how many?

[dualcore1289]

Which all of those are built on the vista platform. . . same look, etc.

[ComputerHelper]

Mooga Wrote:That's not fully true. 2008 is more like Windows 7 then Vista.
However I personally would stick with 2k3 for now...

Mooga sorry bud but you are wrong

Winidws base script for vista was used for server 2k8 before winodws modifyed the code for windows 7

The code for windows 7 is the exact same base script as vista but the other codes have changed quite a bit.

The winodws 7 code, will be released by microsoft in a upgrade for 2k8 called Server 2008 R2

I know these facts pretty well due to my job, education and my status in the ms tech ring

And being the fact I am currently testing windows 7 and windows 2k8 R2 I'd say I know why I am talking about

[ComputerHelper]

Also I like 2k8 soooo much better then 2k3

[dualcore1289]

Ehh, the only difference is windows 2008 can support 1000fps. But as for resources goes, if you don't have much resources or don't like the 2008 resource hog, 2003 ftw!

[ComputerHelper]

2k8 being able to support 1000fps is some thing they changed in a "minor" script

2k3 is old and klunky

If u bump up ur ram u can have a new streamlined os like 2k8

[dualcore1289]

2008 is more than a memory hog, but an overall resource hog. Besides, there's nothing wrong with the old clunky look. If someones not worried about 1000fps, why not stick with 2003? Cheaper, and allllot less resource hungry.

[Nuggets]

I would have to agree with ComputerHelper. Microsoft put a lot of time into Server 2008. I have been using it in a production environment since it was released and it far out performs 2003. As for said memory usage, I can say that I have experienced no such thing. It's very resource friendly.

[dualcore1289]

Resource friendly, better go test that again. Windows server idle uses about 200-300mb of ram, 2008 uses about 700-1gb.

[skyride]

Mooga Wrote:That's not fully true. 2008 is more like Windows 7 then Vista.
However I personally would stick with 2k3 for now...

Well, meh. Windows goes like this, in terms of one line being a branch of a tree.

2000 > XP
Server 2003 > XP 64bit
_____Server 2008
Vista 64bit ^> Vista 32 bit > Windows 7

But that aside, whats wrong with using a good old copy of XP? There will be absolutely ZERO benefit to use Server 08.

Although, Vista gets far too much bad rep. I think MS put all their work into 64bit and made 32bit for compatibility reasons and then all the lazy fucker OEM's and programmers just went with 32 as their main OS. I use Vista 64bit with 6GB of RAM (hey, i got 2GB for free and yes, i have hit 5GB+ memory usage on actual tasks) and believe, i have no incentive to change to 7 in a hurry. I will, i just have no reason to. Next time i reformat though (probably the summer) i will stick Windows 7 64bit on there and see how that goes.

Anyway, For all intents and purposes, XP is fine for the OP.

[skyride]

dualcore1289 Wrote:Resource friendly, better go test that again. Windows server idle uses about 200-300mb of ram, 2008 uses about 700-1gb.

Well simply playing devils advocate here but the purpose of the memory management system in Vista, Server 08 and 7 (although scaled back due to people too dumb to understand this) is to use AS MUCH RAM as possible. For example i was doing some CAD work today on my laptop (2GB RAM) and XP is sitting there only using ~600MB RAM and im just thinking to myself "well whats the point in having that RAM sitting there doing nothing?". I mean if you have a PC with 4GB RAM, you might aswell utilise it. Microsoft were never hiding this, Vista was designed with the idea that typical systems would have 2GB RAM, but again, stupid OEM's screwed it all up and microsoft took the PR heat.

[ComputerHelper]

"There will be absolutely ZERO benefit to use Server 08."


Umm no, there is a HUGE benefit, including if he wants to run 1000 fps, XP is not a server os, a server os has things that a reg os wouldn't, and vice versa

there is an out standing benefit to useing server 2k8, or even 2k3 over xp.

Please learn what you talk about b4 you say it

[ComputerHelper]

Nuggets Wrote:I would have to agree with ComputerHelper. Microsoft put a lot of time into Server 2008. I have been using it in a production environment since it was released and it far out performs 2003. As for said memory usage, I can say that I have experienced no such thing. It's very resource friendly.

Thank you, as long as he has enough ram and a good cpu (which he has) he can rock 2k8 and get a nice stable os

[dualcore1289]

Settle down now. No need to rage here. In simplest terms, there are benefits to using a server operating system over a desktop operating system (such as xp). To get to the point, server2003 is good, and so is server2008, it's all about preference.

[skyride]

ComputerHelper Wrote:"There will be absolutely ZERO benefit to use Server 08."


Umm no, there is a HUGE benefit, including if he wants to run 1000 fps, XP is not a server os, a server os has things that a reg os wouldn't, and vice versa

there is an out standing benefit to useing server 2k8, or even 2k3 over xp.

Well maybe zero benefit is something of an exagerration, but for what this guy plans to do, is it not getting a sledgehammer to crack a nut?

[dualcore1289]

LOL great comparison!!!!