Windows 2003, anyone tried it/running it?

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2004-07-14 02:53am

I've been looking into it, sounds interesting sofar, it's very lean from what I've heard, they've cut alot of fat so to speak from it, removed alot of backwards compatibility and extra services and stuff, it's supposed to be very stable, fast and secure and I've found directions for making it into a workstation.

So, anyone tried it? If so, please share your experiences.
And yeah I'm actually trying to get some usefull info here, so no lame ass "lolollolllll wind0z sux0rs j00!!E%&" stuff thank you.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-07-14 10:53am

I used it. Unless you have need of a Windows server or a 4-processor machine, I don't see the point.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2004-07-14 11:07am

phongn wrote:I used it. Unless you have need of a Windows server or a 4-processor machine, I don't see the point.

Reasons mentioned above.
The whole barebones thing is what I'm after.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-07-14 12:13pm

Most of the XP stuff is still in there, just disabled by default.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-07-14 01:32pm

lolollolllll wind0z sux0rs j00!!E%&

Okay, just kidding

From what I've heard, Windows Server 2003 is considerably stabler than server 2000, and it has a few nice server features built in, but as stated above, you probably don't need it unless you have a multiprocessor PC with a T1 line for bandiwidth.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2004-07-14 01:46pm

I'm going to try anyway though, I want to experiment with something new and I don't want to wait for Longhorn.

I think it might be rather fun to start from bare-bones rather than the opposite end of the spectrum(which never works as well either).

Ran OS X on my PC today aswell, slow and I didn't see what the big fuss is about.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-07-14 03:10pm

His Divine Shadow wrote:I'm going to try anyway though, I want to experiment with something new and I don't want to wait for Longhorn.

I think it might be rather fun to start from bare-bones rather than the opposite end of the spectrum(which never works as well either).

Ran OS X on my PC today aswell, slow and I didn't see what the big fuss is about.

You do know it's against the EULA to run OSX on non Apple hardware, right? Also, I hope you don't plan on pirating 2003

.

Or try Linux from Scratch if you really want barebones... (rather frustrating with only 1GB of hard drive to work with, plus broken source packages, but highly educational.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2004-07-14 03:13pm

I've done BSD, and all I've said in this thread is lies, all horrible lies, never happened, nothing is true, forget it all.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-07-14 03:17pm

His Divine Shadow wrote:I've done BSD, and all I've said in this thread is lies, all horrible lies, never happened, nothing is true, forget it all.

Close enough. And

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-07-14 10:40pm

The school district I work at runs Windows 2003 Terminal Server, and is currently in the early stages of preparing to transition from NT 4 Server to 2003 Active Directory. It seems to be working great for them so far.

I haven't had much personal experience with it, but I've heard that it can be even faster and more responsive than XP.

One thing you need to watch out for is that some software (like Antivirus software) won't run on your 2003 machine unless you have a server edition of their software.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-07-14 11:50pm

Pu-239 wrote: You do know it's against the EULA to run OSX on non Apple hardware, right? Also, I hope you don't plan on pirating 2003 .

It was non apple branded hardware. What do you think the stickers that come with a Mac are for?

His Divine Shadow wrote:
Ran OS X on my PC today aswell, slow and I didn't see what the big fuss is about.

How?
You emulated it at what, 1 mhz? 2 mhz?

No quartz extreme at that level- no cool effects...horrid speed...etc.

This fuss is this (about OS X server in this case, since you want a server):

1) It's BSD based, Darwin core, so it's just as stable
2) No viruses

3) Far easier to use than Linux/BSD...
4) Good built in professional tools, plus you can recompile all BSD open source stuff for PPC.
5) Supported by one of the largest hardware/software companies in the world.
6) Looks cool.
7) Good performance (Quartz Extreme to speed up graphics).

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-07-14 11:58pm

His Divine Shadow wrote:Ran OS X on my PC today aswell, slow and I didn't see what the big fuss is about.

I ran Windows XP under emulation on my G4 at work. Slow as shit, and I didn't see what the big fuss was about.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-07-14 11:59pm

Durandal wrote:
His Divine Shadow wrote:Ran OS X on my PC today aswell, slow and I didn't see what the big fuss is about.
I ran Windows XP under emulation on my G4 at work. Slow as shit, and I didn't see what the big fuss was about.

Actually thats different. PowerPC's have more registers. If I recall, emulating Windows on a Mac goes a couple times slower, but emulating OS X on a PC runs 40 to 500 times slower.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-07-15 12:03am

Praxis wrote:Actually thats different. PowerPC's have more registers. If I recall, emulating Windows on a Mac goes a couple times slower, but emulating OS X on a PC runs 40 to 500 times slower.

x86 has register renaming to help even the odds, but a lot of the difference is that PearPC is decidedly non-optimized.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-07-15 12:04am

It depends on how you do the emulation and chip design. There's no rule that says x86 will emulate PowerPC any more slowly than PowerPC emulates x86.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-07-15 12:10am

Praxis wrote:This fuss is this (about OS X server in this case, since you want a server):

You didn't read his entire post: He's interested in Windows Server 2003 as a workstation, an endeavor which others have embarked on successfully... with some people reporting 2003 as being a superior desktop OS to XP.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2004-07-15 12:20am

I'm running Windows 2003 right now. I reenabled the XP items like themes and directx that are disabled by default, and removed the server stuff I have no intention of using. I like it because in my experience it's more stable than XP and runs a little bit faster.

I also like how MS let's you download it for free off their site... 6-month evaluation version that anyone can get. Everyone knows you have to reinstall Windows every 6 months anyway, so it's all good.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-07-15 12:52am

Seggybop wrote: Everyone knows you have to reinstall Windows every 6 months anyway, so it's all good.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-07-15 01:15am

Pu-239 wrote: You do know it's against the EULA to run OSX on non Apple hardware, right? Also, I hope you don't plan on pirating 2003 .

Its also highly questionable if the EULA are even enforceable, especially outside of the USA.

As for Win2k3, you'll need to download DirectX9b, enable Gfx acceleration, enable sound! Which are fairly trivial once you know where the buttons with "Enable DirectDraw/Direct3d acceleration" actually is Hint: start->run->"dxdiag.exe", The DirectDraw/3d tab

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-07-15 01:18am

Pu-239 wrote:
Seggybop wrote: Everyone knows you have to reinstall Windows every 6 months anyway, so it's all good.

On a side note, I refuse to touch any box with Windows 9x on it.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2004-07-15 02:15am

Durandal wrote:
His Divine Shadow wrote:Ran OS X on my PC today aswell, slow and I didn't see what the big fuss is about.
I ran Windows XP under emulation on my G4 at work. Slow as shit, and I didn't see what the big fuss was about.

You didn't feel the power of evil coursing through you?

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2004-07-15 02:21am

Praxis wrote:How?

PearPC, on a 1200mhz Athlon with 512mb RAM.

You emulated it at what, 1 mhz? 2 mhz?

No idea, it took maybe 4 minutes to boot completely and maybe 7-15 seconds to boot an app like mail or safari.

1) It's BSD based, Darwin core, so it's just as stable
2) No viruses
3) Far easier to use than Linux/BSD...
4) Good built in professional tools, plus you can recompile all BSD open source stuff for PPC.
5) Supported by one of the largest hardware/software companies in the world.
6) Looks cool.
7) Good performance (Quartz Extreme to speed up graphics).

Not saying it isn't a good OS, I'd like a native x86 version.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-07-15 10:48am

His Divine Shadow wrote:
Durandal wrote:
His Divine Shadow wrote:Ran OS X on my PC today aswell, slow and I didn't see what the big fuss is about.
I ran Windows XP under emulation on my G4 at work. Slow as shit, and I didn't see what the big fuss was about.
You didn't feel the power of evil coursing through you?

My co-workers commented that seeing Windows running on a Mac was "perverted" and "wrong."

Right now, I use Microsoft's RDC client for OS X to remote into a box so I can use some special, IE6-only web application, and I have it running on a separate virtual desktop. So with one hot-key stroke, I'm over in Windows. With another, I'm back in OS X.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-07-15 12:31pm

His Divine Shadow wrote: PearPC, on a 1200mhz Athlon with 512mb RAM.

No idea, it took maybe 4 minutes to boot completely and maybe 7-15 seconds to boot an app like mail or safari.

Ouch, musta been slow with that PC...
Only 4 minutes? Actually not that bad.
What version were you running? Since you have Safari I can assume either Jaguar or Panther.

Anyway, think you can give me some PearPC help? LOL...I'm trying to install Jaguar. I have the iso image and an unformatted 3 gb .img for the hard drive. I've set up my config file accordingly. I can run pearpc, but all I get is an infinite grey Apple logo with white background, like when you turn on a mac.

Not saying it isn't a good OS, I'd like a native x86 version.

Well, you DID ask what the big deal was

lol.

I'd like an x86 version as well, but I'm afraid it wouldn't be possible, simply because the ppc binaries wouldn't run, so you'd have an OS that couldn't run any programs (except maybe BSD programs...and maybe if you install WINE, windows programs? would take some work though).

However, Darwine is interesting. For those of you who haven't seen it, it takes a fairly fast (almost as fast as VPC from what I've heard) x86 emulator...and a PPC version of WINE that they're working on. Then the emulator will run on top of the PPC-optimized WINE, which will run x86-binaries. Wham- Windows apps, with NO WINDOWS. In VPC, the entire OS is emulated, while here, only the individual app will be emulated. I can only imagine this would be incredibly speedy...

http://darwine.opendarwin.org//images/CaptureWine.gif

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2004-07-15 12:42pm

Praxis wrote:Anyway, think you can give me some PearPC help? LOL...I'm trying to install Jaguar. I have the iso image and an unformatted 3 gb .img for the hard drive. I've set up my config file accordingly. I can run pearpc, but all I get is an infinite grey Apple logo with white background, like when you turn on a mac.

The Os version was 1.0.3.4 I think, and it came preinstalled on an image so I never had to install anything, just boot it up.