Windows XP Drivers in Windows Server 2003 ???

[saeapu]

Hello,

I have a quick question to ask...

I am tring to have a server system started at home. I have Windows Server 2003 Ent. Edition

The question is, if I install Windows Server 2003 in a reg. local computer which is running right now, Windows Server 2003, can drivers from XP work in 2003.

Will I have problems with hard ware capability or will all hardware work with 2003 if I use the XP drivers.

In hardware, I mean CD Drives, DVD Writer Drives, Video Cards, Sound Cards, and other secondary hardwares.

Thanks

Saeapu

 

[hopejr]

I've installed NT4.0 drivers on Win2k3 before without problems, so I'm sure you won't have problems using XP drivers.

 

[spyordie007]

I've used XP drivers under 2K3 Server before and they generally work fine. Keep in mind that there is going to be the *potential* that you could run into issues with drivers that arent certified and that the vendor(s) likely wont support it; however odds are you'll be just fine.

I suggest visiting the vendor's website and looking for 2K3 Server drivers first, but otherwise install away.

 

[saeapu]

Thanks,

Guys

 

[saeapu]

I went on my dvd writer vendor site and it did not have any drivers on the website...it said that windows xp has built in drivers for the drive and it should work with xp...do you think it will work in server 2003 web edition..?

 

[spyordie007]

if XP has built-in drivers for it than 2003 probably does as well.

 

[saeapu]

What about playing games...would server let me play games ?

 

[spyordie007]

after some tweaking you could play games on it, but if you want to play games you should really be using XP.

If this is your desktop and you plan on playing games on it why do you want to run server 2003 anyways? It's likely that you could perform the same tasks w/ XP Pro (and it costs a lot less, and you'll get better support).

 

[hopejr]

I use 2k3 to play games, coz XP is too bloated to run properly on my Pentium 2 (yes, I am stuck in the stone age, wanting to replace it soon). All I had to do is start the Windows Audio service (off by default in Enterprise Edition) and turn on hardware acceleration for the video and sound. 2k3 works fine with games.

 

[saeapu]

Thanks

 

[spyordie007]

I use 2k3 to play games, coz XP is too bloated to run properly on my Pentium 2

That's just stupid. If you disable the services that makes 2003 server a server (i.e. IIS, DNS, etc.) and than go and enable the services to turn it into a workstation (audio, video acceleration) than it will be just as "bloated" as using XP Pro. after you've disabled the firewall.

 

[stash]

I use 2k3 to play games, coz XP is too bloated to run properly on my Pentium 2

Comedy gold.

 

[JonnyBlaze]

2003 in my experience is better than xp at just about everything. having the additional servers at your fingers is a big plus too.

Jblaze

 

[spyordie007]

2003 in my experience is better than xp at just about everything

Isnt the placebo wonderful?

At the core the 2 operating systems are nearly identical. The only things that Server 2003 is going to be better at doing than XP are those things that make it a server OS such as IIS 6, IAS, Active Directory or DNS. If you're performing regular desktop tasks 2003 server will not be any *better* than XP Pro.

 

[stash]

But, but....newer is always better right???

 

[CTho9305]

This tool is pretty useful when you're using 2k3 for a desktop OS.

 

[hopejr]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

I use 2k3 to play games, coz XP is too bloated to run properly on my Pentium 2

That's just stupid. If you disable the services that makes 2003 server a server (i.e. IIS, DNS, etc.) and than go and enable the services to turn it into a workstation (audio, video acceleration) than it will be just as "bloated" as using XP Pro. after you've disabled the firewall.

Even with best performance set in XP, it still didn't run as well as 2k3 is. And I'm also using 2k3 as a web server.

 

[stash]

Even with best performance set in XP, it still didn't run as well as 2k3 is

What are you basing this performance comparison on? Do you have any data to back this up?

 

[hopejr]

Originally posted by: STaSh

Even with best performance set in XP, it still didn't run as well as 2k3 is

What are you basing this performance comparison on? Do you have any data to back this up?

Experience with my P2 is enough for me. You don't have to believe it if you don't want to. I just find things are faster on it after going to 2k3.

 

[Philippine Mango]

How has W2k3 worked for you? I was thinking of installing it on one of my systems since I would like to see if I can get a lean version of windows xp. Please if you can, go into task manager and check out the total commit charge. Please let me know so I can see how much less ram it uses compared to windows xp pro, thanks. Right now my XP Machine is using 203MB, BTW Please dont exaggerate and say its like 32MB, I want an honest answer. If you don't feel like posting just PM me the results because I too think windows XP is very bloated (64MB of ram to 200MB) complete retardation.....

Thanks.

 

[hopejr]

2k3 is a nice version of windows. My system is a P2 350MHz with 198MB RAM, and my commit charge is as follows:
Total: 189372K (185MB)
Limit: 481964K (471MB)
Peak: 214356K (209MB)

 

[spyordie007]

since I would like to see if I can get a lean version of windows xp

Please read the previous posts on this. 2k3 server is not a 'lean' version of xp, in fact if you run the services that come with the OS it requires considerably more resources.

Please let me know so I can see how much less ram it uses compared to windows xp pro

A few major flaws with this thinking:

1. 2 systems are going to be running different services with different hardware and different drivers; so there is no direct comparison.
2. the 2 systems are going to be running different applications (i.e. antivirus, firewall, etc.)
3. And probably the most important flaw in this line of thinking. The OSes (yes both of them) are designed to use as much RAM as they can get their hands on; simply put unused RAM is wasted RAM, if you have unused RAM the system is supposed to allow the OS and applications to take larger chunks of it so they can operate better. In the event that you need the RAM for something else (i.e. you open a new application) the memory space allocated to the OS and other applications is adjusted accordingly. Having Windows suck 200MB of RAM is a good thing.

If you guys are having issues with XP as a desktop post your issues and we can probably help you to accomplish what you need. XP and Server 2003 really are virtually the same OS at the core and if configured similarly there should not be a significant performance difference (in either direction) between the two of them. Any differences you do experience are almost certainly to do with your configuration as well as the services and applications you are running. Take it from those of us who do this every day, there is no need to run 2K3 server as a desktop OS.

Also hopejr I've got to ask; if you can afford to run a ~$1000 OS on your desktop why cant you can afford some better hardware?

EDIT: Fixed spelling mistakes

 

[Phoenix86]

I'll just throw this out there and maybe people will grasp this.

W2k+code=WXP+code=S2K3.

Techincaly W2k is the "lightest" weight of the three, but that doesn't make it the best desktop OS. It's funny when people say WXP is bloated, and they want to use S2K3 instead. There are MORE services on S2K3 than XP... The "bloat" is often referred to as "features" like Firewall, DNS, Themes, whatever.

spyordie007, there are legal ways to get S2K3 for free. MS is giving away FULL licenses in their MOC at any official MS S2K3 class. I think it's still available as 90 killware download from MS as well.

 

[stash]

I think it's still available as 90 killware download from MS as well.

I'm assuming you mean 90 days. It's actually 120.

 

[spyordie007]

there are legal ways to get S2K3 for free. MS is giving away FULL licenses in their MOC at any official MS S2K3 class.

I know there are a lot less expensive ways of getting your hands on it. I have a MSDN subscription so if I really wanted I could run Server 2003 Enterprise on my desktop and my licensing would cover it, there are also less expensive programs such as the Action Pack. I havent seen 2003 server given away for free anywhere, not that it doesnt happen just that I've never seen it. I have however seen XP Pro. given away at a number of places for free. But that doesnt matter because my point was that if you compare them apples to apples XP Pro. generally only costs 1/3 of what Server 2003 costs for the license and you dont have to worry about CALs.