Serve 2k3 or XP?

Discussion in 'Windows Server Systems' started by canadian_divx, Aug 17, 2005.

  1. canadian_divx

    canadian_divx Canadian_divx

    Server 2k3 or XP?

    just wondering what would be better and easier to manage for a public file server that would be in my apartment. i was thinking the 2k3 because i am somewhat familiar with them from work. but for something at home where at most 5 people would be pulling. is it needed.

    i just need some opinions here on what one is better and why.

    Thanks
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2005
  2. Heeter

    Heeter Overclocked Like A Mother

    Messages:
    2,732
    In my personal opinion, go with what you have access to for an OS. In my personal situation, my Public/Private File Server that has absolutely been rock solid for me for the last four years without hiccups uses my XPHome OS. With the proper firewalls, router and antivirus, anything goes.

    If I were you, I think that I would more concerned about the bandwidth being used that five peeps using downloading/uploading with your ISP, more than the OS. Especially if your on a regular home user internet connection.

    Heeter
     
  3. ThePatriot

    ThePatriot -=[BOHICA!]=- Political User

    Messages:
    1,742
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Yeah, I agree with heeter, Xp is prob a better choice. There is a 10 concurrent connections limit with Xp, but that can be upped with a reg fix (thats if you even run into that many connections).

    We have a system in which we are offering either 2K3 or XP Pro as a server, and have not had a reason to use 2K3 so far.

    Of course, it would depend on the machine also, must take driver issues into account. We have a very nice HP development server that wont run XP because there is no XP support for it's raid controller(there could be some creative driver interchangability between the 2 OS's tho).
     
  4. madmatt

    madmatt Bow Down to the King Political User

    Messages:
    13,312
    Location:
    New York
    If you can afford to license a server go with Small Business Server and setup Exchange while you are at it. That would be cool.
     
  5. canadian_divx

    canadian_divx Canadian_divx

    the licences are not an issue, a small pack from MS gave me thoes. but is it worth the trubble to set up server. and exchange for 10 people is useless.

    also with bandwith for the modem it does not matter because everyone in the building that is using it can only acccess the files on the server and not the internet.
     
  6. madmatt

    madmatt Bow Down to the King Political User

    Messages:
    13,312
    Location:
    New York
    Exchange for 10 people is useless? I have Exchange for one person, myself. It's not useless if you have it and know how to use it. Quite frankly, it's a good way for me to learn certain things and understand the affects before I make changes in my work environment.

    If you have the time, the patience, the money, and the know-how, then I say go for it.
     
  7. sean.ferguson

    sean.ferguson Moderator Folding Team

    Messages:
    1,693
    Location:
    Fife; Scotland
    personally, only because of what you have said so far about its uses. I would say that XP would suffice.

    For it only to be used as a file server, with no internet access through it, then why not look into a linux based server though, not only is it free but there is a huge worldwide community ready to give its support and it would help you learn another operating environment. :)
     
  8. kcnychief

    kcnychief █▄█ ▀█▄ █ Political User Folding Team

    Messages:
    16,948
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    I'm a little biased, but I would say go Windows Server 2003 Small Business Ed like MadMatt said. When it comes to reliability, performance, and scalability, you just simply can't compare XP to 2K3. And besides, woudldn't it be neat to setup a DC while you are at it, centralized administration is like a dream!

    gpupdate /force will be your best friend :)