• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

server 2003 vs xp

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
gangaskan

gangaskan

Member
​
Joined
Dec 18, 2003
Location
Lorain, ohio
what are the advantages / disadvantages of moving from xp to 2003. i'm not doing much i'll run a small domain just 1 pc (the server) to run active directory. i have PVR software, and i use trillian pro to im also using termanl services to tunnel in if need be. running iis and doing file / print sharing. i'm looking at converting it if the server software is more stable than xp than i'll switch i have no issue with doing so.

if it helps system specs:
celleron D 2.93 ghz at 3.3
1 gig ram
3 hdd's 40 / 80/ 80 (ide)
segate travrn tape drive
sbaudiguy2 zs
ti 4200
bfg NVTV tuner
hapaugee old tuner (dont know the model offhand)
 
Glad that post above is gone lol...
At any rate it sounds as if you want to run server functions like Active Directory and if this is just a small test server, or mabey 1 or 2 clients then you won't experience a drawback. Any more (read 10 or so more clients piggybacking from the server for additional files and network function) and your pc will really not function as a great PVR anymore, when the load is on. I don't really see moving to windows 2k3 from xp as an upgrade, specially since x64 is based from Win Server 2k3SP1 architecture (irrelevent i know) but imo, it is more stable , and MS actually cares about its server systems by giving you various options when things go wrong. A big issue is software compatability that can be overcome with some modification (make WinServ look like WinXP) but i havn't done this mod, i'm sure someone here can assist.
 
lol yeah i saw that post and thought, yep he's gonna get baned.


i was just wondering what everyone else thought about it, i'm pleased with xp and i'm going to be using this as a machine (pvr, im,web, etc) as i said i may want to toy with other stuff later, such as exchange
 
Advantages- many more builtin network services, its a newer windows build, its tuned for network and server performance

disadvantages- costs more, performance is likely worse for a desktop system

All in all, windows server 2003 is better for a system that provides network services than windows xp. The only drawback is that you have to pay more for it.
 
I'm running both. I think Server 2003 is GREAT for overclocking because you never run into those annoying boot problems you get with XP (I've ALWAYS managed to boot into 2003 server.)

That and you can run a website, FTP site, and play Warcraft 3 at the same time :)
 
well i have windows server 2003 enterprise edition running on my CS server... lets just say its one of the only windows os's that you can use 24/7 and keep it running for months at a time... its great, responsive and really never gives n e fuss... i would go with it because you can make it a nice os but still have great reliability and server functions. I have tried windows server 2003 R2 and i didnt like it it was WAY overprotective almost like vista.
 
You could always download the 180 day eval of windows server 2k3 to try it out before buying. As a server, it will be more stable than XP and I think it will perform better since it isnt quite as bloated with all the xp gui stuff.
 
This will show you how to take server 2003 and make it run almost exactly the same as XP does. For a while I ran that as my main OS and I noticed that some games ran a lot smoother.
 
brakezone said:
disadvantages- costs more, performance is likely worse for a desktop system
Click to expand...

On the contrary its better. Windows 2k3 ran better than 2k on a Pentium 3 600mhz 128mb ram lappy for a friend of mine. Its simply a better product, with more cost. I recoemnd it only if you need it though.
 
Cheator said:
On the contrary its better. Windows 2k3 ran better than 2k on a Pentium 3 600mhz 128mb ram lappy for a friend of mine. Its simply a better product, with more cost. I recoemnd it only if you need it though.
Click to expand...

The reason that Windows 2003 is better is because it has a newer kernel and a better memory manager. I highly recomend using Windows 2003 if you are willing to put up with a little hassle to make it run like a normal desktop system.
 
The office I work at uses primarily a combo win2003 for servers and rack systems and winXP for laptops and workstations. We run med-traffic databases off of our win2003 machines 24/7 for months on end and haven't had any trouble I know of. I also like that the maintanence applications are more available on the Win2003 machines. I'm also running Oracle of both my XP lappy and a 03 box and I can say without a doubt that the 03 instance is much more stable.

Of course, win2003 costs eight times as much as winXP, Heck, it costs more than some computers, so you'll have to decide if it's worth the extra money. If you're not doing a med to high traffic server it might not be worth it.
 
granted i'm not probly going to need enterprise :p nor standard sbs as good as the enterprise versions? thats about as cheap as i can see it be
 
Actually, what I said earlier about the performance being worse for a desktop may not be entirely true. If you do a few things to it, as I have done, it can become almost identical in performance for a desktop. Microsoft has said repeatedly not to use server2003 for games because it is designed for network performance and not for game performance. You can probably get the performance to be about the same as XP and possibly better than; however, I havn't seen any actual proof of this.

In my experience game performance was about the same and there were alot of glitches because games were simply made for xp and not 2003.
 
brakezone said:
In my experience game performance was about the same and there were alot of glitches because games were simply made for xp and not 2003.
Click to expand...

I am suprised to hear this, the only game I ever ran into trouble with was Doom 3 and that is only because it wouldn't start the install and told me my operating system "wasn't compatable."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
ASUS P9X79 and DAW. Speedstep, turbo, auto O.C?
Replies
5
Views
6K
Senso
S
Fr3@k3r
New MS Server geared towards families and homes.
Replies
15
Views
1K
aftermath
aftermath
C
squidguard hates me
Replies
1
Views
6K
CougarSE
C
Back