Windows 2003 vs. XP Pro as a server

[808smokey]

This pertains to my other recent post, kinda. I have windows 2003 server and I was wondering how well it would work on a PII 550 w/128mb PC133. I was going to use it as a server/firewall in the house. You guys/gals think that's enough "power" to run alright? Currently it has XP Pro SP1 and it seems to run "OK" ubt I thought 2003 might be faster? I've never used it and was curious. I have no idea how to use linux and any variations of that type. I'm stuck in the windows world and don't have any time to learn the other OS's.

Thanks

[bazooka]

I vote for XP SP2, which is not in the options.

I have used 2003 but am just not that worked up about it.

[Capmaster]

XP would probably be the better choice. You'll have support longer than you will with 2003.

[808smokey]

Sorry bout that 'zooka. I just installed SP2 on my other box and so far no complaints

[bazooka]

Sorry bout that 'zooka. I just installed SP2 on my other box and so far no complaints

No worries

[BJ_M]

win2k server would be the best choice

[ViRaL1]

XP would probably be the better choice. You'll have support longer than you will with 2003.

Really?

[BJ_M]

i think he did a typo there ...

[Faustus]

If your not setting up a domain XP would be fine.

[rallynavvie]

For the cost Linux is the best, but you need to learn the OS and the lingo. Next best would be XP Pro since we're familiar with it and it doesn't cost anywhere near what 2003 cost. IIS is pretty easy to use and there are a lot of guides online. I've only a small amount of experience with 2003 so I can't really judge if it's worth the larger price for a personal server.

[Soopafresh]

If you want a super easy to use firewall that installs from CD and is competely menu driven, download IPCOP. It's REALLY easy, and it'll run very fast on that hardware you mentioned.

Just try it.

http://www.ipcop.org/index.php

[bazooka]

Linux is good for servers too.

[Faustus]

Linux is good for servers too.

If you know it well enough to run it and trust it, well then it sure is. Very good in fact.

[bazooka]

Linux is good for servers too.

If you know it well enough to run it and trust it, well then it sure is. Very good in fact.

Yep,

I really like the samba server.

[Faustus]

I wouldn't know... I dont know it well enough to trust it as a server.

but yes I understand Samba to kick some butt properly configured.

[stiltman]

Depends on your definition of server and firewall.
What is this server going to be doing 90% of the time?

[BJ_M]

running a ftp site

[Dr. DOS]

win2k server would be the best choice

Ditto

[Soopafresh]

PII 550 w/128MB? - XP? 2003? What's left after the machine boots ?


Test yourself. Try IPCOP. It's easy Linux.

[BJ_M]

PII 550 w/128MB? - XP? 2003? What's left after the machine boots ?


Test yourself. Try IPCOP. It's easy Linux.

nt4 would also run well on that - certainly not server 2003 , which w/ active directory would not even load on that machine ..

win2k server would run aso -- but nto real good with that amount of ram ..

[simonko]

How do you use XP as a server? Isnt XP just client software?

You could use Win2k server, or even NT, Red Hat Linux makes a decent server. Win2k3 would die on your system.

[bazooka]

How do you use XP as a server? Isnt XP just client software?

You could use Win2k server, or even NT, Red Hat Linux makes a decent server. Win2k3 would die on your system.

Very carefully

You have IIS and other tools.\

Fedora makes a great server. Wtf are you talking about?

[simonko]

In my experiences RedHat Linux 9 was more stable than the newer Fedora.

Don't know why, so just stuck with RedHat. Just do all the updates and kernal. Runs like a champ.

[richdvd]

Win2k3 would die on your system

No......It would run on his system.

[ViRaL1]

Run is a bit optimistic. Crawl, maybe walk.

[BJ_M]

yea -- it will run so real well ...

Q. Do I need to buy expensive hardware to support Windows 2000 Datacenter Server or Windows Server 2003?

A.

No. Unless you are doing performance tuning such as benchmarks, you can replicate and resolve almost all issues on Datacenter Server by installing the operating system on any system with 8 processors of CPU and 8 gigabytes (GB) of memory installed.
Windows 2003 Server Standard Edition:
Processor Pentium 133Mhz, 550+ MHz recommended, up to 4 CPUs
RAM 128 MB, 256 MB recommended

Windows Server 2003r, Enterprise Edition (with 25 client licenses), $3,999
Windows Server 2003, Standard Edition (with 10 client licenses), $1199

[richdvd]

I didn't say it would run well.
I said it will RUN (boot to a desktop within 15 mins)

[BJ_M]

sounds about right - except if active directory is running - maybe 30 minutes ...

[rallynavvie]

Depending on what it's serving that could kill it. Firewalls are damn easy to run. I used a P3 box as a firewall running RH9 and it worked fine. Then I realized I didn't need a big firewall after I got a good router so one less noisy machine running in my house. Heck I'm running a server on a Media Center PC now, while it's being used as a Media Center PC. I contribute that to the performance I'm getting from my hard drive configuration more so than the system resources available. Servers like to have fast access and seek times and and lots of memory to cache things in. The only things I've seen that are processor intensive are database or game servers where the host has to actually do some computing for things. Sometimes even that isn't very intensive.

[bazooka]

In my experiences RedHat Linux 9 was more stable than the newer Fedora.

Don't know why, so just stuck with RedHat. Just do all the updates and kernal. Runs like a champ.

To each their own.

I have used both RH9 and Fedora for servers, and the more stable one for me was Fedora.