThC 129 0]

yeah provided you pay for your OS, then I would go XP Pro.

 

XP home sucks hands down, its not even in the running. Server is configured for a server OS though i have not fooled with it too see how it is a viable Workstation. So with XP pro you will have more luck getting it to run and having better workstation options without having to change the OS all around.

[Mr.Guvernment 0]

XP Home s for home, not as a work station - hence HOME

 

 

XP Pro is a workstation O/S

 

2003 SERVER - is a server O/S

 

 

i think the names say it all.

[Tomay 0]

Quote:

XP Pro is a workstation O/S

2003 SERVER - is a server O/S

But you can still use 2003 server as a workstation. There are even guides around how to do it. And 2003 is quite faster

[akiss 0]

How to convert your Windows Server 2003...

to a Workstation!

 

http://www.msfn.org/win2k3/

[Mr.Guvernment 0]

Yes - very true, but that was not MS's intention.

 

the reason 2003 is faster is simple because of all the services that are disabled to start - once u enable all the ones u need for a workstation O/S - the ram usage goes upto to around 120mb on boot up, just like XP which uses around 100mb, not to mention theme's is disabled in 2003.

 

turn on all the features of XP PRO in 2003 and u more or less have the same O/S - with MORE things running, due to the server based apps running in the back ground, if u confirgure any.

[ViolentGreen 0]

Quote:

XP Home s for home, not as a work station - hence HOME


XP Pro is a workstation O/S

2003 SERVER - is a server O/S


i think the names say it all.

Isn't the definition of a workstation is a machine that is not a server?

[Mr.Guvernment 0]

So what is the definition of a

 

PC - Personal COmputer

 

how do u seprate the 3

 

Server - WorkStation - Personal Computer

 

 

I think each can be some what defined by the hardware used in each.

 

 

here is what i found

 

Quote:

Definition: workstation

 

 

1. A one-person computer that is more powerful and faster than most personal computers, and is typically used for graphics, scientific computing, CAD, CAE, and other applications requiring high performance and memory.

2. A terminal in a network, which may have its own processing capability. 3. A terminal or personal computer where one person works.

[ironman666 0]

I know that 2003 Server is obviously designed to be a server and XP Pro is obviously supposed to be a workstation. I just brought it up because of the guides that are out on the web, which made me think about the whole process. i wouldn't install DNS Server, DHCP Server, or any other "server-specific service" so those services wouldn't run (either they'd be disabled or not installed), so i know i can possibly have less services running by default (which is nice). The only other issue besides programs and games that may not work would be hardware (not sure if my soundcard is even supported by 2003). Anyways, I don't think i'd consider using Windows 2003 Server as a workstation...Thanks for the feedback.