XP Pro vs 2003 Server

[krille]

Which would the be best for oc'ing, gaming and benching (this is for my gaming/multimedia rig)? I've heard so much about 2003 Server on the forums, but is it really better than XP Pro, will it boot with a higher oc? Differences? Pros? Cons?

Thanks. :toast:

[mdzcpa]

For a Gaming Rig, XP Pro all the way. Spend the time to tweak it a little and its the best choice by far. 2003 Server has its advantages, but for a pure gaming rig

[krille]

Oke! Will be a little easier on the wallet too :)

But, still, I'm interested: what are the advantages?

[Disposibleteen]

save some money and go with XP pro, Server 03 isnt that great for overclocking anyway, it is more stable if you are thinking about running your rig at load 24/7 but for just an everyday OC/game rig i would go with XP Pro hands down

[perry_78]

I use Win2000 for bench and Server2003 24/7

Works better than XP for me. ;)

[LostInSpace278]

I am using Server 2003. I have tried to go back to XP Pro, but it just seems sluggish to me.

[freecableguy]

Ha...Server2003. Dual LAN connections? Get a wireless bridge and leech off your neighbor's non-WEP/WPA protected wireless connection and then setup load sharing via the OS. Boing! Can you say BW?

[justwOo]

I like 2k3 server, but some stuff is finnicky with it, for example I cant install doom3 on it, so definetly XP pro for a 24/7 gaming rig

[KieutNinjah]

Win XP is more user friendly and for the average Joe to use, while 2003 Server is for hosting games, etc.

[3rd-Dimension]

I like 2k3 server, but some stuff is finnicky with it, for example I cant install doom3 on it, so definetly XP pro for a 24/7 gaming rig

just use the switch d:\setup.exe /a of course d being the cd drive u install from. That allows install to 2k3 for doom 3 and others. As well as if there is another game u cant get to work and have dual boot xp and 2k3 just boot to xp then install the game and then go back to 2k3. Then u can run the games exe from within 2k3 as its just the msi installer that checks ur os version.

[masterofpuppets]

2000 is much better. XP is bloatware.

[Y.H.Pats]

2000 is much better. XP is bloatware.
Sorry, but 2000 is for no-life masochists.
You spend hours installing stuff that's native to XP.
And 2000 graphics (not just themes) stink compared to XP.
Oh and XP is also more stable.
Yes, you may want to turn off a FEW XP features - but that only takes a second.
2000 is to XP what 95 is to 98 :stick:

[Crownie]

For gaming, WinXP Pro all the way. :rehab:

[caLume]

[x] windows xp

i tried xp and 2003 server.
could be that server 2003 is a bit faster in organizing data.
but windows xp is faster in the regard of gaming.

[IamAnoobieCheez]

Have any of you run 3dmark 2001 and compare the bench score between winXP and win2003 server? Is it faster in FPS? Doom3 timedemo? Most importantly, 3dmark score? Please answer this question for me hurry hurry pls.





win2k is faster in games and 3dmark than winxp. I also get less error messages with win2k than winxp. I love the simplicity and raw performance the win2k puts..

Nice thing about winXP is that it does manage memory better, especially when transfer massive amount of data(GBs) from one drive/computer to the other. It is also smoother in multitasking. win2k has its strong point, so is the winxp.

[krille]

Since I play a lot of RTS (StarCraft, WarCraft) and I usually host the games (as I'm on a 100/10 Mbit fiber connection) perhaps Windows 2003 would be the better for me?

Currently for hosting games using XP Pro SP2 I use this "patch": http://www.winxpcentral.com/windowsxp/xpsp2speed.php
I understand that with 2003 Server this kind of patch would not be needed?

What exactly are the differences between XP Pro and Windows 2003 feature-wise?

What new annoyances does 2003 Server bring?

~ Kris

Sorry for the thread resurrection, I just happend to google "windows xp pro vs 2003 server" and this thread showed up at top three.