Windows Server 2003 R2 makes it easier and more cost effective to extend connectivity and control to identities, locations, data, and applications throughout and beyond your organization. Experience the difference yourself by downloading the Windows Server 2003 R2 trial software.
Windows Server 2003 R2 Product Overview
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
This seems less like news and more like a shamless product promotion.
Maybe. But I wish nonetheless they had listened to many power users who were asking for a workstation edition of Win 2003.
If they had listened now one could buy an excellent OS.
Funny that this should come from a linux user, but for me operating systems are not a religion.
Cant Win 2003 apparently be “transformed” into a workstation OS? I think I was reading @ msfn.org or somewhere that there are people using that software not for its server features but they were using it as a workstation os….I could be wrong though.
Theres no reason why you cant use it on your desktop, it’s just not very cost effective to do so
I don’t know why you would want to use it intead of XP. They’re pretty much the same for desktop use.
Well ALOT of people do that.
By definition, Windows 2003 = Windows XP with less system services enabled by default and more server related stuff in the package.
So to use Windows 2003 as a workstation os, there’s no problem. It’s some kind of Windows XP Lite.
But there are few things that you might find annoying:
1- By default, there’s no sound support. To get sound, just turn on the Windows Audio service.
2- By default, there’s no theme support. Again, just turn on the Themes service.
3- Finally, the most annoying thing: The Shutdown Dialog. It requires you to give a reason when you want to shutdown. Not really cool if you run it on a laptop computer. But you can turn off a service and it’s gone. I don’t remember the name of that service. Google is your friend
Remember, there’s nothing Windows XP does that Windoes 2003 doesn’t.
FYI: My understanding is that Windows XP x64 Edition is built on top of the Windows Server 2003 SP1 codebase, meaning there may be a more straightforward route to get the benefits of WS03 on the client–plus it’s cheaper. Just turn off the extra UI crap, and you should be good to go. If I’m missing something, someone please call me on it.
I can confirm this. You’re right! 😉
Theres no reason why you cant use it on your desktop, it’s just not very cost effective to do so
I don’t know why you would want to use it intead of XP. They’re pretty much the same for desktop use.
Not entirely true. If your company has an MSDN subscription, you have access to all the available Windows releases, so why not run the latest, über stable version of Windows for your workstation? if you’re a student, you can purchase an MSDN operating system subscription, which gives you access to all the available Windows for only arond $50 more than the Windows XP Professional academic pricing.
Yes, I know that 2003 can be used as a workstation, I have done it.
Related problems:
1)Cost
2)Some (basic) freeware apps won’t work, because they can “see” that you are running a server OS.
I’ve tried this too, and for a couple of months.
I had _NO_ problems with drivers for all of my (admittedly) mainstream hardware, including 3D cards. Many games’ performance increased noticeably (not just odd framerate increases measured with fraps or something) and loading times of apps such as say, Visual Studio .NET 2003 were also significantly reduced over what I experienced with XP.
The setup and install process was relatively easy, and provided you know what you are looking at and fiddling with, can get sound and other services (I left themes off), easily. Even switching the shutdown dialog was a simple task too.
My main bugbear, related to Anon. Penguins’ post above was that stuff like AVG and the personal firewalls wouldn’t run on 2003. For this, you have to locate some (probably commercial) software from elsewhere that will run. I was using my copy I’m entitled to from University, those who work for companies with MSDN subs and the like might have access to ‘server-grade’ AV, etc. There are patches on the net that allow some workstation AV to operate on server but I’m never happy with fiddling with stuff like AV and firewalls that I want to depend on.
I was behind a hardware firewall but still felt a little unprotected even without any AV running.
I was going to write a review on this and submit it, but there are plenty out there atm. When I get round to it, I might look at it again.
Cheers,
-Smiffa
Right about that. 2k3 can be used as a workstation & can be done so quite easily.
http://www.msfn.org/win2k3/index.htm
There are advantages of 2k3 over xp. 1st thing that comes to mind is that xp pro has IIS 5, 2k3 has IIS 6 & if I remember correctly 5 is capable of running just 1 website.
Thats the only real pain, not all programs work on 2k3 but 90% of them will. One that doesnt is Doom 3, wont let you install it period but im sure that if one called them up theres a way of getting around it like there is for the game Theif.
heya,
Yeah, I tried using Win2003 as a server os for a while. To be honest, it was quite quite good – very snappish, stable (although I didn’t use it for long enough to really say that with..umm…grr…can’t think of the word…somebody? well, you know what i mean…i hate these moments), and seemingly more secure out of the box that Windows XP (although to the point of annoyance, sometimes).
Yes, the MSFN guide was pretty good, although I think some of the tips might be going too far. Then again, I was never much of a theme person, I usually don’t even change the default backgrounds, I dislike hacking around, and I really don’t see the problem with having the Shutdown Manager – in fact, it’s kinda useful as a sort of system notebook, and I don’t shut down that often anyway.
Drivers can be an issue though – apparently, Win2003 is too “new” for some vendors to support. My Brother 9180 Laser MultiFunction Centre is a case in point.
Apart from Eugenia’s somewhat plainly disguised press release/product fleecing – hopefully the money she gets from MS will be used to fund OSnews, and keep it alive (kidding) – does anybody know what the *actual* updates/improvements are? None of this “robust” rubbish…
cya,
Victor
“Windows Server 2003 R2”?? Why not call it “Windows Server 2005”? Where is the reasoning in R2? The worst part of it is that the complete name for the server family products will be like “Windows Server 2003 R2 – Enterprise Edition”. How sick is that for a product name in 2005?
My favourite productname is “Windows XP Professional x64 Edition”. I am dizzy every time I am finished typing that product name… Yikes!
I completely agree. They should have released it as Windows Server 2005, together with VS.net 2005, dotnet 2.0, and Windows 2005.
Actually, this is not news in any sense, it’s just advertising. It’s kinda sad when osnews doesnt do better than this.
90% of articles relating to Ubuntu are the same so what you complaining about. It’s fair that windows get its amount of fame as well…
90 % of the Ubuntu articles (or any other *nix dist articles for that matter) are some sort of review articles, i.e I installed Ubuntu last day and here are the pros and cons, etc.
And yes, 10 such articles is not so interesting to read. But this article would be the equivalent of just giving away the link to the ubuntu site, saying, look this is a great os. Not very creative.
Do you get it?
I use it everyday at home…
“Remember, there’s nothing Windows XP does that Windoes 2003 doesn’t.”
There are a few things…Fast User Switching is one. but who cares?
I use Clam for AV, works great. Free Runs on 2k3 server..
The reason they arent calling it server 2005 is because it is not a new OS, or really even revision. It is basically just all the free add-ins that you can already get from MS included, without having to download them. Server 2003 Service Pack 1 is closer to a new OS revision than R2.
For program that won’t run on Server 2003, can’t you just right click on the executable, select properties, and then set it to run on XP or 2000 compatibility mode?
“My main bugbear, related to Anon. Penguins’ post above was that stuff like AVG and the personal firewalls wouldn’t run on 2003.”
That is exactly what I mean.
“I use Clam for AV, works great. Free Runs on 2k3 server..”
Thanks for the hint. The AV is in fact the bigger issue. As to the firewall I suppose the built-in one should suffice.
That doesn’t usually work.
Outpost Pro will run on 2k3, by far the best software firewall Ive used but nothing beats a hardware firewall except for maybe smoothwall.
AVG Pro will run on 2k3, just not the free version. There are so called hacks to make programs think 2k3 is xp. Ive never used any so I wouldnt know how well they work.
Come on! Who let this through anyway? Even the wording is marketing-speak. If someone from MS or a supporter of MS products wants to post that’s fine, but at least demonstrate some intelligence when doing so on a technically-oriented site like this one. Post something worth reading that transmits information and educates.
No problem, We’ve been using Clam for BSD for a long time on some of our ISP servers. The windows Port seems pretty good. lightweight too.
most industry “news” are writeups by a marketing department, that are given to journalists. those journalists turn around, and call it news. more a matter of lazyness then anything else. but hey, people like newsweek and cnn make trade news look like shining pillars of journalistic integrity, so i guess it could be worse.