Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board

On Win2k3

Let's suppose I'm a regular user. Your vanilla industrial-strength luser. Is there any advantage in using Windows Server 2003 as a desktop operating system versus Windows XP Pro? Let's assume it's been properly modified to work as a workstation and not as a server...

Anonymous Freak
Tuesday, June 15, 2004

Good news!  Window's Media player is pre-installed.

christopher baus (
Tuesday, June 15, 2004

The only reason to do that would be because you needed it for development or testing purposes. An average user would have absolutely no reason to do it.

Brad Wilson (
Tuesday, June 15, 2004

Software raid 1 and the ability to boot into either plex is a worthwhile reason. If you have a MSDN subscription (i.e. there is no additional cost) I would say, "yes, go for it."

WS2003 Fan
Tuesday, June 15, 2004


Just me (Sir to you)
Wednesday, June 16, 2004

I don't see any benefit. If you're a developer who needs access to Win2k3 then run it in Virtual PC.

Downsides on Win2k3 as a desktop OS: lack of drivers, software won't install, zero support from hardware manufacturers. Anyone who was an early adopter of Win2k will remember the long list of hardware companies (ATI, Creative, etc) that were in no rush to provide Win2k drivers for their hardware because "Windows 2000 was a business OS". They only did it when it became obvious they were the only ones thinking that way.

The nice thing was that Win2k WS and Win2k Server used the same kernel, so you didn't have to try to get support for server.

With Win2k3 you don't get the same luxury - I can guarantee you'll get minimal if any support from hardware manufacturers for "desktop" type drivers. In addition, you'll find that a lot of system utilities (disk defragmenter, virus protection, backups) won't install, whining they're not for "server" operating systems.

Most of us in the field at MS run WinXP and have Win2k3 in a virtual machine for development purposes.


Wednesday, June 16, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home