Forum Home
Press F1
 
Thread ID: 65768 2006-01-30 04:44:00 XP pro vs server 2003 Mirddes (10) Press F1
Post ID Timestamp Content User
425387 2006-01-30 04:44:00 ive recently been playing around with logging into my parents laptop remotly under winXP.
the only problem is that if someone is logged into the laptop and is activly using it i cant login, or if someone logs in while im logged in i get kicked, and cant use it anymore.
this is somethign to do with XP only being liscencd for single-users.
id imagine win Server 2003 wouldnt have this restriction.
what differences are there between XP pro and server 2003. both graphicly and features ect, including but not limited to performance on say, 1.6ghz, 256MB ram, onboard video.
do games generally work on server 2003?
thinking of replacing XP pro with server 2003 so i can remotly admin their laptop.
last time i didnt touch their laptop it took them a month to get infested.

thanks in advance. 		Mirddes (10)
425388 2006-01-30 05:01:00 Well, yes, XP is a single-user OS, not a server OS.

But it seems like overkill to install a server OS, just so you can occasionally do maintenance. I assume Server 2003 would cost a significant amount.

Why not just come to an agreement so you can do maintenance when it's needed? 		Graham L (2)
425389 2006-01-30 05:27:00 im lazy, as to how i would aquire the copy of server 2003, lets not get into that ;) Mirddes (10)
425390 2006-01-30 06:30:00 so for games and such, is there a differnce, does it use more or less system resourses, is it harder to setup, iis it more secure? ect... Mirddes (10)
425391 2006-01-30 06:47:00 Ouch, I would not recommend Server2K3 for a home system. There is no way it is designed for gaming.

I find that the CPU and RAM (especially) requirements are far higher to attain the same sort of performance as you would from XP Pro.

Look at altering group policy (gpedit.msc) for your XP machine if you want to lock down various parts. 		Antmannz (6583)
425392 2006-01-30 06:54:00 Server 2003 is part of Windows "Trustworthy Computing" initiative. For example services such as Content Indexing Service, Messenger and NetDDE are be turned off by default. Even running Internet Explorer on Windows 2003 is a bit of a pain, and takes a little mucking around to bring it in line with less secure Windows XP.

It's part of a bigger movement at Microsoft, with stupid marketing phrases like "Secure by Design," "Secure by Default" and " Secure in Deployment"

I won't go into the details, except to say Windows Vista will also try to be more "secure out of the box"

For those with a strong stomach
"Microsoft and Computer Security in 2005: Real progress was made by Microsoft and its industry partners in 2005"

www.microsoft.com

Any similarity to Unix / Linux / Java is purely intentional. 		kingdragonfly (309)
425393 2006-01-30 06:57:00 Use VNC to control the other computer. Prescott (11)
425394 2006-01-30 06:57:00 Wouldn't remote access in XP do what you you want? I mean, why would more than one other person log in at the same time? A simple phone call could advise that you're about to work on their machine, right? Greg (193)
425395 2006-01-30 08:04:00 I dual boot XP Pro and Sever 2003 (don't ask why).

For those who think server 2003 has some sort of mysterious engine that cannot be used for gaming (ONLY SERIOUS SERVER STUFF!!) are pretty much entirely wrong.

I have run Quake 4, Fear and others at basically identical frame rates as WinXP Pro. There is little fundamental engine differences between Home/Pro/Sever, its the FUNTIONAILITY that varies greatly.

Having said that I think your purposed solution to the problem of 2003 sever opposed to XP pro is kinda insane, longer boot times due to huge amounts of extra services requiring more ram etc. 		Battleneter (60)
425396 2006-01-30 08:28:00 if the extra services were disabled, basicly making it XP pro but allowing me to having multiple users using the computer at the same time from time to time... Mirddes (10)
1 2