I don’t need a server. Our FreeBSD home server runs unstoppably for years, asking nothing in return. However, my curiosity about OSes drove me on ordering the free evaluation version of Windows Server 2003 Enterprise, the latest Microsoft’s OS offering. Naturally, there is a lot of marketing hype surrounding the product, but this time, I am really happy to witness that most of the hype is for real.
Note: This is not a review of the product as a server. It is a review of how it performs after transforming it to a workstation or a desktop.
Installing the product is no different than recent versions of Windows. It is an easy procedure o follow, except for two parts: I don’t like the staging installation, it serves no real purpose for the user; it should have been a normal, modern one-go installation, and it shouldn’t take more than 20 minutes. It took nearly 40 minutes on my MicroTel AthlonXP 1600+, 768 MB RAM and its 52x CD-ROM.
And then, it booted for the first time… Windows Server 2003 (Win2k3 for short) booted in around 15 seconds, much faster than my Windows XP Pro (~25 secs), on par to a “clean” installation of Gentoo Linux (with no extra services) and slower than BeOS 5 (around 8 seconds, but BeOS doesn’t load anything heavy on startup).
The desktop appearance is a bumped up version of the standard Windows 2000 theme and it has all the extra eye-candy stuff turned off. Smooth fonts, “show windows contents when moving windows,” etc., are all off. It only takes a few seconds to go to the settings panel and turn everything on. And even with the “eye candy overhead,” I must say, this is the (overall) fastest *modern* operating system I have ever used.
You read correctly, if Microsoft did one thing correct in this version is to optimize the OS for maximum performance and we are not talking just server performance, but all-around responsiveness of the OS. Sure, BeOS heads will tell us in the forum how responsive the BeOS UI is, but BeOS is not overall fast. It is a very bad server platform (even with the BONE networking stack installed it’s not a serious server), it doesn’t have a good throughput, its SMP scaling is below par today (despite popular belief), and compiling anything takes more time than it would take on any Unix or Windows I ever used. BeOS will still feel faster on slower machines, but it can’t offer all what Win2k3 can.
As for a users’ speed comparison to Linux, let’s just say that the exact same machine feels much faster with Win2k3 than with Red Hat Linux 9. Applications load instantly. For example, this not-so-fast machine can load Windows Media Player 9 in 1 second. IE loads instantly, OpenOffice.org 1.1b2 loads in 7 seconds (version 1.0.2 under Red Hat needs 13 seconds, even with DMA on), the Gimp for Windows loads in 6 seconds, Apple QuickTime in 2 seconds. IE scrolling is extremely smooth, UI responsiveness is great, the recently compiled applications from Microsoft (e.g. Windows Explorer) are 100% flicker free upon resize (XP’s is not fully flicker free), so what else can I say? The OS just feels fast-fast-fast, as others have said as well in their reviews.
But there are problems when using a purely server product as a workstation that was tweaked to be as secure and as fast and stable as it can be after all this bashing Microsoft is getting for years.
First and foremost, backwards compatibility is crippled. This is a known issue and bear in mind, it was a conscious decision made by Microsoft in order to secure, stabilize and speed-up the OS. They did it on purpose. Let me explain the situation:
We all know that WindowsXP and Windows 2000 were the best OS products from Microsoft so far, far more stable than the low-quality Win9x/ME line of OSes which were based on a different codeline (and are responsible for the terrible reputation they gave to the Windows name). Well, even the NT codeline is unstable on 2k and XP, and engineers have identified the problem in the legacy code, and backwards compatibility support these OSes were forced to carry in order to sell better (users wouldn’t upgrade if their older apps wouldn’t be supported). XP is for me an extremely stable OS, I’ve seen only a single crash in 1.2 years of running it, and that was just because of a defective hardware (an old and dying Yamaha CD-R). However, still, other people report instability problems with XP or 2000. And 90% of the time, the source of the problem is simple and the same for all: they use unstable drivers, or simply, drivers that were not built for the specific kernel they were using. It is like trying to load a kernel driver (module) under Debian while it was compiled specifically for Red Hat. Or, it is like trying to load a Red Hat 7 or 8 driver under Red Hat 9. Sure, they are both Linux, but 99% of the times, you really need to have distro-specific drivers, otherwise your driver is very likely to crash, because of the minor changes found in each kernel. The same goes with Windows and any other OS. The fact that they all bear the name “Windows” (for marketing purposes) doesn’t make them the same version OS, let along the same OS altogether. People should realize this very well before they go and download and install drivers for any OS, not just Windows.
Here is the rule of thumb regarding Windows Server 2003 as a Workstation: If all your hardware is supported by the OS, or if you are certain that there are drivers *tested* for the specific OS, go ahead and install Win2k3. If you can’t find specific drivers for your hardware, evaluate whether you can live without these drivers (e.g. without sound) and if not, stay with Windows XP or whatever OS you are currently running.
This is a very interesting situation. It feels sort of like Win2k3 is really an alternative OS! The fact that hardware compatibility with multimedia devices is shaky while a number of applications have hiccups because of the lack of full compatibility (e.g. WinAMP 3) or don’t run at all (e.g. MS Exchange), is giving this OS a clean fresh air. It is like a new start for Microsoft. They seem eager to try to get rid of the big success key of the past(DOS/Win3.x compatibility for Windows 95, Windows 9x compatibility for XP), which is also at the same time, their curse, a curse that brings insecurity and instability. We see on Win2k3 a frank effort from Microsoft to clean up the mess. And so far, they have succeeded in regards to the server part. If they can backport all these changes to the next Windows Longhorn or even to Windows XP SP2, Microsoft will have accomplished a big step in offering a worthy product, if not a winner indeed (don’t forget, according to JoelOnSoftware, software in general takes 10 years to mature – the NT codeline is today about 12 years old).
I was discussing the driver incompatibility problem with someone via email the other day, and he said, “but how are people supposed to know that they should not install non-Win2k3 drivers?” Well, the answer is easy: If you don’t see mention on the third party web site of Win2k3, don’t even bother download the drivers. And if you do download and try to install them, the OS will popup an alert to tell you that these drivers are not qualified for this OS (in CAPITALS no less!!). I am speaking out of experience: Win2k3 Enterprise didn’t support any of the two sound cards I have on this machine (an onboard AC97 VIA 8233 and a PCI Yamaha YMF-754). I thought, “whatever…” and I went to Hoontech’s web site and downloaded the latest Yamaha drivers for Win2000 and XP. I decided to install the driver despite the alerts Windows was giving me. I risked it. Well, after I did that, Windows Server 2003 got unstable. I had 3 bluescreens in 24 hours, all random. I emailed the HoonTech guys and they told me that they do not plan any update to their drivers for Win2k3 as Yamaha doesn’t really sell the card anymore. I had also installed the latest Detonator drivers from nVidia and the 4-in-1 drivers from VIA (which include some additional IDE and AGP drivers). None of these drivers were Win2k3-proof, however, the Yamaha driver was the one which was cr@pping out (kmixer.sys was crashing, which is a Windows kernel driver for audio, which the normal sound drivers are wrapping onto). I could have been lucky and the Yamaha driver could have worked. But I wasn’t. And if it was not the Yamaha driver, it could have been something else. Moral of the story: If you want to keep your Windows stable as a rock (and this includes Windows XP), don’t install drivers not built for the specific kernel you are using. Know, understand and accept this simple fact before you pass any kind of judgment. Any OS would crash when installing wrong kernel drivers.
Now that we’ve got this clear, here are the rest of the changes you will have to make in order to transform Windows Server 2003 into a workstation:
1. Enable Hardware Acceleration in the Advanced tab of the Display Properties.
2. Download and install DirectX 9a. Load “dxdiag” from the command line and enable OpenGL and Direct3D. If you don’t do that, you won’t be able to play 3D games.
3. Don’t forget to create a user account. Add yourself in to the administrator group if you want to use the OS more freely.
4. Disable that nerve-wrecking shutdown Tracker which doesn’t let you shutdown or reboot the machine whenever you want (for security reasons that you don’t need it on a workstation)
5. Disable Internet Explorer Hardening. God, this one sucks until you get all these options right. With the security measures Microsoft has taken in this version, not even OSNews is not allowed to load on IE. Not even google.com. You will have to modify the preferences of IE and tell it to not be so paranoid about security…
6. Go to your System Properties, Advanced and click the Performance Settings. Tell it to adjust for best appearance. On the same panel, click on the Advanced tab and tell it to adjust best performance for “Programs” instead of the default values (which mostly favor server performance).
7. Enable Audio. By default, Windows Server 2003 has sound disabled. To do so, just go to the audio control panel and check the radio button there. After you do that, go to Advanced tab and enable full acceleration for the audio.
8. Enable the Theme service and tell it to autostart at each reboot, otherwise you won’t be able to use themes or the Luna interface (I noticed a slight drop of performance (e.g. when rendering web pages with IE) after switching to the heavier Luna).
You can read how to do all that step by step in this informative article over at NeoWin.
After you do all that, and you made sure you that you have supported hardware and that all the applications you are interested in do work well with this new system, then you are all set to go and make the big move out of XP or 2000. However, there is one more problem: The mighty price.
Well, the price is stupidly steep. I don’t have enough good words to say about this server OS, but the problem is that if this is to work as a workstation OS, it should also be made affordable. Through the standard retail channels, the best price you can get is $800 for the Standard Edition with 5 licenses. Then, for the other versions, the price escalates to high grounds that us geeks can’t afford. However, there is a “trick” that you might be able to pull through and get the software for $380 if you know the right people at the right places.
So, there is version of Windows Server 2003 which is called Web Edition and it doesn’t have all the goodies in it (supports up to 2 GB RAM, 2 CPUs, not all server software is there) as it was created solely for web serving with IIS. However, this version is more than enough for a workstation, and more importantly, it doesn’t have the CAL licensing limitations that the other versions of Windows Server 2003 have. The catch? It is not available via retail channels. Only OEMs and Microsoft distributors sell this cheaper version of the OS for specific purposes only. If you can get your hands on it and you have the will and money for it, go ahead and buy it. If not, well, you can always order the free evaluation CD of Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, free to use for 180 days (you can download it for free too if you have the bandwidth, it is a single 550 MB ISO image). Update: You can get Win2k3 Enterprise via the subscription pack for only $300 USD, and it comes with a whole lot of apps and other Windows OSes too (possibly that would be your best deal, I guess, to get hold of the OS).
Windows Server 2003 as a Workstation and comparison to Windows XP Pro:
Good points: Faaaaast, stable, much more secure, easy to use.
Bad points: Incompatible with old drivers (can cause bad crashes) and some software, requires a bit of work to transform it from a server OS to a workstation OS, pricey.
Installation: 9/10 (XP Pro: 9)
Hardware Support: 8/10 (XP Pro: 9.5)
Ease of use: 9/10 (XP Pro: 9)
Features: 10/10 (XP Pro: 8.5)
Credibility: 9.5/10 (XP Pro: 8) (stability, bugs, security)
Speed: 10/10 (XP Pro: 9) (UI responsiveness, latency, throughput)
Overall: 9.25 / 10 (XP Pro: 8.83)
Other OSNews reviews for workstation comparison: Mac OS X 10.3 review, SuSE 8.2 review, Red Hat Linux 9 review and preview, Mandrake 9.1 review.
from Win 2K Server to Win 2k3???
That was an excellent review. As much as I distrust M$, you seemed to have had a pleasant experience and I may look into this OS further down the line, as more users use it and more feedback rolls in.
Hmm, I don’t know if I would give so much points to credibility (security). You said that the security settings are very paranoid, and that it takes alot of time to reduce those settings while still being secure.
Fact is that alot of people will just disable the security features. Like you did with IE. If security gets in the way of the user in day-to-day basis, then the user is going to just find ways around that security, or just turn it off. So you end up with less security.
It’s kind of like when you force people to use passwords with minimum 20 characters, not in a dictionary, numbers and other characters,.. The user is just going to write it on a sticky note, and put it under their keyboard.
But then, win2k3 is meant as server not workstation, maybe the security settings are good for a server.
nice to see someone speaking honestly about an MS product. although the price is to be expected, I assume it was a joke about being too pricey for a workstation :o)
>Hmm, I don’t know if I would give so much points to credibility (security).
Security was indeed paranoid, almost felt like OpenBSD.
However, the rating for the credibility is the average of stability and bugs and security, not just security.
>I assume it was a joke about being too pricey for a workstation
Not really. I find the price too high, even as a server. The normal version costs $800 for 5 seats. Kinda expensive in times where MS is trying to compete with Linux.
hmmm…well for me personally Win2k will be the only version of Windows I will run, but if Win2k3 is as good as you say, I might take a look. But I think I might just watch for Mac OS X 10.3, I’ve got a feeling that will give Microsoft a good run for it’s money.
Even then I still would not use Microsoft in a high end network, perhaps as just a work station of some kind, but nothing that requires things to get done.
Mac.
This was an excellent review except for one point where the author indicates that the price should have been less if it was to be used as a workstation and that it would set geeks back around $800. W2K3 was not and never was intended to be used as a workstation — that’s what XP and the upcoming Longhorn are for. The price criteria should be fairly judged for what the product is. $800 isn’t too bad to start for a server OS.
But this one is a server OS, so we choose that for the desktop? If I’m going to choose an OS for the desktop which runs only a percentage of windows programs, and doesn’t have many drivers , I might as well choose Lindows and save myself $800 going in Bill’s pocket!
)
Btw I’m a Windows user on all my PCs, I never choose Linux cause I need all my programs to run and to know that almost any program made out there will run on my PCs!
..even if Windows turns out to be superior in every technical aspect.
I once thought that microsoft would disappear within 10 years or so, but I’ve just realized that they can go on for quite a while. Even if they tomorrow start to loose 12 million dollars per day, they could still survive 10 years before their *cash* is consumed.
You run a bunch of open source software on the most closed OS…
>You run a bunch of open source software on the most closed OS…
I am only using what I am used to use (e.g. XChat).
I usually run PaintShopPro instead of Gimp, but I downloaded this new PSP8 demo and the app has changed so much that I can’t find my way around anymore, so I got to GIMP just to get screenshots.
As for Mozilla, I just wanted to see how fast it loads and how fast it runs. I usually use IE.
all operating systems will feel resposive and fast from a clean install, but i’m sure that after around six months of use, that beos or linux os will continue to feel resposive compared to the tens of millions of code being corupted by various buggy M$ softs in that same win2k3 box.
US$ 800 for a server OS running as a desktop ?! And without a compiler and basic applications (notepad, Paint are obsolete and very very simple) ?
The problem with M$ is that the next Windows version will destroy all the advantages the text above says. Longhorn will be complex, with DBMS as filesystem and cosmetic features.
The problem with M$ is that they prefer to bloat Windows at each version to justify the necessity of purchase.
I prefer Mandrake or Conectiva as desktop. They are servers that can be used as desktops for free.
I read through the article, and my question is – how do you know this new OS is secure? It’s too new to have established any actual security record during wide-scale deployment on production servers, right? I understand that various network settings, etc, can default to more secure settings out of the box, but that does not address the majority of Microsoft software’s security issues: bugs, buffer overflows, and other security vulnerabilities in their code that have nothing to do with system security settings and everything to do with code design in which security took a back seat to everything else.
Please understand that I am NOT attempting to troll or start flames. It’s just that the review says, in short, that Win 2k3 is fast,stable,very expensive,supports limited hardware, and is secure. The only two good points are “fast” and “secure”, and it seems to me the validity of the second of these is very much in question.
If all you want is a stable,blindingly fast OS with limited hardware support and dubious security, you might as well use BeOS :-). It’s cheap, too, in fact it’s free.
It’s interesting to see that Windows is still faster than Linux on the same hardware. This has been my experience also, though I stopped using Windows at Win 98 SE.
-Jorge Gonzalez
What is the text editor, featured in the screenshot on the second page?
Must say that I’ll have to agree that Windows can seem fast right after installing it, but I’ve yet to see an install that lasts very long before said perceived speed shrinks to a crawl. 🙁
Good point. Most of Windows vurnabilities have (naturally) been bugs and unchecked buffers that you can’t disable with any security configuration settings.
Generally that leavs W2k3 being fast and MAYBE secure since it SEEMS secure. Only time will tell and I bet that history is going to repeat itself, thus having us all head over to windowsupdate for patches…
> What is the text editor, featured in the screenshot on the second page?
It is Pepper.
http://www.hekkelman.com/
> Must say that I’ll have to agree that Windows can seem fast right after installing it, but I’ve yet to see an install that lasts very long before said perceived speed shrinks to a crawl. 🙁
I don’t know which Widnows do you use, but I use WinXP for more than a year and I have seen 0 slow down, while this was indeed the problem with Win9x/Me.
it’s wierd. Previous Linux installs of mine have always felt snappy and responsive, but this Red Hat 9 install does not. It doesn’t feel slow as such, but very rough, and switching desktops (which I do a lot) causes lots of popping and thrashing, even when swap is not really in use.
It’s a puzzle. I hope Red Hat get their kernel/X house in order soon, the responsiveness of an OS is very important, I agree with this review here.
$800? for a server os is not bad? No thanks I will use any of the Bsd’s or Linux for free or a very small amount of money.
It’s a puzzle. I hope Red Hat get their kernel/X house in order soon, the responsiveness of an OS is very important, I agree with this review here.
The 2.6 kernel release is supposed to improve the responsiveness, and generally improve usage as a workstation. Maybe you can test it out by installing a development version of the kernel (2.5.x)
Win2k. I’ve seen the slowdown on everything from W2k Pro to Win2k Adv. Server.
I’ve certainly experienced the woes that XP can have with bad drivers. Ever since NT4 when Microsoft changed the driver model, NT/2000/XP has never been 100% stable.
The original NT driver model ran drivers outside the kernel, outside of ring zero. A bad driver could not crash your machine. When Cutler designed NT, he designed it with the robustness of a VAX in mind.
Of course there was a small performance penalty, but that was more than compensated by a giant reliability boost. Throughout the course of developing an email client on NT 3.51 SP3, over a year, I never had the machine crash once. Today’s Microsoft OS is a fragile child compared to the original NT which was designed by someone who valued stability.
For servers, it would be an interesting development to bring back the original NT driver model. Many people would gladly give up a few percentage points of speed for rock solid system stability.
When it comes to perceptual performance, the Server editions of Microsoft OS are almost always faster than the Workstation/Professional editions. This is because the disk i/o system for Server is tuned properly. One one of my machines, I run Windows 2000 Server and it is much faster perceptually (apps load fast, directories update quickly, etc) than Windows 2000 Professional. And when you want to do something… i.e. run a webserver… it is there. No messing around like you have to do on the Professional version of the OS.
I appreciate the early view of Windows 2003. While it is not an OS for me, I’m sure the people who are firmly in the Microsoft camp and don’t care about privacy or security will be pleased.
>Win2k. I’ve seen the slowdown on everything from W2k Pro to Win2k Adv. Server.
Have you defraged? I do it once every 2-3 months. It is essential for all filesystems.
>>>
US$ 800 for a server OS running as a desktop ?! And without a compiler and basic applications (notepad, Paint are obsolete and very very simple) ?
<<<
It actually includes compilers for c# and vb.net
Personally, I just don’t think that you can determine the security of a Server OS after using it as a workstation for one week or one month. I don’t know about the other points, having never used that OS, but I would definitely say that the word on security is still out with the jury.
“I once thought that microsoft would disappear within 10 years or so, but I’ve just realized that they can go on for quite a while.”
I’ve been telling people this for years. I don’t see MS losing money in the near future. They are spending a fortune right now on short and long term R&D and expanding the product line while still raking in several billion yearly profits. As a Linux user I don’t believe it will be a main stream alternative in the foreseeable future for reasons that are more political than technical.
You give features 10/10 but on the screenshots it seems that you had to install gimp, xchat etc why don’t you show the built in programs?
Can’t imagine what you have been using…probably Win98. I’m running Win2k at work, 1.5 years, heavy SQL usage, no defrag, still fast and snappy. WinXP at home, 9 months, no defrag, heavy audio and video editing, no slowdown. Don’t know which planet you guys are living on.
But, I think from the amount of off topic pro-Linux commentary here, it’s probably the anti-Microsoft FUD planet. Just a feeling.
> You give features 10/10 but on the screenshots it seems that you had to install gimp, xchat etc why don’t you show the built in programs?
Features of the OS doesn’t always mean user-oriented apps like a painting app or an IRC client that are completely useless on a server. It also means easy clustering, easy load balancing, terminal services etc etc. And there, Win2k3 shines.
I can’t believe nobody is honest about this. If you use Windows over time it will slow down because cruft is accumulated in the registry. Until MS addresses this issue, and programs UNinstall completely, and the registry can be optimized/compacted easily, it will continue to be a problem.
I went to the windows server 2003 coming out party and grabbed one of those evaluation disks. Prior to this I had always bought I guess the lower end version of the window os such as 95 and ME, but after installing 2k3 server on my dell laptop and playing around with the “goodies” I’m looking at getting XP pro.
great review but I would have liked a little more on the goodies that comes with server 2k3.
QAK
Are you somehow implying that I’m not honest? I resent that, quite a bit actually.
…isn’t going to ever be made low enough to be used as a Workstation, because it wasn’t designed and isn’t meant to be used as a workstation.
This is just like the previous Server versions of Windows. They have different a engine under the hood that is geared for heavy duty work. With the previous versions of Windows Server products the performance of them as a workstation was below that of the workstation version of the OS.
Which only begs the question, how much better would the performance be if Microsoft released Windows Workstation 2003?
As for using the “Web” version of Windows 2003, I believe that it would make a terrible workstation OS, since it doesn’t have any filesharing capability. There is most always a time when one needs to quickly share a directory here or there just to transfer one or two quick little files. Webserver 2003 may only support FTP uploads/downloads, which really isn’t as efficient for a workstation, IMHO.
I think the slowdown depends mostly on how much crap you install, how muchyou let running in the tray etc.. I used to be able to keep my win95 (man that feels so old now) running really nicely for basically as long as i wanted. I took care of that box, cleaned out the registry frequently, defragged once a week, didnt install things other than what i needed. But i’ve seen countless other boxes get dramatically slower on much better hardware than what i had. Now my dad’s 2ghz box feels like one of the slowest computers i’ve ever been on. When he bought it, it was almost a joy to use, the sickening xp interface aside of course.
When using XP, be careful about SP1. It is full of bugs, many of which slow down your computer.
… people!
Install a Slackware 9.0 (and next comes a 486 optimized 9.x) and your Linux feels like a dragster 😉
W2k3 runs really good, but is really slow if I run a (theme-free, we don’t compare apples and bananas hear;-) Linux desktop system!
“>Win2k. I’ve seen the slowdown on everything from W2k Pro to Win2k Adv. Server.
Have you defraged? I do it once every 2-3 months. It is essential for all filesystems.”
If you use ext3 or Reiser, it isn’t.
> W2k3 runs really good, but is really slow if I run a (theme-free, we don’t compare apples and bananas hear;-) Linux desktop system!
I am sorry, but this article proved exactly the opposite. I have Red Hat 9 on this same machine, and in fact Red Hat is installed in the beginning of the drive where the hard disk is faster. Win2k3 is WAY faster in workstation stuff than any recent Linux I ever used (and I use/try all major distros). What do you want to compare? Loading times in general, UI responsiveness? It’s all there. Win2k3 wins hands down.
It’s disappointing to see people acuse others of dishonesty just because they have different experiences.
BTW, I’ve been using XP for at least a year and it’s still fast, and I’ve installed tons of software (.NET SDK, DirectX SDK, Office2K, Visual Studio 6, Photoshop, VMWare, J2EE, Eclipse, SharpDevelop…)
.
>If you use ext3 or Reiser, it isn’t.
I knew that some clever goofie will come over here and reply something like that just out of a reaction. And why ext3 and Reiser doesn’t require defragmentation? Is it because they do it on their own in a scheduled time? That doesn’t make them too different than NTFS. I have yet to know a filesystem that _really_ doesn’t require defragmentation with time.
You will need to either have files of a fixed file size (which is useless) or you will need to use a technique which will render your hard drive full after only filling a few percentage of the real size of the drive.
I made a research and BOTH ext3 and ReiserFS fragment. As any other “normal” FS today. They do have some good algorithms to avoid fragmentation as much as possible, but this doesn’t mean that they don’t fragment.
There is even ext2defrag tool for ext and a patch for reiserfs from SuSE: “This patch should apply against just about any version of the endian patches, and will fix the problem. This will not fix existing fragmentation, but will affect all newly created files and appends. If desired, you can defragment by copying a fragmented file and deleting the old one. To defragment the entire fs, restoring from a fresh backup is your best bet as there is on defrag tool for reiserfs yet.“
Question for Eugenia, will Apple give you a copy of their 10.3 update for a review or will you have to wait for the retail release?
It’s also possible to optimize XP quite a bit as well. Turn off all the eye candy, lose the fisher price theme, disable the web folders, and you have a pretty fast desktop OS.
As for the OS slowing down, what I do is to install WinXP twice on the same hard drive (dual boot XP/XP) and use one XP install as the ‘Test’ partition to install all of the apps I want to try (using Ghost to clean it up when need be) and then only install the stuff I want on my ‘Main’ partition. Sure, it’s a tad inconvenient, but keeps XP running smoother than a baby’s ass, and sure beats ‘RPM hell’ any day of the week
http://www.windowsfordevices.com/news/NS2426241007.html
Windows 98 in 16MB Flash …
Add a Pentium M to the mix… and you have a small, quiet machine that runs very fast.
🙂
> Question for Eugenia, will Apple give you a copy of their 10.3 update for a review or will you have to wait for the retail release?
Don’t know yet, I haven’t email their PR dpt yet. I might email them it 1-2 months before the release.
Most filesystems do *not* need defragmentation. According to your own OSNews interviews with the filesystem guys, ReiserFS does not have a defragmentation tool, and XFS didn’t have one for years and only has one now because it was needed for a specific case.
There are three major ways to stop fragmentation.
1) Have an intelligent layout policy for small files. Small files (less than say 4 filesystem blocks or 16kb) make-up the bulk of the files in a system. If you keep small files together, and seperate from large files, and fill holes appropriately, it’s rather easy to keep small files defragmented.
2) Delay allocate files. XFS doesn’t allocate space for a file until it absolutely needs to. This policy means that most files just stay in memory until they’re closed. Once closed, it is comparatively rare for a file to change size (think config files, program binaries, archives, MP3s, pictures, etc).
3) Have an intelligent layout policy for large files. It doesn’t really matter if a large file is split into multiple chunks, as long as those chunks are big enough to hit the sequential read bandwidth limit. Since the growth of large files has very predictable characteristics (think streaming media to disk) it’s possible to have an allocation policy that takes these characteristics into account.
Fragmentation really is a remnant of FAT32 and it’s “linked-list” management policy. The linked-list approach encourages fragmentation because it’s very slow to search the list (much slower than searching a bitmap) and thus hard to implement proper allocation schemes.
Eugenia:
I usually agree your reviews in most aspects, but I have to point out 2 things:
1. You claim that Win2K3 is “WAY faster” and provide a load time of IE versus load times of OpenOffice.org. IE pre-loads all of itself on boot. It would be nearly impossible for anything to beat a load time for IE, because it isn’t loading, it is merely displaying the window.
2. On the features as 10/10 you claim that Win2K3 deserves this score as a terminal server, web server and file server. The review was about Win2K3 as a workstation, though, and needs to be evaluated in that context. The fact that it can serve is a moot point for the review – what Workstation features does it have to justify a 10/10?
Thanks for your time,
Marc
>IE pre-loads all of itself on boot
Yes it does. But it does NOT load instantly on my XP PRO. It does on the Win2k3. I used both XP and Win2k3 and I also used other apps as a measurement too. Apps DO LOAD FASTER on Win2k3. Incredibly faster.
>what Workstation features does it have to justify a 10/10?
It can do *everything* that XP does. It comes with Media Player and with some free app additions, you get a BETTER *overall* result than WinXP. MovieMaker2 is available for download from MS’ site too. Also, on features, not only apps are measured, but OS features, down to kernel features, filesystem, UI. For example, as I wrote in the review, the newly compiled apps are completely flicker-free, something that is not available on XP.
Seems like it ought to be WS03 or even WINS03 or even WS3.
Any way to break past the 180 day limit?
>Any way to break past the 180 day limit?
Yes. You buy it.
i loaded windows media player 9, it came up with script errors before it crashed. every web site i went to i was prompted to ask me if i should be there and that the web was a dangerous place.
the funniest thing i know tho, is that a 100% microsoft software house isnt moving to win2k3 because they are having problems with it.
also, has sun installed this thing? has sun noticed that .net1.1 is a standard part of the os, and java isnt? What ever happened to that court case anyways … moral of this part of the story, never trust a m$ laywer.
The only good thing i can say about this is that there still is DR-DOS code in there hehe
> I loaded windows media player 9, it came up with script errors before it crashed. every web site i went to i was prompted to ask me if i should be there and that the web was a dangerous place.
Crashed at once in the first time, I can’t easily believe it, except if you are really unlucky.
Script errors, YES. Why? Because you haven’t fix the IE security options beforehand. WMP9 loads IE inside it, so you will have to read the article about how to fix IE in order to use OE, IE and WMP9 and any other IE-based application.
This is part of the article explained clearly, **did you read the article**?? I clearly write there that even google won’t load without changing the security settings, which are tuned for a server system and not for a workstation and that in order to use it as a workstation you will need to tune 8 or 9 things up.
WIn2k3 has been extremely slow here. I guess there si a problem with the compatibility of the ATI drivers, windows move extremely slow and you can see all the redrwaing, even scrolling is a pain, slow and choppy, sound doesen’t work, webcam doesen’t work and I can’t find the XP luna theme in teh contorl center, its stuck looing like Win2000. I don’t know what happened, but WinME was a more pleasant OS!
I guess it needs a lot fo time to ge tall these drivers to be compatible. but, its been out for a while and I’m surprised to see this.
> I guess there si a problem with the compatibility of the ATI drivers,
Did you install third party drivers? Why didn’t keep the ones that Windows came with? Were you careful to download drivers that do support Win2k3??
> I can’t find the XP luna theme in teh contorl center, its stuck looing like Win2000.
Hello? Read my article and NeoWin’s article which shows EXACTLY how to bring Luna up! You just need to turn on the Theme server which is of course turned off by default as this is a server OS.
I know you can get Luna like taht, what I meant to say was without downloading anything.
Also, Windows’s default drivers did not work even though it says hardware acceleration is enabled. The downloaded drivers don’t seem to make a difference either.
Ayway, it expire sin 180 days, so its not my permanent OS, besides I’m not going to buy it, too pricey and XP is good enough for me. I don’t even really need a server, i just wanted to play around with it. The secuirity features are also extremely annoying, good thing you can disable them =)
Anyway, I will give Linux a try as my main OS in mid 2004 by the second round of distributions from now or 2005.
BTW: When will Longhorn come out, i don’t plan on buying it from what i’ve seen so far, but I’ m still curious.
Before I install it , I want to know if it will configure a boot menu to Dual-Boot between XP and Windows 3000 *Just like 9x and XP…*
Even if it does not, it is easy to add it as it shows in one of the screenshots. There is not a problem adding another MS OS to the boot manager. The problem only starts when you want to install non-MS OSes.
I think it’s important to point out things like:
– You cannot upgrade your computer more than xx number of times w/out giving MS a(nother) complete inventory of your system
– While the OS may be secure against “outsiders,” MS doesn’t consider itself an outsider, thus, they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, to your computer (it’s in the license agreement!)
I actually enjoyed the review, and the OS seems like a big improvement (and I’m a seriously strong MS opponent), and I found myself wanting to try it (I haven’t actively used a MS OS since win98SE). Then I remembered all the OTHER reasons I don’t use MS software. I never pirated anything from MS, why should I have to give them *any* information about my computer whatsoever in order to use the software I *already* purchased? Drives me nuts
Plus we all know how “secure” their data warehousing systems are (or aren’t…).
I don’t know what you are talking about to be honest. I had to give my address in order to be sent the CD! That’s normal for any other software that comes in CDs via post.
As for other information, the OS doesn’t really ask you for anything except for some hardware configurations, as it is IMPERATIVE for the developer company to *know* the exact configuration you have in order to better serve YOU. It doesn’t ask for personal info, only your hardware info. This way they can debug problems and help you when you call their customer service for this or the other issue. I see this as a big plus, not a minus. It is the only way for them to serve and debug better.
I’ve given Windows 2003 a go and unfortunately when logging in, if I don’t have a CD in my CD-Writer (AOpen 4850 w/ latest firmware) the logging in process just hangs and doesn’t continue. The strange part is that it works perfectly with Windows 2000 Advanced server, oh btw, it was a clean installation not an upgrade. If someone can clear this issue up, it would be really great.
Regarding Windows 2003 security, all I can say is this, it has been one month and no security alerts and apart from a feature request by people using Windows 2000 Server and Windows 2003 Server, Windows 2003 Server has turned out to be a very stable and reliable product. Oh, btw, Java does perform pretty well on it.
As for Windows 2000 Server, does anyone have an eta for Windows 2000 Service Pack 4? also, just for those who think there isn’t a difference between Windows 2000 Server and Workstation, I’ve had a look and funny enough, I’ve found that the server version is heavily threaded in comparision to Windows 2000 Professional.
I’m talking about the activation features that come with windows since XP. They are anti-piracy measures (I can’t believe you haven’t heard about them). For instance, if you make major changes to your hardware (4 new components, or a new mb, or something else), your windows thinks you have installed a pirated copy, and you have to again send your information to MS before it lets you use the software. Obviously these aren’t in the evaluation version, but I’m sure they’ll be in the main version just like in XP. Maybe you should break out your winXP license agreement and actually read it – using the software (and installing the service packs, especially) gives microsoft express permission to come into your box and look for pirated software.
And no, it’s not imperative for MS to know ANYTHING about the computer I run. They’re not using that information solely to serve me, they’re using it to make sure I’m not pirating (as if shelling out 800 bucks isn’t good enough). Makes me sick, honestly. They can ASK for that information, but I should by no means be required to give it to them in order to ‘activate’ my windows or continue using it after an upgrade.
If MS was a trustworthy company, perhaps I would trust them with my information (I do trust other companies with it) – but with my personal history with MS (refusing to cancel my Asheron’s Call account for 6 months and refusing to refund the money they stole from me), and that of their security breaches (do a search for passport security on google) – if they can go a year without having privacy violations, without security breaches, without unethical behavior, maybe I’ll consider paying again – but it’s not likely THAT will ever happen.
Considering that Windows 2003 is competing against SuSE Enterprise Server and Redhat Enterprise Server, Windows 2003 Server is priced pretty reasonably.
Regarding the CAL, IIRC, Microsoft does have a specific license that does allow unlimited connects without the need to purchase CAL’s, maybe someone is able to fill me in on this.
As for what I would use as an alternative, why not Solaris on x86? sure it make suckage point is its poor audio and graphics support, however, in the server orientated hardware support the over all support is pretty good, and what is better is the fact that the whole kernel is finely grained vs. the Linux kernel which ranges from absolutely fabulous in some places to down right horrid in others such as ext3fs as one example. Solaris on the other hand has been time tested and has been in the marketplace thus it has matured and developed into a very strong x86 server operating system.
>I’m talking about the activation features that come with windows since XP. They are anti-piracy measures (I can’t believe
you haven’t heard about them).
I have heard it of course and I have used it. And it doesn’t bother me at all. It is a painless registration.
If this is what will make people stop pirating a product, then I am all for it personally. I don’t mind product activation not one bit.
When I booted up my PowerBook 12″ for the first time it also asked for FAR MORE infromation about ME personally than MS has about me and it SENT that infromation to Apple and the last time I called Apple Support they had ALL this information on their computers, what Mac I had and where do I live and everything else and INDEED helped the person in the support desk to get a more overall idea of my problem and my hardware. And to be honest, I don’t mind these companies know where I live and that I own their product. I have nothing to hide really.
My usual advice to friends who complain about the “windows slowdown” is: run adaware [ http://www.lavasoft.de/software/adaware/ ]
The original NT driver model ran drivers outside the kernel, outside of ring zero. A bad driver could not crash your machine. When Cutler designed NT, he designed it with the robustness of a VAX in mind.
VAX isn’t the hardware, David Cutler works on VMS which was written in a mixture of BLISS, MACRO and a small amount of assembly which removed the possibility of buffer overruns.
The original NT kernel was a Micro based kernel, however, as the operating system became more complex the performance penalty due to the large amount of contextural switching became unbearable, even for a server environment.
A decision was eventually made to abandon the pure Micro kernel design and instead head for more of a hybrid between a Micro and Monolythic kernel.
If you look at the comparision between Micro and Monolithic kernels, Micro don’t scale and perform that well on larger systems. Sure on a embedded device you could easily get away with it, however, as things get more complex, it starts to get ugly. I remember when I frst heard about QNX and the problems faced trying to get virtual memory working with QNX RTP.
Micro kernels have their place, however, they’re alot more complex and problematic in the longer term even if you do take in account their great flexibility.
As for the driver issue in the pre-NT 4 kernels, in the x86 architecture, there are 4rings and as such, if one wanted to, one could create a VERY stable operating system by taking full advantage of these 4rings, however, the reality is that RISC architectures don’t have that sort of setup meaning, by doing the above you lock yourself out from the ability to port the operating system to other platforms. Microsoft made a decision and that was to stick with two rings thus allowing them to have a portable kernel.
As for the driver stability issue, Microsoft does issue driver stressing software which stress tests the driver software, however, it isn’t up to Microsoft to force every company to use those tools, also, these companies are not forced to certify their hardware so the rule of thumb, as Eugenia Loli-Queru has pointed out, stick with certified drivers written for your operating system. All my drivers, minus the Maestro External Modem, are WHQL compliant hardware and using WHQL certified drivers. Sure, I don’t get the great performance if one were to use the latest bleeding edge driver, however, when you consider that the driver I am using for my Matrox G550 was released November 2002 and we are May 2003, and there has been no updated versions released, one can come to the conclusion that this driver IS rock solid. I have yet to have even a hang let alone a BSOD.
What I do think needs to happen are people to look at why their system crashes rather than simply screaming Microsoft sucks. Windows just doesn’t crash, or as I like to put it, “things just don’t happen, there has to be a reason”, and I’m sorry, simply blaming the operating system is a cop out. 99% of the time, when an operating system crashes, it is due to hardware, driver or a combination of the two. Why doesn’t it happen on some operating system? different levels of hardware fault tolerance and the fact that not all drivers, especially opensource ones, don’t always use the full features of the hardware, thus, avoid the issue altogether.
>>Any way to break past the 180 day limit?
>Yes. You buy it.
That’s only *one* possible way . . . 🙂
VAX isn’t the hardware
It should be, “VAX isn’t software, it is hardware”.
The otherways you suggest are illegal. May I suggest that you skoot off to your little l33t d00d5 group where you can talk about the latest warez and how great and smart you are for ripping of companies.
Sure, I am no Microsoft fanboy, but at the end of the day, unless you have bought the right to use the software, you have no right running it. It is called values. If I went into your house, nicked your stereo and claimed that because I don’t have one, I then have the right to take yours, would you be quite happy to role over and simply accept it?
Which anti virus program will run on Windows Server 2003?
While I do not like warez and feel that it causes many more problems than it solves, there is legitimate debate about whether software “piracy” is really theft, since there is no losing party (Come on, is Basil Crow going to really buy WS03?).
More on topic: I’m finishing up wgetting the ISO from Microsoft. Their download system is much better than QNX’s–at least they give you the download URL, not some PHP script.
1) Microkernels actually scale very well to multi-way machines. Microkernel OSs have an interesting property. Communication between different parts of the OS has a high cost. Thus, they are written such that this communication is minimized. On a single-CPU machine, there is a net overall cost to the abstraction, but on a huge multi-way machine, this design pays of in reduced locking, better memory locality behavior, and (in a distributed system) less inter-node communication. Read up on QNX’s distributed capabilities sometime. Oh, and the virtual memory issues you had with QNX have nothing at all to do with the microkernel design. QNX is a hard real time OS. It can’t afford the unpredictable timing inherent in a swap-backed virtual memory architecture. The only reason a swap file was added to RtP was to enable GCC to run self-hosted.
2) The x86 ring mechanism doesn’t play well with the x86 paging mechanism. The ring mechanism assumes you use call gates for inter-module communication. Unfortunately, anything related to segmentation is very slow on modern x86 CPUs, so using call gates for library calls becomes a big bottleneck. Also, the two mechanisms just don’t mesh well. The whole system is designed such that you use paging OR you use segmentation, not mix both together.
Eugenia, I remember one in your Gentoo review that FreeBSD is faster than even a properly compiled Gentoo install. How does FreeBSD stack up against Windows Server 2003?
I’m running AVG on it:
http://www.grisoft.com
Well CooCooCaChoo, I’m not a pro warez at all, (that’s why I use free software). But if you haven’t a stereo, and if I was able to do an identical copy of myne then I would be happy to give you one!
Yeah, I know free software geeks are annoying, to be honnest I don’t really care if other people don’t understand the point in using free software, the only thing I want is to be able to have the choice of using free software, and that’s what companies like Msoft are trying to prevent.
This is all fine and good, but the selling point for me is whether it’s good for games or not. I only use windows machines on my desktops because I enjoy video games (and I dislike consoles).
Is it good for games / how is DirectX performance on it?
Does Microsoft have a newer version of it’s operating system? Why bother?
Seems to be a lot of FUD out there regarding the activation process in WinXP. Having read all the anti-MS hype, I delayed buying because I was afraid that MS would get my personal information.
Not so. If you’re on the extremely paranoid side, you can activate via phone (doesn’t have to be your own phone) and MS gets no information regarding you whatsoever. Even by activating via the internet, MS only gets some basic machine info, nothng about you personally.
Look, Microsoft has a poor track record in many aspects of how they do business. This cannot be denied. But, by spreading misinformation, you dilute your arguments against them. Remember “Reefer Madness”, DARE, the Partnership for a Drug-Free America ads? We all know that marijuana doesn’t make one go out and kill people. Unfortunately, since many young people know that that’s a lie, they ignore some of the real adverse impacts that drugs can have on your life.
Stick to the real issues, not paranoid myths, and your message will come through loud and clear and be believable. MS doesn’t want to be Big Brother. What they DO want is your money…
I’ve been able to run just about any modern game on it. Even a few dos based ones like nethack. Shouldn’t be an issue.
You. Rule.
tell it like it is, brother!
Nethack was originally for Unix AFAIK.
My usual advice to friends who complain about the “windows slowdown” is: run adaware
Yes, and also a little and fantastic NT program called RegClean (FreeWare). Really recomended for windows users.
http://www.webattack.com/get/regcleaner.shtml
and tweaki … for power users, to tune the ram and general system (ShareWare).
http://www.jermar.com/tweaki.htm
_____________________________
People claiming Windows gets slow with time normally can’t learn how to maintain it. My win2k installations run as fast as the first day.
_____________________________
Which anti virus program will run on Windows Server 2003?
Just install proper software and a good windows firewall.
The rest is … do *not* open porn emails.
Sorry, but I find this “review” and all the comments way past the point of “yawn”. It’s a server, the review was how it made a “iffy” desktop. DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What’s next, how the QE2 just doesn’t cut it as a ski boat? How a sledge makes a cruddy tack driver? Swatting fly’s with a AK47? Hair Cuts with an industrial band saw? Read this part slowly… IT’s…A…SERVER…OS!
So it is Linux, believe it or not. But people keep jumping up and down saying that it is good as a desktop OS too. Guess what Mr, Windows Server 2003 is ALSO a good workstation, not just a good server (you seem to have understood that we said the opposite). It does *everything* XP does, plus much more.
Alex,
I really doubt games was every something MS cared about, really I don’t think this is an OS for games, if the server in the name didn’t hint that. maybe if you needed a game that needed 64 Xeon’s to run it, it would be helpfull.
Skippy,
Sure it’s a server OS, but hey maybe it would be good for some people. But by your same logic I guess linux and the bsd’s should give up all desktop hopes.
What self respecting OS junkie would not try out a server OS to goof around with as a desktop OS? It’s all part of the fun!
I’m mostly a Mac user, but love XP Pro. Windows Server 2003 really sounds like a winner.
Alex: During the beta DirectX was disabled… I don’t know if they kept it that way.
>>Win2k. I’ve seen the slowdown on everything from W2k Pro
>>to Win2k Adv. Server.
>Have you defraged? I do it once every 2-3 months. It is
>essential for all filesystems.
Certainly, I defrag often.
And to the bunch thinking I’m a Linux l33t noob – rent a life. 🙂
>Alex: During the beta DirectX was disabled… I don’t know if they kept it that way.
Direct Draw is active. Direct3D and OpenGL was disabled. Read the article, it says clearly that this is one of the 8-9 steps required to transform the OS to a workstation.
Re: Various persons claiming that Windows is stable and/or consistently fast for them
The fact that the Windowses are stable/fast for some people and unstable/slow for others is WORSE than if they were consistently unstable/slow! AFAI’mC, Win2kPro w/SP2 represents the pinnacle of Windows development — but I’ve seen some machines/users that don’t mesh well with Win2k and I have no idea why. Some of them are better off with XP Pro, some are better off with 95B. Barring driver and app issues, there is no rhyme or reason to it, making such issues nearly (and sometimes totally) impossible to resolve.
Re: Defragmentation
ReiserFS and ext3 generally take care of themselves (not that they’re perfect though), whereas NTFS needs to be defragged by hand. In fact, the Windowses (minus 2k3, maybe) are explicitly unable to perform unattended defrags without a whole whack of money and/or coding and/or 3rd party apps thrown at them. There’s a blow to all those “Linux needs too much handholding” FUDmeisters.
Quake:
Before I install it , I want to know if it will configure a boot menu to Dual-Boot between XP and Windows 3000
Windows 3000? r0x0r! Piracy is getting faster and faster these days
Re: Activation
All anti-piracy measures accomplish, is to make life harder for legitimate users while simultaneously giving black-hats and crackers a bigger hard-on about cracking their “unbreakable” anti-piracy measures. There was a good tirade on penny-arcade.com about this when Warcraft 3 came out, but I can’t find it now
Skippy:
Sorry, but I find this “review” and all the comments way past the point of “yawn”.
I like insults as much as the next arrogant pedant, but this is a bit much — my favourite Windows is 2kPro, precisely -because- of its server-like NT qualities (relative stability) compared to its siblings.
=========================================================
Re: Activation
All anti-piracy measures accomplish, is to make life harder for legitimate users while simultaneously giving black-hats and crackers a bigger hard-on about cracking their “unbreakable” anti-piracy measures.
=========================================================
Naw man, they are out to stop mom and pop casual user from lending out their CD…and that has worked to a large degree, because I know a lot of semi computer-literate people who used to share their Win98/ME/2K cd, but no longer ‘think’ they can do it with XP.
So they’ve recommended to all their friends to buy it instead. That’s what they are shooting for, a little dent in the easily deterred market.
I’m running it right now and I agree 100% with E it’s the best workstation ever (and I really hate MS a lot). I’ve gotten my longest uptime ever with 2k3 and still feels like a new restart while running emule 24/7 and all this on an VIA epia 800 C3/384Mb ram tweaked to the max with theams and all that stuff
Of corse I run jv16 powertools reg cleaner everyonce in a while but I haven’t had to defrag and my 80Gb drive has about 100mb left, also I’ve got the ati 3.4 drivers and they aren’t made for 2k3 but I’ve had no problems with that either it plays all my games just fine and no BSOD or anything like that basicly my fav new OS just wish they’d come down on the price 
oh well
Windows2k3 installed smoothly on my system, even detected and installed my NVidia GeForce4 440 mobile chip (which XP didn’t). Sound was properly installed (thought disabled), WMP9 was installed and running great, and the system is very responsive, apps load quite a lot faster, and I haven’t encountered anything that I’ve wanted to do that XP could that I can’t now.
I have no opinion on Windows XP or 2003 as I don’t run either of them but man, reading these comments it just sounds like people just don’t want to hear anything good about Windows. I mean, like even if God came down from the skies and you find out that he used WFW 3.11 to invent DNA, there’d be a bunch of people telling us about how fascist DNA has been, and how in the long run, it was a pretty bad idea, unlike, say, Pogs.
I run a Windows 2000 box just for video editing; everything else has been moved over to free OSes, and I really haven’t been very interested in Windows for awhile because Linux on the desktop more than works for me, and it frees up money for nachos, rubber chickens, pizza, gasmasks, Hong Kong Phooey lunchboxes (just landed one on ebay; now I’m gonna get ALL the chicks), and stuff.
As for this product activation though, with all the ten billion people who authorized and unauthorized have my personal information on their computers, I couldn’t see myself getting too bent out of shape about Microsoft knowing what hardware I use. I can’t see some future where we read some mercenary’s memoirs about how, “Baker got snuffed at Motoko Bay; Microsoft had intel that he was a Linksys jockey, and used their pull with the Mbewe republican guard to frag him in a violent midnight execution.”
People really need to relax a little.
Let me get this straight: You are running W2K3 on a machine that probably did cost half as much as the operating system? D’oh! 😉
regards,
Stephan
i havnt seen anyone mention this so i thought i would,
check your device manager (right click my computer, choose manage, device manager), choose ‘disc drives’ select a hard drive (i have 4 listed), right click on it and choose properties, click the ‘policies’ TAB and make sure that
‘Enable write caching on the disk’ and ‘Enable advanced performance’ are both ticked (checked), by default one or both are not ticked, once done, you’ll have an even speedier system than before, do this for all hard drives in the system. I’ve been running win2k3 (rc2- thats right, release candidate 2 !)at home as a web/file server for a couple of months now and its wonderful, extremely stable, extremely fast and excellent uptime (considering i only installed it a few months ago) – http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=anyweb.kicks-ass.net
i will definetly upgrade to the full version as soon as time permits.
on another note, and not necessarily related to the above, red hat 9 is indeed slow(er), have you checked the following setting on the red hat 9 box ?
as ‘su’ do vi /etc/sysconfig/harddisks
take the # sign away from the following three lines in the file
#USE_DMA=1
#EIDE_32BIT=3
#LOOKAHEAD=1
so that they now read
USE_DMA=1
EIDE_32BIT=3
LOOKAHEAD=1
save the file by pressing ESC and typing !wq
before you reboot time how long it takes to open openoffice or mozilla, reboot and then time it again,
hope that helps some of you
cheers
anyweb
I found out that if defrag my drives to almost 0% fragmented files. And run RegClean (The free MS version) things seem to improve a lot however never to same speed of a fresh install but pretty close. Actually the first time you run regclean on an old system (more then two months of usage). I think you should notice a big difference.
The fact that the Windowses are stable/fast for some people and unstable/slow for others is WORSE than if they were consistently unstable/slow! AFAI’mC, Win2kPro w/SP2 represents the pinnacle of Windows development — but I’ve seen some machines/users that don’t mesh well with Win2k and I have no idea why. Some of them are better off with XP Pro, some are better off with 95B. Barring driver and app issues, there is no rhyme or reason to it, making such issues nearly (and sometimes totally) impossible to resolve.
Windows is stable when run on quality, non-faulty hardware. I’ve seen Windows 2000 run beautifully as a server and workstation running on quality hardware. If you run a server using Intel Xeon processors, Cosaire Memory, ServerWorks Motherboard, I’ll promise you that your stability issues will be a thing of the past. Same goes for workstations, if you run a Pentium 4 on a quality motherboard with a reliable chipset (7205 would be a good example of quality), you again will not suffer from stability issues.
I have seen computers unstable when running Windows 2000, however, once I have replaced the faulty component, which most of the time is a faulty memory module, the computer then works perfectly.
ReiserFS and ext3 generally take care of themselves (not that they’re perfect though), whereas NTFS needs to be defragged by hand. In fact, the Windowses (minus 2k3, maybe) are explicitly unable to perform unattended defrags without a whole whack of money and/or coding and/or 3rd party apps thrown at them. There’s a blow to all those “Linux needs too much handholding” FUDmeisters.
You can set up automatic defraging on 9x series via the task scheduler and as for NT/2000/XP/2003, what is so hard about loading up Disk Defragmenter once a week/month/when-ever and simply pressing defragment?
All anti-piracy measures accomplish, is to make life harder for legitimate users while simultaneously giving black-hats and crackers a bigger hard-on about cracking their “unbreakable” anti-piracy measures. There was a good tirade on penny-arcade.com about this when Warcraft 3 came out, but I can’t find it now
And if these people don’t like it, why do they still chose to run it? it is a freemarket out there, the government as far as I remember hasn’t mandated that all computers sold must be PC’s running Windows. Every new user I talk to, I show them a Mac, and they instantly fall in love with its simplicity and ease of use. Show a user a PC and they shrival into a small heap scared of the complexitity and possibility that they may do something incorrect. Whether you like it or not, Mac’s look alot friendlier to a newbie than some monsterious PC with hundreds of cables, buttons and knobs.
Eugenia, I respected your effort to be an unbiased writer, but you have to be careful not to give too much credit/trust to Microsoft. Apple is also a closed company, but it doesn’t have the kind of resources that MS has.
Think about it this way. Yes, it’s not a big deal *today* for MS to collect your hardware information. But tomorrow, they may be collecting more than that. What’s to stop MS from recording your keystrokes (selectively, of course)? Computer nowadays has crazy amount of horsepower to allow this kind of activity went undetected.
Not only that, if we all use Windows, there is nothing that can either detect or disable this feature because it’s built into the OS that nobody has access to its source code.
Now, why would MS want to do this? I agree that MS may not be the world-domination monger that some people would have you believe, but MS has a well-documented track record of doing almost anything necessary to put it above its competitors, coupled with the kind of resources that it has to spend.
I believe you are right, MS did many things right as far as the quality of their software, I won’t take any flak against Win2K because that’s the best MS OS I’ve ever use.
I wish they revert back from the activation deal for Win2K3. Think about it, despite all the piracy and CD sharing that went on before the activation deal, MS is still *way* profitable, isn’t it?
I believe that MS has the capacity and smarts to do *very* well in a fair competition without resorting to monopoly-like strategies.
It’s a pity, real pity…
No matter what some say about these two OS, they’re fast. Regular defragging, running RegClean and the greatest tool (a freebee from MS) BootVis you can have an old (more than 10 months) install of XP boot in 17 s and run lightening fast. On the other hand this never helped me with my home machine, I found out that net protocol binding to my NIC and bringing up of COM for the modem hogs 32 s during boot up. I got the eval copy of Win2k3 and have been reluctant to install it as a workstation OS, after Eugenia’s review it’s coming to my OS world.