windows server 03 VS Xp

tlarkin

VIP Member
there are no benefits, unless you are running server level applications, directory services, etc.
 

Camper

New Member
If you are plaining on using 2003 Server for every day use you will run into many compatibly problems with all types of software.
 

Draco Malfoy

New Member
It is actually less compatible with some networking and other hardware. If you want to create your own Domain (login domain) for Windows XP Professional computers to log on to, then get 2003. If you want to have a large network with many computers connecting to a single computer, then get 2003. If you need to manage many users (100s or 1000s) on your network, get 2003. IF you don't need to do any of those things, then most definitely get Windows XP. It's much, much cheaper. Some editions of 2003 cost thousands. You may be better off with Linux (usually free) or eComstation (70 USD). They can do many of the things that Windows Server 2003 can do. Or if your hardware is up to it, try Vista, or try the beta version of Windows Server 2008. Both Vista and 2008 have much steeper hardware requirements than Windows XP and Server 2003 though.
 
Last edited:

PabloTeK

Active Member
2008 is useless though, I tried it on my Optiplex and none of the drivers I had worked on it. You could use Linux or BSD. They're both free and very powerful.
 

JamesC

New Member
Personally, I find Server 2003 very usefull only for Active Directory.

Other than that, it is a complete waste of money (lots of it).

If you don't need AD, get linux/xp.
 

tlarkin

VIP Member
if you are running a:

domain network

managing users - AD/OD/LDAP/eDirectory

pushing out policy

mapping drives

pushing out applications

deploying network images or network installable software

then a server OS is for you.
 
Top