2003 Server VS XP Pro for workstation

[skaquixotic]

This might be a stupid question...
But just for workstation use, is there any advantage to using 2003 server over XP Pro??

 

[NetRyder]

2003 Server is supposed to run faster than XP but it's only because a lot of features are disabled. For example, the Windows Audio service is disabled by default, which means no sound. DirectX isn't installed by default either, which means no games.

Of course, you can install/enable all of this, but then that just goes on to make it XP, and u won't notice the speed difference. Besides, 2003 is a server OS, and will cost a LOT more compared to XP.

I say, just stick to a licensed version of XP, unless you're planning to use the server features of 2003 Server.

 

[spikemic]

this is goofy.
it's called server and not workstation cause its meant to be used as one. it has so many other features you wouldn't want on a workstation and has been streamlined for what its made for and so many other things that you would want on a desktop are missing.
same with workstation( pro/home) their each made for a purpose.

not to mention the price difference, which i guess doesn't matter if you pirated it since no one will pay that to use it at home.........

 

[jkoXP]

Originally posted by Enyo
Yes! The key is in the name I've read through the info about doing this and dont see the point.

As said above the price differance and licencing requirements are very differant so why bother?

As for speed i think they will both match up quite closely depending on the way you configure the two.

There's your answer