Is it worth converting W2003 Server for Workstation use?
I see alot of people converting W2003 Server for use as a workstation. Ok that is all good and all, but why go through all that trouble when you could just use Windows XP Pro or Windows XP Home? I put up some arguments here: By the time you get down to it, for workstation use Windows 2003 Server is more or less lik ...
I see alot of people converting W2003 Server for use as a workstation. Ok that is all good and all, but why go through all that trouble when you could just use Windows XP Pro or Windows XP Home?
I put up some arguments here:
By the time you get down to it, for workstation use Windows 2003 Server is more or less like Windows 2000, it would be just be easier to run Windows 2000 Pro or Windows XP, right?
You install Windows 2003 Server, but then you have to go about configuring it for workstation use, for example, enabling hardware acceleration, downloading DirectX, getting drivers, etc, etc. Not to mention add stuff like themes if you wanted them.
I do agree that Windows 2003 Server doesn't have all the bloatware that XP has, but you still have to configure it a bunch to make it work like XP.
So what are everyone else's opinion on this?
I put up some arguments here:
By the time you get down to it, for workstation use Windows 2003 Server is more or less like Windows 2000, it would be just be easier to run Windows 2000 Pro or Windows XP, right?
You install Windows 2003 Server, but then you have to go about configuring it for workstation use, for example, enabling hardware acceleration, downloading DirectX, getting drivers, etc, etc. Not to mention add stuff like themes if you wanted them.
I do agree that Windows 2003 Server doesn't have all the bloatware that XP has, but you still have to configure it a bunch to make it work like XP.
So what are everyone else's opinion on this?
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
I use XP Pro and have no urge to change whatsoever. But so many people on so many different forums are asking questions on how to convert 2003 for workstation use, including on this forum. Plus, there are a bunch of guides already written for this kind of stuff.
Its just like those people who use Windows 2000 Server or Advanced Server as a workstation....why? I can understand if you got it for free off Kazaa then sure go ahead and experiment, but why would anyone buy those OSes for pure workstation use is beyond me.
Its just like those people who use Windows 2000 Server or Advanced Server as a workstation....why? I can understand if you got it for free off Kazaa then sure go ahead and experiment, but why would anyone buy those OSes for pure workstation use is beyond me.
i use mine as a workstation and a server to test my web apps.
you only have to turn on graphics and sound to make it like a workstation. you have to tweak xp a lot to get it to run how i like it.
you only have to turn on graphics and sound to make it like a workstation. you have to tweak xp a lot to get it to run how i like it.
Quote:If you aren't using a pirated copy of it, then the cost alone should be a no go. Then again, if you stole it off Kazaa why not.
Some of us get their software free and legit from MS themselves. I have a copy of 2003 Server with 10 Clients licenses just for going to MS SBS 2003 training, also free.
I have been doing this since Windows 98. and Office 97.
BUT even if you get it free, what the heck is the point in running a server OS as a client? I don't really see how 2003 runs any faster, load times are almost identical between XP and 2003 on most apps and games. 2003 just keeps more DLLs readily available, IT"S A SERVER OS>!
Some of us get their software free and legit from MS themselves. I have a copy of 2003 Server with 10 Clients licenses just for going to MS SBS 2003 training, also free.
I have been doing this since Windows 98. and Office 97.
BUT even if you get it free, what the heck is the point in running a server OS as a client? I don't really see how 2003 runs any faster, load times are almost identical between XP and 2003 on most apps and games. 2003 just keeps more DLLs readily available, IT"S A SERVER OS>!
Well
u can get a 180 trail
2k3 is FAR faster then XP - To enable the features like hardware / themes etc takes what a whole like 10 mins!
Xp out of the box usually runs around 100-110mb - 2k3 is more around 80mb
by the time it takes you time to tweak XP down to that - u could of had 2k3 installed - running as a workstation and playing your favorite game already.
2k3 is simply faster then Xp PRO and only takes a few mins to turn it into a desktop type system
u can get a 180 trail
2k3 is FAR faster then XP - To enable the features like hardware / themes etc takes what a whole like 10 mins!
Xp out of the box usually runs around 100-110mb - 2k3 is more around 80mb
by the time it takes you time to tweak XP down to that - u could of had 2k3 installed - running as a workstation and playing your favorite game already.
2k3 is simply faster then Xp PRO and only takes a few mins to turn it into a desktop type system
Anyone solved the overlay problem with w2k3 yet?
Quote:Anyone solved the overlay problem with w2k3 yet?
what exactly is the problem?
what exactly is the problem?
