Why I went from Vista to Server 2003

Lino

Lino

I am back
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
13,785
Reaction score
56
Hello everyone, well after I finally bought Vista Home Premium I have decided to upgrade back to Server 2003. Yes its sad but true, why some of you may ask. Lets see

1) Server 2003 does not have as much cr@p as Vista, does. Seriously do we need all of those hungary system resources?
2) Far more reliable and stable (does not randomly crash)
3) Has decent boot ups and shutdown times, unlike Vista where in the time its doing it; you could go to Mars and back
4) Software and games support is better, lets face it. How many apps lag or just run like sh@t on Vista?
5) My system feels faster (sure it has 4GB RAM); but does Vista really need to use over 2GB when I am doing NOTHING.

On this note I do not think I wasted my money, I am sure Vista will be decent after SP2, or if SP1 is fixed up
 
Make no mistake I always liked XP but I have always found Server 2003 to be far more reliable than XP. It takes more configuration but its worth it in the end. Anyway I need to use a 64bit OS and XP x64 is based on Server 2003, so I thought heck install the original
 
Linoman said:
Hello everyone, well after I finally bought Vista Home Premium I have decided to upgrade back to Server 2003. Yes its sad but true, why some of you may ask. Lets see

1) Server 2003 does not have as much cr@p as Vista, does. Seriously do we need all of those hungary system resources?
2) Far more reliable and stable (does not randomly crash)
3) Has decent boot ups and shutdown times, unlike Vista where in the time its doing it; you could go to Mars and back
4) Software and games support is better, lets face it. How many apps lag or just run like sh@t on Vista?
5) My system feels faster (sure it has 4GB RAM); but does Vista really need to use over 2GB when I am doing NOTHING.

On this note I do not think I wasted my money, I am sure Vista will be decent after SP2, or if SP1 is fixed up
Click to expand...
Good decision although i would also have voted XP :D
 
lol, sounds like you haven't really unleashed the power of the beast.
 
11masoodt said:
:eek:
how u gonna play all those cool games that are for xp and vista only????
Click to expand...

Most of the games that are designed for XP will run on Server 2003 (with a hack or two)

If there really is a game that needs Vista, I'll just reinstall the Vista boot loader
 
I totally agree, also running Server 2003 nlited/tweaked and converted to workstation.
Ram usage on bootup is +/- 70MB.
 
Linoman said:
5) My system feels faster (sure it has 4GB RAM); but does Vista really need to use over 2GB when I am doing NOTHING.
Click to expand...
Umm, no. Vista shows 2GB due to the superfetch technology. Its supposed to be like that and is actually a good thing. As soon as something needs the memory, Vista clears out the superfetch stuff and allocates the memory to whatever needs it.

Linoman said:
3) Has decent boot ups and shutdown times, unlike Vista where in the time its doing it; you could go to Mars and back
Click to expand...
Vista hibernates by default...and since you have 4gb of RAM this takes a lot longer than a normal shutdown.

Linoman said:
4) Software and games support is better, lets face it. How many apps lag or just run like sh@t on Vista?
Click to expand...
Almost no games explicitly support 2003 Server.

There is zero reason to run a server OS when you are not actually running a server. Everything is optimized for server use not desktops. e.g. A bunch of resources are allocated to background processes because that is what servers do. The foreground processes get very little resources because server machine sit in a server room all day and don't see much fps action.
 
HavocXphere said:
Umm, no. Vista shows 2GB due to the superfetch technology. Its supposed to be like that and is actually a good thing. As soon as something needs the memory, Vista clears out the superfetch stuff and allocates the memory to whatever needs it.


Vista hibernates by default...and since you have 4gb of RAM this takes a lot longer than a normal shutdown.


Almost no games explicitly support 2003 Server.

There is zero reason to run a server OS when you are not actually running a server. Everything is optimized for server use not desktops. e.g. A bunch of resources are allocated to background processes because that is what servers do. The foreground processes get very little resources because server machine sit in a server room all day and don't see much fps action.
Click to expand...

i couldn't agree more:)
 
True, but Server can be converted to a workstation and is simply superb. Much more responsive than Vista, and 33% faster than XP.
Also the allocation to background resources can be changed by anyone with minimal knowledge.
Almost all games support Server implicitly.
Edit: Also Hibernation on Server is faster than Vista (Also have 4GB ram)
 
Vista drivers are also based on Server 2003, therefore, you can inter-change to an extent. If you don't need all the bells and whistles of a bloated OS, why not go for a server OS?
Or better yet, go Linux:p
 
True running a server OS is not ideal in its default; however after converting it to a workstation its damn good os.

Btw already changed allocation from backround services to programs. Sure Vista is supposed to use extra ram for superfetch, I wouldn't mind if the programs started faster.

At the end of the day its a personal thing, if you love Vista, use it, Xp use it and Server use it!
 
Linoman said:
Btw already changed allocation from backround services to programs. Sure Vista is supposed to use extra ram for superfetch, I wouldn't mind if the programs started faster.
Click to expand...

What do you mean? Programs that use Superfetch well open very quickly on Vista, faster than XP at least. It's been proved a few times in benchmarks, and me opening Word. :p
 
Linoman said:
Hello everyone, well after I finally bought Vista Home Premium I have decided to upgrade back to Server 2003. Yes its sad but true, why some of you may ask. Lets see

1) Server 2003 does not have as much cr@p as Vista, does. Seriously do we need all of those hungary system resources?
2) Far more reliable and stable (does not randomly crash)
3) Has decent boot ups and shutdown times, unlike Vista where in the time its doing it; you could go to Mars and back
4) Software and games support is better, lets face it. How many apps lag or just run like sh@t on Vista?
5) My system feels faster (sure it has 4GB RAM); but does Vista really need to use over 2GB when I am doing NOTHING.

On this note I do not think I wasted my money, I am sure Vista will be decent after SP2, or if SP1 is fixed up
Click to expand...

What you are saying is not entirely true man. I've been running Vista x64 Ultimate for almost a year now and it runs absolutely stable, fast and support for all my hardware. You chose to run server 2003 as your os, why not just go and buy yourself 64 bit Vista, fine tune it and it'll outperform your 'server'.
BTW in around 9 months I can remember my system crashed around twice maybe three times! When I ran XP 32 bit, it crashed every week! I HAD to do a clean install every 3 - 4 months to keep my performance up, and with Vista I haven't.

Anyway it's cool you're running a server OS on a workstation, just don't blame Vista for it, ask the guys that run Vista ;)
 
xeo57 said:
What you are saying is not entirely true man. I've been running Vista x64 Ultimate for almost a year now and it runs absolutely stable, fast and support for all my hardware. You chose to run server 2003 as your os, why not just go and buy yourself 64 bit Vista, fine tune it and it'll outperform your 'server'.
BTW in around 9 months I can remember my system crashed around twice maybe three times! When I ran XP 32 bit, it crashed every week! I HAD to do a clean install every 3 - 4 months to keep my performance up, and with Vista I haven't.

Anyway it's cool you're running a server OS on a workstation, just don't blame Vista for it, ask the guys that run Vista ;)
Click to expand...

Btw I have been using Vista since it was still alpha, aka Longhorn from build 4074 upwards. I have all the versions of Vista, and I actuley bought Vista Home Premium 64bit. I have ran both Vista 32bit and Vista 64bit and I do prefer the 64bit version by miles.

I am not saying Vista is a bad OS (I am not a Server 2003/XP Fanboi); I just feel that with Server 2003 I get more bang for my buck
 
Yeah you will get more bang for buck, it's a server! It's like comparing Win2000 and NT4!! The big plus with 2k3 server is the stability, as for performance... I bet my configuration running Ultimate 64bit shall smoke your 'server'. No offense man, i jusrt feel Vista deserves the write up's from guys that are satisfied as well, you know ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X