# XP Pro, Server 03, or Linux?



## Kursah (Oct 12, 2007)

Well,

I've been thinking about trying the linux dist Ubuntu out, so far I'm not impressed since I've had to burn a second cd just to install it (alternate text installer), so I didn't end up going for it. I may try again after 7.10 comes out...might not. I hear my x1950pro and X-Fi cards will create a headache for me, so we'll see what happens.

But a buddy of mine has been using Server 2003 and said it's way faster than XP and can run pretty much any XP compatable game on it, but faster. Is this true? He said we could install it onto mine, he'd tweak it to make it work like a desktop system and that it'd run way faster than XP and be pretty much compatable with most everything XP related.

Is this true? Should I stick with XP? Create a migrane from configuring Ubuntu to work with my newer, but not really new anymore equipment? Should I try Server 03 and see if my friend is correct?

Edit: Poll Added, thanks for your time and support!

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Thermopylae_480 (Oct 12, 2007)

When I run Server 03 it doesn't produce noticeable changes in benchmarks.  All scores, in fact, remained the same or nearly so.  To say it is way faster is a large overstatement in my opinion.  Once you get Server 03 tweaked to work as a desktop it is basically the same as XP running classic interface.  Well, plus all the nifty server stuff.


----------



## Kursah (Oct 12, 2007)

Why do you run it, or is your System Spec's not updated?

I'm sure you've tried  XP Pro plenty also...what keeps you with Server 03?


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Oct 12, 2007)

what about windows home server?


----------



## Kursah (Oct 12, 2007)

I just want to see what all this better performance based OS junk is about, but it seems that in my application, maybe staying with XP Pro is the way to go...but I do look forward to seeing suggestions as to what other options would be. Frankly one that can play music/movies/games will be my choice...but I am willing to try different things.

IRA, what of this Windows Home Server has better performance than XP Pro? Thanks for your response!


----------



## Thermopylae_480 (Oct 12, 2007)

Kursah said:


> Why do you run it, or is your System Spec's not updated?
> 
> I'm sure you've tried  XP Pro plenty also...what keeps you with Server 03?



I just haven't changed my system specs.  I do have one computer that runs it though; but I do serverish things with it.


----------



## ChaoticBlankness (Oct 12, 2007)

I received a small improvement FPS wise on some memory intense games, 2k3 is way better for handling memory.

I voted Ubuntu because it's great for everything but mainstream gaming..  so I suggest to you to do a dual boot of Ubuntu/XP Pro X64.  XP X64 has the 2k3 kernel and non of the GUI headaches of the Server OS.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Oct 12, 2007)

i went x64 XP .. and its a lil faster on teh benchies ...


----------



## BXtreme (Oct 12, 2007)

Considering benchmarks I did some months ago on an so-so pc, I got a 700-800 3d'05 marks difference. server 03 proves to be less hoggy than Xp in some cases, but it's kinda tough to differentiate the difference practically. But it would say going for 03 would b e a better option...I've been using using 03 for a long time but now I AM using the King of hoggers "Vista"


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Oct 12, 2007)

x64XP is basically WInserver2k3 without teh server tools ..


----------



## BXtreme (Oct 12, 2007)

then why does the ram consumption of 2k3 is around 120mb after being loaded with the drivers and so but xp x64 and XP have a lot more consumption that that...


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Oct 12, 2007)

i dunno ...


----------



## Grings (Oct 12, 2007)

Vista!!


----------



## wazzledoozle (Oct 12, 2007)

Vista x64, and I'll dual-boot ubuntu when 7.10 releases.


----------



## Darknova (Oct 12, 2007)

ChaoticBlankness said:


> XP X64 has the 2k3 kernel and non of the GUI headaches of the Server OS.



I love XP x64, I won't run Vista of 32-bit XP again. My benchmark scores improved quite a bit. It's slower to boot up (by about 5-10 seconds depending) but once everything is loaded up it's much much faster than 32-bit XP at starting programs etc.

It also has much better multi-tasking capabilities, certain programs which I couldn't run side-by-side on 32-bit XP (even with a dual core) run flawlessly now in XP 64-bit.

XP x64 is what Vista should of been without DX10 support of course :\


----------



## Gruelius (Oct 13, 2007)

I understand you want to play games? if so stick away from linux. UT3 is going to have linux support i think however most games will not work. Wine can be used to play them but i wouldnt bother.

For a real server i would go Linux, preferably ubuntu 7.10 server ed. 

Why?
1. Linux is free, so you dont need to feel bad about downloading it, unlike with XP or 2003 
2. Good learning experience. If you want to pursue working in some aspects of the IT field the CLI will be one of ur best mates, next to over caffinated cola
3. Runs on almost anything
4. Heaps of free tools. For instance, with XP i had to have 5 seperate 200gb disks. When using Ubuntu linux 7.04 it came with a stable raid5 kernel driver, typed a few commands and built an array. It also resized my array without any issues!
5. Makes you respectable among other plebs. Yes thats right, you can call other windows users plebs if you wanted to be a fanboy .

I myself use Vista as its better for memory and processor handling than XP, and much better for games than linux. On my old PC which didnt 'do' games i used to use Kubuntu (Kde is much better looking than gnome). My mum's email box uses Kubuntu aswell.


----------



## Kursah (Oct 13, 2007)

Thanks for all the responses everyone! Maybe I will start w/trying out XP 64 and going from there, I'm sure there's plenty of driver support for my system. 64-bit has never really been an interest for me, but if it's more stable and efficient, then why not use it?

I may try Ubuntu 7.10 in dual boot config eventually, I think I'll stay away from Server 03. I don't see a reason to go back to Vista, I tried it for 6 months, and really found no reason I liked enough to keep it loaded, maybe later down the road.

But do keep the suggestions coming, and again thanks for suggestions!


----------



## Wile E (Oct 13, 2007)

I also suggest XP x64. It has been my favorite Windows OS to date (I've tried them all, except Home Server, which is next. lol). You may have to keep a copy of 32bit floating around tho. Last I tried it, a few less common programs and utilities didn't cooperate with x64.

The only reason I'm not running it right this second, is because I accidentally killed the install, and just haven't bothered to redo it.

I also recommend at least trying a Linux distro. I personally would never switch to one full time(at least not until it's as easy to use as Windows), but it's great for surfing and such, especially if you let others use the computer. No fly-by installs of spyware nasties, so you don't have to worry where they surf to.


----------



## Kursah (Oct 15, 2007)

I'm considering XP64, someone told me that if I'm not doing rendering or any of that, I should just stick with XP 32 bit or go Vista 64 due to XP64 losing support???

I know that 64 Bit OS's have issues, but they gotta be better now-a-days correct? I'm pretty sure there are 64-bit drivers for everything I have except my printer which is actually connected to my G/F's PC and I access it via Network.

I would like more insight into 64-bit as I've never used it, and never really shown interest, but if I can attain good performance and stability, I may just give it a try.

Again thanks for the input so far!


----------



## panchoman (Oct 15, 2007)

Linux Ftw


----------



## Kursah (Oct 15, 2007)

panchoman said:


> Linux Ftw



I will probably have Linux as a secondary OS when not planning on gaming. When they can find a way (with legal rights) to integrate DX9 (maybe 10.x +), or efficiently emulate for better gaming I may consider making it my primary OS. One of my main requirements is gaming, and I won't lose performance to emulation just to get off of an MS OS.

Thanks for your input, any explanation as to why?

I know it's safer, good for browsing, movies, tunes (unless you have X-Fi, see my system specs) and so on, but what else is there for me if I move to it?

That's kind of my I'm curious as to a 64-bit XP or mayyybe, but probably not Vista os. 



Again thanks!


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Oct 15, 2007)

I think you should get XP and dual boot with Linux.


----------



## devguy (Oct 15, 2007)

My desktop was originally running Vista x64 and it didn't appeal to me.  I then got a great deal on xp x86/x64 through my campus (UT) for about $25.  I nlited SP2 into the x64 install and I've never looked back.  It is nice because I get the look and feel of xp x86 with the kernel stability that Server 2003 and Vista users get.  Also, xp x64 had serious driver issues around its launch, but you shouldn't have to worry about the large majority of devices since the sp2 x64 launch.

I'm going to be upgrading my PC soon and I'm going to keep xp x64 (I don't want to go back to Vista).  I also would like to give Ubuntu 7.1 x64 a shot when it's released (dual boot).


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Oct 15, 2007)

devguy said:


> My desktop was originally running Vista x64 and it didn't appeal to me.  I then got a great deal on xp x86/x64 through my campus (UT) for about $25.  I nlited SP2 into the x64 install and I've never looked back.  It is nice because I get the look and feel of xp x86 with the kernel stability that Server 2003 and Vista users get.  Also, xp x64 had serious driver issues around its launch, but you shouldn't have to worry about the large majority of devices since the sp2 x64 launch.
> 
> I'm going to be upgrading my PC soon and I'm going to keep xp x64 (I don't want to go back to Vista).  I also would like to give Ubuntu 7.1 x64 a shot when it's released (dual boot).



do you think you could get me a good deal on Vista or XP? If so is it legal?I don't want to crax the OS if i can get it for cheap...


----------



## niko084 (Oct 15, 2007)

Thermopylae_480 said:


> When I run Server 03 it doesn't produce noticeable changes in benchmarks.  All scores, in fact, remained the same or nearly so.  To say it is way faster is a large overstatement in my opinion.  Once you get Server 03 tweaked to work as a desktop it is basically the same as XP running classic interface.  Well, plus all the nifty server stuff.



I agree here fully... Server has the server stuff, and really I think its more stable and a little better built all around... Performance wise is it "better" I don't know but I run it anyways...

Linux is great and can be extremely fast in comparison to windows for a lot of things *when its supported*

So it really boils down to what you have, and what you want to do with your system...

I am currently running Server 2003, Xp Pro, Ubuntu, Fedora, and Server 2008 Beta

I might also be installing Mac os10 Tiger on one of my machines here


----------



## ChaoticBlankness (Oct 15, 2007)

XP X64 is not loosing support soon, and by the time it does Vista will be more "desirable".  It's just a fact that the NT 5.2 Kernel (Server 2003, XP X64) is faster and more stable than NT 5.1 (XP)...  it even doesn't slow down from prolonged use without reboot (hence it's Server pedigree).

If DX10 isn't a must for you then XP x64 FTW.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Oct 15, 2007)

devguy said:


> My desktop was originally running Vista x64 and it didn't appeal to me.  I then got a great deal on xp x86/x64 through my campus (UT) for about $25.  I nlited SP2 into the x64 install and I've never looked back.  It is nice because I get the look and feel of xp x86 with the kernel stability that Server 2003 and Vista users get.  Also, xp x64 had serious driver issues around its launch, but you shouldn't have to worry about the large majority of devices since the sp2 x64 launch.
> 
> I'm going to be upgrading my PC soon and I'm going to keep xp x64 (I don't want to go back to Vista).  I also would like to give Ubuntu 7.1 x64 a shot when it's released (dual boot).



same thing me a go do ...


----------



## Kursah (Oct 15, 2007)

Alright, now to find a copy of XP x64 Legal. I'll have to go look at some prices, my buddy has a copy of Server 2003 but it's a slipstreamed version, dunno if I wanna run it. Thanks for the responses! I think I will try XP x64 and see what happens. I may also get a cheap 80gb SATA drive for Ubuntu/2nd OS down the road.

I am still open to suggestions, and even good deals on XP x64! Thanks again!


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Oct 15, 2007)

XP x64 + Kubuntu X64 for me as soon as 7.10 comes out


----------



## Kursah (Oct 15, 2007)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> XP x64 + Kubuntu X64 for me as soon as 7.10 comes out





I just may have to try x64 Ubuntu, that's the only way I can even get drivers for my X-Fi on it atm, so just maybe..


----------



## Kursah (Oct 15, 2007)

Another question, from just reading some stuff, but haven't had it clarified, will I need to connect a floppy drive and install my drivers if I'm NOT using a RAID config? My SATA II drive is set to Bios in IDE mode. Would changing it to ACHI mode help at all? I do not plan on going Raid yet, but would a re-install of the OS be needed?

I'm still reading stuff and may yet find the answers I seek, but I preferr more updated info from those I trust on TPU.

Thanks again!


----------



## Darknova (Oct 15, 2007)

Kursah said:


> I'm considering XP64, someone told me that if I'm not doing rendering or any of that, I should just stick with XP 32 bit or go Vista 64 due to XP64 losing support???
> 
> I know that 64 Bit OS's have issues, but they gotta be better now-a-days correct? I'm pretty sure there are 64-bit drivers for everything I have except my printer which is actually connected to my G/F's PC and I access it via Network.
> 
> ...



The only things hardware now that has problems with drivers are webcams (there are only about 4 or 5 that work with x64) and printers (most work, but a lot of older printers have no drivers and won't work).

I've had a few problems with install files saying I'm not using a compatible OS, but you just have to use the MSI File Fixer script which removes all OS checks so it will install on any OS.


----------



## SAlexson (Oct 22, 2007)

Darknova said:


> I love XP x64, I won't run Vista of 32-bit XP again. My benchmark scores improved quite a bit. It's slower to boot up (by about 5-10 seconds depending) but once everything is loaded up it's much much faster than 32-bit XP at starting programs etc.
> 
> It also has much better multi-tasking capabilities, certain programs which I couldn't run side-by-side on 32-bit XP (even with a dual core) run flawlessly now in XP 64-bit.
> 
> XP x64 is what Vista should of been without DX10 support of course :\



Do you see any substantial overhead running 32-bit programs in the 64-bit environment?


----------



## Darknova (Oct 22, 2007)

SAlexson said:


> Do you see any substantial overhead running 32-bit programs in the 64-bit environment?



Performance-wise? No. However I have seen an increase in the amount of memory they use.


----------

