Full Version: Windows Server 2003
Anybody here use Windows Server 2003? I heard when its converted to a workstation, it's simply amazing!
I'm using it on my server.
Not sure what you mean by "converted" to a workstation, it is a server. (thats a period). Read the suggested hardware requirements and then double or triple everything.
You can also read about that by default there is no audio, no DirectX, etc - this was a good choice that MS decided not to try & play both sides of the fence with this one.
I can only suggest that if you want to do normal stuff like listen to music, play games, then stick with XP or 2k pro, 2k3 is not meant for that.
additionaly every time you shut down you have to choose from a list why you are shutting down, (hardware maintenace, software installation, etc!) a little annonying, but the idea is that it isn't meant to be shut down!
On the positive side - it is amazing, the integration of everthing (active directory, exchange, IIS, etc) is really good, M$ I think really got a lot of the rountine function working well together.
Not sure what you mean by "converted" to a workstation, it is a server. (thats a period). Read the suggested hardware requirements and then double or triple everything.
You can also read about that by default there is no audio, no DirectX, etc - this was a good choice that MS decided not to try & play both sides of the fence with this one.
I can only suggest that if you want to do normal stuff like listen to music, play games, then stick with XP or 2k pro, 2k3 is not meant for that.
additionaly every time you shut down you have to choose from a list why you are shutting down, (hardware maintenace, software installation, etc!) a little annonying, but the idea is that it isn't meant to be shut down!
On the positive side - it is amazing, the integration of everthing (active directory, exchange, IIS, etc) is really good, M$ I think really got a lot of the rountine function working well together.
Interesting read for sublimelouie HERE
Well blow me!
have to shake my head at this one
I don't know whether to laugh at it or think about upgrading that bloody XP gui
I guess i still would be a bit careful that a lot of hardware still might not be accepting Win2k3.
But food for thought
have to shake my head at this one
I don't know whether to laugh at it or think about upgrading that bloody XP gui
I guess i still would be a bit careful that a lot of hardware still might not be accepting Win2k3.
But food for thought
Yes, I agree with you on that one TwoJ, some hardware will not accept win2k3. Also, some workstation software programs will not install on it.
So, TwoJ you were right, even thought win2k3 is amazing at being a server, it looks like it can be a good workstation, but with some compatibility issues!
So, TwoJ you were right, even thought win2k3 is amazing at being a server, it looks like it can be a good workstation, but with some compatibility issues!
Windows Server 2003 is as the name says a Server OS!
I cant think of one good reason to buy Windows Server 2003 when your going to run it on your workstation.
Not when it costs at least 3 times the money than Windows XP...
Solaris
I cant think of one good reason to buy Windows Server 2003 when your going to run it on your workstation.
Not when it costs at least 3 times the money than Windows XP...
Solaris
solaris : There are people in the world with way too much money and they dont know what to do with it. I think people like them would go out and buy Win2k3 and run it as a server 
I agree with Jen
as well most people have been programmed by good marketing that they need the "latest" hardware & software for their computers. I know a few people with fancy ibook laptops with high-speed internet that get on it 2-3 times a week to send a few emails! - A frincken $200 PI could do the same job and not fill up a landfill!
But I digress - I still think that 2003 is a server, trying to use it as a workstation might be possible but I don't see any benifits over XP besides making the weathiest man alive richer.
as well most people have been programmed by good marketing that they need the "latest" hardware & software for their computers. I know a few people with fancy ibook laptops with high-speed internet that get on it 2-3 times a week to send a few emails! - A frincken $200 PI could do the same job and not fill up a landfill!
But I digress - I still think that 2003 is a server, trying to use it as a workstation might be possible but I don't see any benifits over XP besides making the weathiest man alive richer.
QUOTE
s well most people have been programmed by good marketing that they need the "latest" hardware & software for their computers.
sad but true. My 'latest and greatest' is a a three/four year old ATI AIW 7500, three year old Hercules soundcard, and 1900 athlon XP that was upgraded (from a 1300) only because my uncle bumped his system up and gave this one to me.
Take a short Google session and you will find that just a few registry differences were all that separated Windows 2000 professional and Windows 2000 Server.
I of course am not referring to 'Terminal server edition,' just basic server 2000.
The line between server and workstation has been blurry for some time. It is greatly an issue of maximum allowed connections in the M$ world.
I of course am not referring to 'Terminal server edition,' just basic server 2000.
The line between server and workstation has been blurry for some time. It is greatly an issue of maximum allowed connections in the M$ world.
I don't think it is blurrey - M$ has definite Servers (NT, 2000, 2003) and workstations (everything else)
The licences are different for the # of users for sure. I would think that the diff between 2000 & 2003 is probably a bit more since there is a lot more cohesion with active directory and other tasks in 2003 that is not in 2000
The licences are different for the # of users for sure. I would think that the diff between 2000 & 2003 is probably a bit more since there is a lot more cohesion with active directory and other tasks in 2003 that is not in 2000
To clarify my statement, I am saying there is little difference between the OS choices in the same family. I.E. Windows 2000 Pro, and 2000 Server. Windows NT4, and NT4 Server. I cannot speak to Windows 2003, though I would not be surprised to find few differences. It is cheaper for Microsoft to support one code base. That is why they came out with Windows XP Pro and XP Home. Unlike the OS choices in the past, I.E. Win 9x, the core kernel is the same.
They can change a great deal with just a few registry entries. Some less than ethical people have 'converted' Windows 2000 Pro to 'server' with registry changes.
They can change a great deal with just a few registry entries. Some less than ethical people have 'converted' Windows 2000 Pro to 'server' with registry changes.
QUOTE(JEN @ Mar 26 2004, 01:10 AM)
solaris : There are people in the world with way too much money and they dont know what to do with it. I think people like them would go out and buy Win2k3 and run it as a server
And some people buy at the emule store
@ddrawley - Got ya - yup have to agree
Speaking of 2003 has anyone run a firewall on it and what is your experiance?
Speaking of 2003 has anyone run a firewall on it and what is your experiance?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.