Windows 2000Post your Windows 2000 related questions here.
Mission Statement
WindowsBBS is an online community dedicated to easily accessible technical support for those using Microsoft operating systems and other Windows software.
Our goal is to become the leading resource for computer users that require assistance with their day-to-day computer usage, including full support for networking PC's, virus & malware removal, system upgrades and general support questions.
Does anyone have any opinions as to whether Windows 2003 server would run smoothly on a stand alone computer. Would the speed be slower than XP or the installation bulkier, etc.
giles
Didn't find the information you thought to find? Check out these Similar Threads
Can't say first hand (yet) but from what I've read, 2003 server when installed is limited to server-like stuff with quite a bit disabled. Easy enough to enable though and have a system similar to XP in terms of function.
Most who had done that reported it to be faster than XP at doing XP things. Not sure about hardware requirements though.
A thought to consider at this point. XP-SP2 (just released) hardens XP quite a bit against bad stuff which was a selling point for 2K3. Also the last RC build of SP2 (so I'd expect the same in the release version) gave a noticible speed boost to XP.
At this point, unless you need the pure server features of 2K3, I think I'd hold off until we get more idea of just how XP performs with SP2.
Giles,
I've been running W2K3 as a workstation in a dual boot senario with XP pro for around 8-10 months now. Actually I've set the boot order to boot W2K3 first and use it as my primary OS. I find it runs faster than XP on my P4 2.8 1Gig RAM system. The default install is HEAVILY locked down for security and stability reasons but this can be all be set similar to XP, including Graphics and sound acceleration. MS even allow directX 9.0b or c to be installed on it after graphics acceleration is switched on and you have updated the graphics drivers. System restore can be implemented. I use it and it works fine.
Starting the Themes service makes it look nearly identical to XP. Much better than the default W2K boring look.
MOST software and XP drivers work fine, although occasionally they don't.
The following site gives details about converting it to a workstation. Follow these directions and you can't go wrong...
At work, i use 'server' flavored OSs for my workstations. I dont play games though, i dont have a digital camera, etc.. For 'buisiness' use, it will work fine.
Not sure what your goals are, but using a 1000$ peice of software to drive your home workstation isnt nessicarily the best route to go, especially with SP2 out for XP now.
Maybe a product like virtual pc, or vmware would let you do what you are trying to accomplish.
Thanks Joe, I forgot. Many games work fine of W2K3 providing as mentioned graphics and hardware acceleration are switched on, the cards drivers are up to date and Direct X is installed.
Cameras work fine and USB devices are automatically detected as in XP. I even run DVD and CD burning software (Roxio/Nero) without a hitch, as well as a TV card!
Some soundcards don't have drivers suitable for W2K3. My AC'97 onboard sound only worked after switching sound acceleration on and using windows update for a microsoft sound driver.
I agree with you Joe. You wouldn't purposely buy W2K3 for use as a workstation in preference to XP. But if you already got it, and don't mind reducing the stability and security a little, then turning it into a viable WS is great.
Actually, I'm looking at the possibility of running W2K3 as a replacement for XP. As an update to W2K, which is probably the most stable Microsoft system, I was thinking it might have the same stability. I don't play the high-level games but do most everything else. From the comments it looks like a positive step. I would think the stability and security far exceeds XP, assuming they did actually extend the 2K stability and security. I don't rely on Microsoft security in XP so SP2 isn't a factor and I don't plan to run it for 6 months to a year, if then. I also never use restore, deferring to my multiple rotating full disk backups. Great news to hear it runs most everything comfortable. Thanks for the url Paul. Great comments, just what I need.
Giles,
W2K3 is in theory more stable than XP, although with XP SP2 the gap may have closed. Having said that, its not perfect. I have had the occasional BSOD as I do in XP. Possibly due to drivers (or software) sometimes not specifically written for W2K3.
I would "encourage" you to follow the guide to implement system restore in W2K3, (you will need access to an XP install disc). It has saved me a couple of times when an install, or driver has caused instability issues even after removal.
I understand your concerns with restore points. With the standard unreliability of Microsoft routines I prefer not to use any facilities they offer pertaining to protection that I don't have to. I regularly backup my entire system to a removable drive. I use 4 sets of backups and rotate always replacing the oldest when I back up. Takes about 10 minutes. If I have a problem I just restore my latest backup which completely replaces the entire C drive. That way I have a guaranteed 5 complete sets of my system (4 backups and the current C drive). It duplicates a restore point operation but greatly more secure.
