W2k3?

**<ABX** · Sep 2nd, 2003, 07:49 AM

What do you guys think about Windows 2003 Server?

Is 2k3 better than windows xp pro for the following

I mostly Develop (VS .NET 03), Listen to Music, Watch Movies, Burn, chat {msn,IRC}.

I dont to any gaming.

Please give a vaild reason why its better not just because you hate XP?

**Edneeis** · Sep 2nd, 2003, 09:35 AM

Unless you are serving something then I wouldn't bother with a server OS. A server OS is not the same as a professional workstation OS although it could be used as such. As a server though I think it is pretty good although I have had some driver issues.

**VisionIT** · Sep 2nd, 2003, 02:22 PM

My advice, steer clear for a while! It's still got hundreds of bugs, and is IMHO far from finished!

The internet security pack is a pain in the ar$e. Before you can visit ANY website, you have to add them to your trusted zone!

I know it's for security, but it's going a little too far!

Win2000 Pro is fine for every day, reliable use. For the exact opposite... try WinME!

You can run apache or IIS from a 2K system if you really need server privilages, and even host professional secure pop/imap servers using Kerio.

Again, steer clear!

**Kasracer** · Sep 2nd, 2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by VisionIT
My advice, steer clear for a while! It's still got hundreds of bugs, and is IMHO far from finished!

I was a tester in the beta of it and I seen absolutely NO BUGS in a BETA. Your problem(s) might be hardware related.

Originally posted by VisionIT
The internet security pack is a pain in the ar$e. Before you can visit ANY website, you have to add them to your trusted zone! I know it's for security, but it's going a little too far!

It isn't too far, the OS is ment to be a server OS. Server OSes should NEVER be used like a normal OS, surfing the internet, ect... they are ment to serve up documents and other things.

Originally posted by VisionIT
Win2000 Pro is fine for every day, reliable use. For the exact opposite... try WinME!

Windows XP Pro is also fine for everything things and, on average, seems to have better stability than 2k (the poster, after all, said he was using XP, not 2K)

**VisionIT** · Sep 2nd, 2003, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by kasracer
I was a tester in the beta of it and I seen absolutely NO BUGS in a BETA. Your problem(s) might be hardware related.

You didn't see any bugs? did you test it with your eyes shut? It's riddled with 'em.

My hardware is fine BTW.

Servers OS's have Internet Explorer for direct updates and remote control from an MS engineer. If it wasn't supposed to be used on the net, why install it?

**<ABX** · Sep 2nd, 2003, 03:03 PM

I was wondering because it is suppose to be alot faster than xp
normally i just jump into things eg(I had winxp pro (corp Final) Installed two months b4 it was released and im still using the same cd - well I slipstreamed sp1 into it)

but i use my computer for alot of important things so i cant afford any down time.

I guess i'll wait a few months for bugs to be worked out.

btw: all my hardware works fine, i had the eval version setup on a dual boot a while ago but now i got a full copy

never had a chance to play with it much, as i had exams.

**SolidForce** · Sep 2nd, 2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by kasracer
I was a tester in the beta of it and I seen absolutely NO BUGS in a BETA. Your problem(s) might be hardware related.
It isn't too far, the OS is ment to be a server OS. Server OSes should NEVER be used like a normal OS, surfing the internet, ect... they are ment to serve up documents and other things.
Windows XP Pro is also fine for everything things and, on average, seems to have better stability than 2k (the poster, after all, said he was using XP, not 2K)

Im sorry but lol?

I myself know 2 Microsoft Programmers, both of them work on the Win2k3 Operating System, I dont know them personally but as aquaintances (spell0ng?), both of those give regular updates to me and quite a few other people on a closed forum for course users of NITLC, and they basically say "No point going near it yet its way to buggy, hundreds of security holes etc".

I also have installed this once, and its given me no end of problems, it has nothing to do with my hardware, it has everything to do with the operating system.

VisionIT is right, did you test with your eyes closed?

**Kasracer** · Sep 2nd, 2003, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by SolidForce
VisionIT is right, did you test with your eyes closed?

No, and I myself know several others who have tested the software as well and I experienced no problems from setting up and using it as a server, ect...

MS doesn't push products so hard is they are "riddled with bugs" like they have been with Win2K3.

If the OS had soo many bugs, microsoft would be getting lawsuits up the ass right now, since most corporations are moving from 2k (if they uesd windows) to 2K3.

**Sastraxi** · Sep 2nd, 2003, 05:36 PM

How many servers are on Windows 2003 already? Personally I see absolutely no point -- Windows 2000 can already do all of Microsoft's latest technologies, and has been proven stable over many years. Why upgrade? So you can now be the victim of crackers and script kiddies taking advantage of thousands of security holes in Microsoft's code?

**Edneeis** · Sep 3rd, 2003, 11:08 AM

I run a win2k3 server and haven't see many problems. The main things I've seen are driver issues, which it seems to have poor support of a lot of drivers. All the major components work though and it is MUCH faster than win2k server. Well actually most of the noticable difference is at startup but since its a server then it doesn't get turned on and off much. It has some new useful features as well like Shadow Copy or whatever its called and I like the Server Roles Manager (although it really isn't that big of deal).

**DiGiTaIErRoR** · Sep 4th, 2003, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by kasracer
Windows XP Pro is also fine for everything things and, on average, seems to have better stability than 2k (the poster, after all, said he was using XP, not 2K)

Windows2k is superior to XP, in that it is more stable and manages resources more efficiently.

Atleast for me.

**Kasracer** · Sep 4th, 2003, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
Windows2k is superior to XP, in that it is more stable and manages resources more efficiently.

Atleast for me.

Basicly, you just said Microsoft is wrong.... but they made the OS.

Windows XP was built, basicly, right off of 2K. It has the same stability (even more for me) as well as ALOT better memory management (remember, the OS can handle osme memory, but programs you use may not manage memory correctly, like the trash Kazaa k++)

Windows XP also has alot more features in manging disks and other things through the computer management (even though 2k has compmgmt, XP's has more features).

I also like XP's boot time.

But I never said I liked microsoft, in fact, I don't really like the company at all. They make too many stupid decisions, but their OS is fairly decent

**VisionIT** · Sep 4th, 2003, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by kasracer
Windows XP was built, basicly, right off of 2K. It has the same stability (even more for me) as well as ALOT better memory management (remember, the OS can handle osme memory, but programs you use may not manage memory correctly, like the trash Kazaa k++)

You mentioned OSME

Care to fill us all in on what Open Systems Message Exchange has got to do with Win2k and XP's stability? Ok, so it's derived from ONDS, but it has no relation to your argument?

**Kasracer** · Sep 4th, 2003, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by VisionIT
You mentioned OSME

Care to fill us all in on what Open Systems Message Exchange has got to do with Win2k and XP's stability? Ok, so it's derived from ONDS, but it has no relation to your argument?

Oh noes, I accidently messed up an order on some letters, on hoes

some, you knew *** I ment

**DiGiTaIErRoR** · Sep 4th, 2003, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by kasracer
Basicly, you just said Microsoft is wrong.... but they made the OS.

Windows XP was built, basicly, right off of 2K. It has the same stability (even more for me) as well as ALOT better memory management (remember, the OS can handle osme memory, but programs you use may not manage memory correctly, like the trash Kazaa k++)

Windows XP also has alot more features in manging disks and other things through the computer management (even though 2k has compmgmt, XP's has more features).

I also like XP's boot time.

But I never said I liked microsoft, in fact, I don't really like the company at all. They make too many stupid decisions, but their OS is fairly decent

Running 3DSMAX5 while rendering in XP multi-tasking is very slow, even on my XP 1600+ with 256 MB of DDR crucial ram with tweaked timings so it's extra fast. On Win2k, most other tasks run normally. I have even launched two instances of 3DSMAX5 on Win2k, and my machine still didn't lag unreasonably. On XP I probably would of had to reboot, or wait a very long time with my computer not responding. Conclusion, XP locks up a lot easier than 2k, and this is due to poor resource management.

Also, 3DSMAX5/Photoshop take longer to exit on XP than on 2k.

XP gets to the login screen faster for me but by the time I can actually use my system I wouldn't say it's much different than 2k.

Win2k is in stage sp4, xp isn't near that. Windows 2k is obviously more stable, if for that reason alone, and it has been proven stable over time. That's why people still use Windows 2k as a server OS.

**VisionIT** · Sep 5th, 2003, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
Running 3DSMAX5 while rendering in XP multi-tasking is very slow, even on my XP 1600+ with 256 MB of DDR crucial ram with tweaked timings so it's extra fast. On Win2k, most other tasks run normally. I have even launched two instances of 3DSMAX5 on Win2k, and my machine still didn't lag unreasonably. On XP I probably would of had to reboot, or wait a very long time with my computer not responding. Conclusion, XP locks up a lot easier than 2k, and this is due to poor resource management.

Also, 3DSMAX5/Photoshop take longer to exit on XP than on 2k.

XP gets to the login screen faster for me but by the time I can actually use my system I wouldn't say it's much different than 2k.

Win2k is in stage sp4, xp isn't near that. Windows 2k is obviously more stable, if for that reason alone, and it has been proven stable over time. That's why people still use Windows 2k as a server OS.

I have to agree! Win2k is widely used throughout government organisations, and they can't afford to have unstable, unreliable systems. If WinXP home or Pro was that good, they would be upgrading!

Kasracer... I didn't actually spot what you were trying to say. If the word didn't make any sense, i'de have looked again, but OSME is a term used in this industry!

I don't see any problems with Win2k which would force me to change to another OS! It's fast, stable and wipes the floor with any XP release.

I appreciate XP was built with 2K's NT technology in mind, I just think Microsoft lost track when they started the "roll-back" feature and pretty green start menu's!

Too many pretty's, and not enough time spent on the real guts of a good OS.

**DiGiTaIErRoR** · Sep 5th, 2003, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by VisionIT
...feature and pretty green start menu's! Too many pretty's, and not enough time spent on the real guts of a good OS.

Indeed. With the XP styles on explorer becomes even more of a resource hog.

You need around 100 MB of memory just to run explorer.

Right now explorer is using 10 MB(virtual and physical).

**Kasracer** · Sep 5th, 2003, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
Running 3DSMAX5 while rendering in XP multi-tasking is very slow, even on my XP 1600+ with 256 MB of DDR crucial ram with tweaked timings so it's extra fast. On Win2k, most other tasks run normally. I have even launched two instances of 3DSMAX5 on Win2k, and my machine still didn't lag unreasonably. On XP I probably would of had to reboot, or wait a very long time with my computer not responding. Conclusion, XP locks up a lot easier than 2k, and this is due to poor resource management.

Dude, you're rendering 3D objects on a fairly outdated computer.... you shouldn't expect it to run fast.

Windows XP yses tge same resource management as 2K, it was RIPPED from it. Try getting some more ram.

When I render stuff, I NEVER slow down in other applications.

I have never had XP lock up.... in the well over a year I've had it, it has never locked up. BSOD a few times (probably my fault messing around with experimental drivers from nVidia

) but that's It.

Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
Also, 3DSMAX5/Photoshop take longer to exit on XP than on 2k.

Get more. You shouldn't be complaining about XP when you only have 256MB of ram and are trying to run several high end applications at once.

That being said, when I exit out of photoshop, I click the X and poof, it's gone. I never have problems with applications hanging AT ALL.

Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
XP gets to the login screen faster for me but by the time I can actually use my system I wouldn't say it's much different than 2k.

Not for me. I timed it, takes exactly 8 seconds for my login screen to come up, type in my password and everything else comes up and is usable (not loading anything else) within another 5-8 seconds.

Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
Win2k is in stage sp4, xp isn't near that. Windows 2k is obviously more stable, if for that reason alone, and it has been proven stable over time. That's why people still use Windows 2k as a server OS.

Win2k is in stage service pack 4? uh... right... it does not matter what service pack an OS is up to. That does NOT make it anymore stable. In fact, it's usually the other way around.

At my friend's work, they upgraded all of the systems to SP4, good lord what a nightmare. BSODs eft and right, extra slow... so many problems! They had to re-image all of them.

Windows XP is built apon Win2k. It's memory management is basically the same, and it's just as stable, if not, more so.

I'd suggest you upgrading to ALOT more ram, especially if you use photoshop and 3Dmax alot, same with your cpu.

**Kasracer** · Sep 5th, 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
Indeed. With the XP styles on explorer becomes even more of a resource hog.

You need around 100 MB of memory just to run explorer.

Right now explorer is using 10 MB(virtual and physical).

Turn them off

and I don't need 100MB of memory to run explorer, maybe your XP install was hosed.

Even with themes on, my explorer doesn't go over 20-30MB of ram usage

**Kasracer** · Sep 5th, 2003, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by VisionIT
I appreciate XP was built with 2K's NT technology in mind, I just think Microsoft lost track when they started the "roll-back" feature and pretty green start menu's! Too many pretty's, and not enough time spent on the real guts of a good OS.

It takes 2 seconds to turn those Off. Those are not the core changes that went into XP's design.

Disk management alone makes XP all that much nicer

**VisionIT** · Sep 5th, 2003, 01:13 PM

Originally quoted by Kasracer
Win2k is in stage service pack 4? uh... right... it does not matter what service pack an OS is up to. That does NOT make it anymore stable. In fact, it's usually the other way around.

Er... a moment to laugh at that please!

Microsoft don't release patches to make their OS's more unstable!!!!????!!!! I've been running SP4 for a while now, with no probs at all! I'm only running an AMD 800Mhz with 512Mb ram on the server, and it runs like a dream! Switches on, runs... switches off... job done!

You said it takes 8 seconds for the login screen.... either your XP install is screwy or you run F 'all on it! I've got my system running in RAID 3, with data redundancy check enabled.. and a JBOD partition and they both take longer than 8 seconds! Are you B$ us kas' m8?

I've just had 6 DDOS attacks from someone either running CodeRed or infected with it... and the box just smiles, and carries on! Good ol' Win2k!

**DiGiTaIErRoR** · Sep 5th, 2003, 02:20 PM

I wouldn't say my computer is outdated.

I don't know of anything it can't handle(128MB DDR video).

Besides unstable OS's.

**Sastraxi** · Sep 7th, 2003, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR

I don't know of anything it can't handle *snip* Besides unstable OS's.

Classic!

**The Hobo** · Sep 7th, 2003, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by kasracer
Oh noes, I accidently messed up an order on some letters, on hoes

some, you knew *** I ment

Did you just not take any English classes in high school?

Any high school at all, for that matter?

**Sastraxi** · Sep 7th, 2003, 10:48 PM

dam u hobo u always goin round and pssn on ppls you should go 2 skool lol rofls

Just so you know what to expect on the internet

**The Hobo** · Sep 7th, 2003, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by Sastraxi
dam u hobo u always goin round and pssn on ppls you should go 2 skool lol rofls

Just so you know what to expect on the internet

At least meaning can be derived from what you said. Didn't work for him.

**DiGiTaIErRoR** · Sep 8th, 2003, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by Sastraxi
Classic!

Modern!

Thread: W2k3?

Thread Tools

Display

W2k3?

Posting Permissions