XP vs 2003 Server

I wanna know if peepz think XP is better than 2003 Server and why.. :?:
In my Opinion once set up 2003 is thrice more faster than XP.
Games seem to load faster and are alot more stable.

Only the Forum peons will bring light into this very debateable subject ......... :twisted:

well, to me this is comparing an apple to an orange
it's like saying Windows 2000 Professional vs Windows 2000 Server. sif run most every day apps or games on a server version of windows, there are even some valid win32 progs that won't work on windows 2003 server or windows 2000 server for that fact. my view is for normal everyday tasks (this includes game playing) you'd use workstation version of windows, in this case XP, and use only the server version of windows if you are running say some kind of, err, um....................server.

2003 Server doesn't include Minesweeper. Big mistake.. :evil:

It is true that some win32 progs are not compatible with 2003 server...But...if given the right tool one could turn 2003 server into Win XP (or at least fool it to believing that it is infact XP). By doing this you can safely install all your progs that you use for your normal XP installation.

Also 2003 server is after all in my view an updated XP pro OS with server functionality and can quite easily be turned into an XP workstation..this ablity is of course good because one can have all updated progs (ie: Internet Explorer, media player....etc) already installed as well as most fixs that XP does not have without installing SP1,SP2.

IMHO I have noticed that 2003 is infact substantially faster than XP in everyday use as well as Gaming. It also maybe even better for networking games as I have not noticed any troubles lag,etc whilst running some server games at home.

In conclusion I say Give 2003 server a shot, as You may be pleasantly surprised. (I sound Like a M$ rep...I'm gunna stop now :roll: )

In conclusion I say Give 2003 server a shot, as You may be pleasantly surprised. (I sound Like a M$ rep...I'm gunna stop now :roll: )

been there, done that buddy. tried RC1 back in December last year and gotta say i did quite like it for a server version of windows, dig deep in the classifieds forum and you'll find a post by me whinging about 2003's (lack of) support for sound cards was probably one reason why i never stuck to it and as far as Server OS' go, Linux is choice and i won't use anything else.

I use mandrake 9 for all my server stuff so I hear ya when ya say you wouldnt use anything else but linux for a server. :D

Why does a server need sound support? :)

So you can hear all the cool error sounds

If it's a server, you should be checking the Event viewer, not listening for cool sounds.. How often do you have servers in the same room you work in? *looks around*... don't answer that.

/me looks at the server rack...

valid point beffsta

Hence thats why 2003 server comes out of the box with sound disabled :roll:

as well as Graphic Accelaration.

If it's a server; ideally there shouldn't BE errors :)

Why does a server need sound support? :)

hmm well ask m$ that as they included drivers for the SB Live and a few other cards. either include drivers for as many sound cards as possible or include none at all. bearing in mind though that the version of .NET 2003 i had was a release candidate 1. more cards may have been included in it's final release.

To answer that question in two words silencer... "its microsoft"

Its the place where they don't release OS's with "bugs".... they're released with "special features" :wink:

To answer that question in two words silencer... "its microsoft"

it was a statement.