Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
I went to a photography business and found that he was
using Windows2003 Server (Enterprise) as a desktop. He
uses a lot of imaging software and needs the horsepower
and stability...he told me.Question...
Is 2003 an ideal solution over XP Pro on a Desktop?
I thought that if there was not much of a network then
W2003Server was just a waste on a desktop?What does 2003 Server provide that XP Pro doesnt?
Thanks.

LOL....I'd bet dollars to donut's it's a pirated version of 2003 server. As to it being a better desktop solution than XP or 2000 Pro....NOT!. It's a SERVER operating system designed for use on a server. Only a dunce who thinks he knows a lot more than he really does would make a statement like that. In fact, that one ranks right up there with "add more RAM, that will speed your computer up!"

actually i used 2k3 server as a desktop
machine without any problem. 2k3 server
's configuration is optimized for a server.
ex. the multimedia stuff is turned off. and
the IE security is enabled. but u can
always turn the multimedia on, and
disable the IE security.running it for games might be a different
issue though.A+ Certified
MCSE soon

Curt-
I want to you remove the majority of your RAM if it will not slow it down. Then try to load a 300MB file into an app and see how well it works. On the majority of systems, adding or maximizing RAM does speed it up. That fact cannot be argued.
As for Server 2003 being the best Desktop? That does sound dumb. Perhaps he bought a maxed out poweredge server and uses for some graphical stuff. The best Dell server would certainly process data faster than a Dimension 2400 because it is built to handle much more.
The hardware, software, RAM and other items all play a crucial part as to how well an machine will work. And it also depends on what the machine is used for.
I have a server that handles graphic work much better than any other machine in our place, but it also outweighs all of the others by specs and configs.
That is my 2 cents-
here's tom with the weather-"i woke up this morning and all of my stuff was stolen and replaced with exact duplicates."

But what is there to gain from using W2003Server over XP Pro with regards to digital images and multimedia. He even plays games in it...hmmmmm.
What advantages are there?

if there are advantages, it is that other computers can connect better, even remotely, to view the images and browse them. But it would certainly not be better for gaming and multimedia.
Don't get too hung up on this, some people just do strange things.
"i woke up this morning and all of my stuff was stolen and replaced with exact duplicates."

There might be some small gains "overall" but little in the ability of photos unless the user has TONS of memory and the expert ability to setup the 2003 system. Otherwise it is $600 gone.

This is what MS claims."
Built for mission-critical server workloads, Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition, is the platform of choice for applications, Web services, and infrastructure. Delivering high reliability, performance, and superior business value, Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition provides these benefits: • A full-function server operating system that supports up to 8 processors.
• Enterprise-class features, such as eight-node clustering and support for up to 32 GB of memory.
• Support for Intel Itanium-based computers, AMD Opteron processors, or Intel Xeon processors.
• Support for 64-bit computing platforms capable of supporting 8 processors and 64 GB of RAM with the 64-bit version.
For more information about the 32-bit version, see the Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition, Overview. For more information about the 64-bit versions, see Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition for 64-Bit Itanium-based Systems and Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition, for 64-Bit Extended Systems (Beta) Overview.
"So you can see if you have a monster machine then you might need a monster OS.

I am an instructor and have a free evaluation copy of W2k3 Server from Microsoft. I recently installed the OS on a P 3.2 system that I recently built (partly because I didn't have a Windows XP or 9x OEM to legitimately install). The system runs fine and integrated into my home network smoothly. For hobbyist and those who like tweaking and finding out how the system works, you can make the OS function as a fine desktop OS. For those who want to just install applications and forget about the OS, I would suggest sticking with a legitimate desktop OS such as XP. If you don't know what you are doing or you aren’t willing to "play around" you will eventually have more trouble than it's worth.
Athlwulf

![]() |
![]() |
![]() |

This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |