Windows XP Drivers in Windows Server 2003 ???

[hopejr]

The computing dept at my university has MSDNAA. I got it through them, but I also got VS .NET 2003 Ent Architect (which includes 2k3 Ent) which I won at a Microsoft Seminar for answering a question correctly
2k3 may have more bloat than XP, but by default, most of it is turned off. IIS is about the only service I use that is really for a server (BTW, it's also in XP Pro, just a diff version), and so it runs better. I had to turn IIS on too. XP Pro has bloat turned on by default. That's what makes the diff (no need to go around turning stuff off with 2k3). I'm just lazy, that's probably why I rather 2k3 (I also like to brag that I'm smoothly running the latest version of Windows on my P2. It freaks ppl out).

 

[spyordie007]

"Hey everybody, my hardware is half a decade older than my OS!"




Sorry if I still dont get it :roll:

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: 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.

Actually, there are significant differences in some areas, at startup and shutdown, that can make a difference in terms of the tradeoff between reliability and performance. Server 2003 goes for reliability, XP goes for performance. Personally, I'll take reliability myself, even if it means slower bootups and shutdowns.

There may be other tweaks that make it appear more responsive or efficient than XP in some scenarios. Even though the binaries may be similar, the configuration of those binaries WRT to the running system is done differently during bootup, depending on whether or not the OS is server or workstation.

Also, the code was compiled differently between the two OSes. XP will run on a .. 486, I think. Server 2003 was compiled to require a 686-class (PPro and up) CPU as a minimum, thus also allowing MS to generate more efficient binary code. (CMOV opcode, etc.)

Originally posted by: spyordie007
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.

See above.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: hopejr

Originally posted by: STaSh
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.

That's completely consistent with my understanding of the compiler optimizations applied to the binaries in Server 2003, btw. Some hard objective performance numbers would be nice though to prove it. I wonder if any sites have done OS gaming benchmarks, between W2K, XP, and Server 2003. I know that input devices have a lot less latency in W2K than XP, for example. (Does Server 2003 support RawInput and implement system mouse/keyboard devices as emulated, like XP does, for example? Or does it allow direct access via DirectInput, like W2K does?)

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
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.

Speaking of CALs.. that's another good "feature" of Server 2003 over XP - multiple RDP client login sessions. Ok, it does "bloat" a bit, taking more RAM, but what a useful feature. I tested out Server 2003 on this box for a bit, but I never used it, too much hassle to convert it to a "desktop" OS, and some programs aren't compatible with it, because it's a "server" OS. (workstation/desktop firewall and backup programs, for example.) So I nuked it. W2K is still my fave MS OS, by far.

Edit: Hey - Server 2003 Service Pack 1 Release Candidate 1 is out!

 

[saeapu]

OK...Everyone has good points on Windows Server 2003

But, Since XP has IIS and Server has IIS...If I just to have a DSKTOP OS installed where I can listen to music, play games, and also do work (programming)...I usually program in ASP.NET, what OS would you recommend...
For security, liability, and speed... I know that the Kernal is the same in both OS but I also know that Server does not have many gui themes as XP does instead Server has more security functions...

Any Ideas ?

Saeapu

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: saeapu
OK...Everyone has good points on Windows Server 2003

But, Since XP has IIS and Server has IIS...If I just to have a DSKTOP OS installed where I can listen to music, play games, and also do work (programming)...I usually program in ASP.NET, what OS would you recommend...
For security, liability, and speed... I know that the Kernal is the same in both OS but I also know that Server does not have many gui themes as XP does instead Server has more security functions...

Any Ideas ?

Saeapu

I would recommend XP.