- Jul 17, 2003
- 13,199
- 1
- 81
One problem with your logic LosT, desktops\workstations != servers. Both OSes have the same engine, but 2003 has a beefier framework that lends itself better to heavy duty server work.
What exactly (other than your memory example and boot time which I don't believe) does 2003 handle differently than XP? XP64 will be out before an AMD64 version of 2003. Why do I know that? Where's the beta of Server 2003 for AMD64? The XP beta is right here. After XP SP2 is done, Microsoft will shift over to finishing XP64. The structure of these OSes is almost exactly the same, with minor changes (XP has more cosmetic enhancements, 2003 has server enhancements). IMO, it's cosmetic and 2003 is just XP with sound and video acceleration disabled and server apps added. Quit warezing a $1000 OS and use Windows 2000, XP Pro, or what came with your laptop.
What exactly (other than your memory example and boot time which I don't believe) does 2003 handle differently than XP? XP64 will be out before an AMD64 version of 2003. Why do I know that? Where's the beta of Server 2003 for AMD64? The XP beta is right here. After XP SP2 is done, Microsoft will shift over to finishing XP64. The structure of these OSes is almost exactly the same, with minor changes (XP has more cosmetic enhancements, 2003 has server enhancements). IMO, it's cosmetic and 2003 is just XP with sound and video acceleration disabled and server apps added. Quit warezing a $1000 OS and use Windows 2000, XP Pro, or what came with your laptop.