Games on Windows Server 2003

[saeapu]

All,

I want to install server 2003 on my computer. I want to have the server capabiltes that server 03 offers and also I want to use that computer as a workstation...By which I would like to play games sometimes.

Can Server 2003 handle that ? By playing games...and since the kernal is basically the same as XP, does hardware work in server 03 as it did in XP...I mean driver compatibility?

Thanks

 

[wallsfd949]

Why would you want to spend that much $$ for something to play games with?

 

[dc5]

having server services running in the background while playing games is not a good idea. a server is a server, it is not meant to play games or anything else a workstation does. it's like playing games on nt4.

 

[n0cmonkey]

You can do it, but it requires a bunch of work turning unnecessary (for servers) things on. It's far easier (and cheaper) to just use winxp.

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: saeapu
All,

I want to install server 2003 on my computer. I want to have the server capabiltes that server 03 offers and also I want to use that computer as a workstation...By which I would like to play games sometimes.

Can Server 2003 handle that ? By playing games...and since the kernal is basically the same as XP, does hardware work in server 03 as it did in XP...I mean driver compatibility?

Thanks

What server service do you require that 2003 offers and XP does not?

Quick answer to your question: Yes, for the most part.

 

[saeapu]

Well, I want run a web server at home and I know xp has IIS but I also know what xp comes with junk of themes and usless memory take up space....

Server 03 is much better when it comes to look and speed.

But I also want to use it as a workstation

So drivers would not be a problem...

 

[hopejr]

I do it, and it's fine.

BTW, you don't need to pay $$$$ to get Server 2k3 legally. Those who are MSDN members can get it cheaper, and students at schools that are members of MSDNAA can get it FREE!!!! (I did the latter).

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: saeapu
Well, I want run a web server at home and I know xp has IIS but I also know what xp comes with junk of themes and usless memory take up space....

Server 03 is much better when it comes to look and speed.

But I also want to use it as a workstation

So drivers would not be a problem...

"junk of themes and usless memory take up space" - on anything faster than a P3/600 this isn't going to be an issue. Add a stick of RAM and you're fine.

I suggest you run XP. Based on what you've said, XP would be a significantly better OS - it gives IIS, and it is far cheaper. The RAM footprint, contrary to your comment, is also lower, particularly if you spend a few minutes configuring it.

 

[spyordie007]

Server 03 is much better when it comes to look and speed.

Put XP in "classic" mode and they look virtually identical. Any other appearance change between the two could be acomplished easily enough.

Everything you've mentioned can be acomplished easily enough under XP Pro.

Those who are MSDN members can get it cheaper, and students at schools that are members of MSDNAA can get it FREE!!!! (I did the latter).

I dont know what school you go to but you're certainly paying for it (what do you think a lot of those technology fees go to?). Also with both of these licenses there are a lot of restrictions as to what you can do with the software (i.e. using them in a production/profit bearing enviroment).

Even w/ MSDNAA you should be using that Virtual PC license so that you can be running server 2003 in a virtual lab and configuring/testing it without screwing with it to act like XP Pro. The whole point of your Server 2003 license is so you can learn to develop for and use it as a server, not to make it act like XP.

There really is not a good reason to be using Server 2003 as a workstation OS, period.

 

[Nothinman]

Well, I want run a web server at home and I know xp has IIS but I also know what xp comes with junk of themes and usless memory take up space....

Server also has the theme engine, just AFAIK it's turned off by default and there's no themes installed. So you end up saving yourself a few Megs of disk space, oooooh.

 

[spyordie007]

So you end up saving yourself a few Megs of disk space, oooooh.

AFAIK a server 2003 base install is going to be larger than XP Pro. Even though it saves a few megs worth of themes it burns up more space with some of the other things it has by default that XP does not (i.e. VSC, administrative MSCs, and VDS just to name a few). As other services/features are installed YRMV.

 

[Andres3605]

Just create a dual boot, no problem, if you wan to play go xp and if want server go 2003.

 

[hopejr]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

Server 03 is much better when it comes to look and speed.

Put XP in "classic" mode and they look virtually identical. Any other appearance change between the two could be acomplished easily enough.

Everything you've mentioned can be acomplished easily enough under XP Pro.

Those who are MSDN members can get it cheaper, and students at schools that are members of MSDNAA can get it FREE!!!! (I did the latter).

I dont know what school you go to but you're certainly paying for it (what do you think a lot of those technology fees go to?). Also with both of these licenses there are a lot of restrictions as to what you can do with the software (i.e. using them in a production/profit bearing enviroment).

Even w/ MSDNAA you should be using that Virtual PC license so that you can be running server 2003 in a virtual lab and configuring/testing it without screwing with it to act like XP Pro. The whole point of your Server 2003 license is so you can learn to develop for and use it as a server, not to make it act like XP.

There really is not a good reason to be using Server 2003 as a workstation OS, period.

I do it because:
1) I have a very old computer (P2)
2) I use it for the exact reason you're talking about - learning how to configure a server, etc (but not in VPC, because that is not a requirement, otherwise my school would've let me have VPC. For some reason, they don't give it to anyone). I have a network at home that I test it on.

I play games on it, because it's the only PC I own. The other PC's in the house aren't mine, and my other computer is a Mac. And BTW, we don't have technology fees.

 

[saeapu]

Thanks for all of your input...

But if I do decide to go to Server 03...Will drivers be an issue ?

Besides Video Card...would CD Drives and Ext...will ?

I also get the server thru school..and since it is cheaper to me then buying it in a retail store why not give it a shot.

If I stick with XP Pro...then What other tweaks can I make to it to increase speed and mem usage besides turning the themes off...?

Any good site on XP tweaks ?

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: saeapu
Thanks for all of your input...

But if I do decide to go to Server 03...Will drivers be an issue ?

Besides Video Card...would CD Drives and Ext...will ?

I also get the server thru school..and since it is cheaper to me then buying it in a retail store why not give it a shot.

If I stick with XP Pro...then What other tweaks can I make to it to increase speed and mem usage besides turning the themes off...?

Any good site on XP tweaks ?

Drivers are not an issue. I don't understand your next question, but CD and external drives are not an issue.

What machine are you running it on? On anything that's remotely a modern machine, none of that is going to make any kind of difference. Instead of spending time looking for tweaks, run it on a system with at least 512MB of RAM, and you'll be fine.

 

[spyordie007]

But if I do decide to go to Server 03...Will drivers be an issue ?

Drivers should not be an issue; if Windows doesn?t already have drivers for your device and there are no 2003 server drivers available than you should be able to use the XP drivers.

1) I have a very old computer (P2)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Server 2003 is not going to be any better on old/slow hardware than XP is. In fact if you run it like it's supposed to (server services) it's going to be slower.

If you think you've got server 2003 running faster it means:
1. You've configured the systems/OSes differently (services, software, drivers, etc.)
2. You're experiencing the placebo effect.

If you take 2 systems and put XP on one and 2003 server on the other and than configure them identically (same hardware, drivers, services, extra processes, etc.) and run benchmarks your results should be nearly identical.

 

[hopejr]

Maybe it is a placebo effect, because it seems faster after running Win XP with the same hardware, drivers, services (except I didn't run IIS on XP), etc.