Turn your Windows 2003 Server installation into a workstation!
21 - 40 of 96 Posts
Joined
·
4,213 Posts
I've always disliked XP.
Without Getting into too many details, its stability pales in comparison TO W2k. It is W2k with a prittier GUI, removed/added features, and DX9 born Graphics drivers, giving it better performance with graphics.
Its overall, slower, and less stable than w2k.
So I was happy when I heard a tech friend of mine raving about Windows XP "low-cal" meaning low calorie.
Its a version of XP that has all the resource heavy crap removed, BOOTS IN SECONDS (bar goes across like 2 times I hear) and is overall as stable (or allmost) as w2k, but has the graphics performance of your normal XP.
What I'll relating is all what my friend said I must mention, But I do trust him.
I'm about DLing it now. you guys should try it out.
Without Getting into too many details, its stability pales in comparison TO W2k. It is W2k with a prittier GUI, removed/added features, and DX9 born Graphics drivers, giving it better performance with graphics.
Its overall, slower, and less stable than w2k.
So I was happy when I heard a tech friend of mine raving about Windows XP "low-cal" meaning low calorie.
Its a version of XP that has all the resource heavy crap removed, BOOTS IN SECONDS (bar goes across like 2 times I hear) and is overall as stable (or allmost) as w2k, but has the graphics performance of your normal XP.
What I'll relating is all what my friend said I must mention, But I do trust him.
I'm about DLing it now. you guys should try it out.
Joined
·
7,592 Posts
Quote:
Great! When I first installed server 2003 I compared its fresh boot speed from bios to desktop to a fresh boot on xp pro (server was converted to workstation)
Needless to say it booted 50% faster than my xp pro installation on the same type of harddrive. I've been hooked since. Never gotten a bsod
![]()
Originally Posted by Chipp  I'm 100% server right now, I'm loving it. Incredibly quick. 
|
Needless to say it booted 50% faster than my xp pro installation on the same type of harddrive. I've been hooked since. Never gotten a bsod
Joined
·
4,213 Posts
Quote:
How's the gaming performance?
Originally Posted by Chosen Great! When I first installed server 2003 I compared its fresh boot speed from bios to desktop to a fresh boot on xp pro (server was converted to workstation) Needless to say it booted 50% faster than my xp pro installation on the same type of harddrive. I've been hooked since. Never gotten a bsod
|
Joined
·
7,592 Posts
Quote:
Its obviously more stable but server is a very streemlined OS its more efficent and from my experience that translates to the games running better, less lag, less choppyness and more efficent utilization of the system resources compares to xp - xp pro
Originally Posted by Grim How's the gaming performance? |
Quote:
xp - xp pro and add x64 to that list.
Originally Posted by Chosen Its obviously more stable but server is a very streemlined OS its more efficent and from my experience that translates to the games running better, less lag, less choppyness and more efficent utilization of the system resources compares to xp - xp pro |
Joined
·
4,213 Posts
Bah. I agree. XP is crap.
But I'll disagree with you here guys. XP has better gaming performance because it was created during the time period that Driver devopers were starting to uttilize DX 9. A lot of developers focused on Gaming, so the drivers were better streamlined for XP.
AS you guys are fully aware of, Win2k3 Server is a networking variant of Windows and really, its optimized for networking, I doubt developers optimized their drivers for win2003 server. (I'm speculating based on what I've benchmarked with W2k too.)
No doubt it manages resources better though.
I'd really like to see some benchs comparing WinXP and Win2003 server (grahpics benchmarks that is).
But I'll disagree with you here guys. XP has better gaming performance because it was created during the time period that Driver devopers were starting to uttilize DX 9. A lot of developers focused on Gaming, so the drivers were better streamlined for XP.
AS you guys are fully aware of, Win2k3 Server is a networking variant of Windows and really, its optimized for networking, I doubt developers optimized their drivers for win2003 server. (I'm speculating based on what I've benchmarked with W2k too.)
No doubt it manages resources better though.
I'd really like to see some benchs comparing WinXP and Win2003 server (grahpics benchmarks that is).
Joined
·
24,908 Posts
Quote:
Once I'm back on my main rig I'll happily supply some before/after info. I can say that my BitTorrent habbit is much better supported on Server, as it handles my dual NEC's and seems to make much more effective use of network load balncing. I'm assumings pings will be lower in games, as well.
Originally Posted by Grim Bah. I agree. XP is crap. But I'll disagree with you here guys. XP has better gaming performance because it was created during the time period that Driver devopers were starting to uttilize DX 9. A lot of developers focused on Gaming, so the drivers were better streamlined for XP. AS you guys are fully aware of, Win2k3 Server is a networking variant of Windows and really, its optimized for networking, I doubt developers optimized their drivers for win2003 server. (I'm speculating based on what I've benchmarked with W2k too.) No doubt it manages resources better though. I'd really like to see some benchs comparing WinXP and Win2003 server (grahpics benchmarks that is). |
Quote:
Turning off DEP(Data Execution Prevention?) could help you out. I turned off DEP and everything works fine.
directions here This is for Xp but If I remember correctly its the same for server 2003. Some say you should not turn this feature off for security reasons, but I haven't had any probs yet.
Originally Posted by F3t1sh I tried Company of Heros and it sadly didn't work. |
directions here This is for Xp but If I remember correctly its the same for server 2003. Some say you should not turn this feature off for security reasons, but I haven't had any probs yet.
Joined
·
4,213 Posts
Quote:
Yes, just another demonstration of its superiority with anything having to do with networks (linux pwns of course
![]()
).
But dont be surprised if some games just DONT render how you want them to.
W2k in my experience just has some PLAIN incompatibilites with some Nvdida based graphics cards. As well as with certain chipsets/ mobos.
I've had to hunt down registry modifications and even (in fact, most cases!) revert to OLDER forceware drivers. Generally, its not the best friend of Gaming.
I think though that most of it's issues will lie in actual RENDERING, and not FPS.
If you're one of the lucky owners of a card/system that will work seamlessly with Win2003, then lucky you.
Seriously, Win2K3 is SIGNIFICANTLY more stable.
I'm yet to benchmark/review this "low cal" version of XP that I'm hearing about though.
Anyone check it out yet?
Originally Posted by Chipp I can say that my BitTorrent habbit is much better supported on Server, as it handles my dual NEC's and seems to make much more effective use of network load balncing. I'm assumings pings will be lower in games, as well. |
But dont be surprised if some games just DONT render how you want them to.
W2k in my experience just has some PLAIN incompatibilites with some Nvdida based graphics cards. As well as with certain chipsets/ mobos.
I've had to hunt down registry modifications and even (in fact, most cases!) revert to OLDER forceware drivers. Generally, its not the best friend of Gaming.
I think though that most of it's issues will lie in actual RENDERING, and not FPS.
If you're one of the lucky owners of a card/system that will work seamlessly with Win2003, then lucky you.
Seriously, Win2K3 is SIGNIFICANTLY more stable.
I'm yet to benchmark/review this "low cal" version of XP that I'm hearing about though.
Anyone check it out yet?
Joined
·
25,629 Posts
I've used both server2003 and 2k3 x64 (enterprise) as workstation, and I haven't had ANY problems with games running compared with their xp pro counterparts, and they are more stable. All the textures display correctly, and if anything my CSS stress test improved, or at the least stayed the same.
I take it the "low cal" xp is something someone made using Nlite or something?
No thanks, I've had enough of those "Roll your own" xp installs. While I don't know who does this one, it's been a way people have been able to install rootkits onto your machine. And whats so nice about this compared to getting rootkitted another way, is they can hide it even better.
Plus i've other problems with different ones in the past. Stuff not updating correctly, losing networking ability (not internet, just being able to network with the other computers on my network), and some plain system instability.
Mainly since they almost all are made using Nlite.
But, I know nothing about the "low cal" xp, so I'm not saying anythings wrong with it, it might be the shizzzal
![]()
If you don't have a lot of computers so you can test stuff, I recommend setting up vmware or something similiar, as a clone of your computer so you can test the OS under safe conditions. Of course, thats a pain and time consuming.
Well, I guess I'm anxious to hear how the "low cal" works out, and I'd ask what it's filename is so I could find it on usenet, but I don't think we are supposed to talk about warez stuff.
No thanks, I've had enough of those "Roll your own" xp installs. While I don't know who does this one, it's been a way people have been able to install rootkits onto your machine. And whats so nice about this compared to getting rootkitted another way, is they can hide it even better.
Plus i've other problems with different ones in the past. Stuff not updating correctly, losing networking ability (not internet, just being able to network with the other computers on my network), and some plain system instability.
Mainly since they almost all are made using Nlite.
But, I know nothing about the "low cal" xp, so I'm not saying anythings wrong with it, it might be the shizzzal
If you don't have a lot of computers so you can test stuff, I recommend setting up vmware or something similiar, as a clone of your computer so you can test the OS under safe conditions. Of course, thats a pain and time consuming.
Well, I guess I'm anxious to hear how the "low cal" works out, and I'd ask what it's filename is so I could find it on usenet, but I don't think we are supposed to talk about warez stuff.
Joined
·
4,213 Posts
Quote:
Yes, and YEs
![]()
Their have been crappy remakes. But this one is basically Win2k's stability, and winXP's streamlined graphics drivers combined I've heard.
Some gaming buds of mine use it and are hailing raving about it.
Say it boots in seconds and is quite stable.
Need to get to a fast internet connection.
Originally Posted by nyder I take it the "low cal" xp is something someone made using Nlite or something? No thanks, I've had enough of those "Roll your own" xp installs. But, I know nothing about the "low cal" xp, so I'm not saying anythings wrong with it, it might be the shizzzal
|
Their have been crappy remakes. But this one is basically Win2k's stability, and winXP's streamlined graphics drivers combined I've heard.
Some gaming buds of mine use it and are hailing raving about it.
Say it boots in seconds and is quite stable.
Need to get to a fast internet connection.
21 - 40 of 96 Posts
