Server : Windows XP or Windows 2003

[D.D.]

hi guys,

i have been wanting to make a file server to host files for videos/pictures/music for my home. through my university, i have the option of downloading windows xp home, windows xp pro, or windows server 2003 enterprise. as i understand, windows 2003 pro is a server OS so it would be the ideal choice to use as an OS, but the box im installing it to is an old athlon 1700+ with 256 ram. which OS should i go with?

[DoktorSeven]

The best server OS is a version of Linux or *BSD. Windows Server will do if you really want to stick with Windows, but generally I'd always go with a nice *nix-based server. Also uses a lot less RAM for the base OS than Windows does, especially with the choices you have (XP or 2003) and given that you're limited to 256MB, that's a good thing.

If you do want to stick with Windows, XP home/pro aren't really server-class operating systems. There are severe connection limits as well as it being generally a desktop-class system. Go with your 2003 Server.

[S.SubZero]

For a simple home file server that you just need to share some directories on, XP is fine. You can use XP home for that purpose.

[RZetlin]

Are you sharing your files 24/7? Or are you sharing the files once in a while?

If you're sharing your files once in a while you only need Windows XP with the sharing option.

If you're sharing your files 24/7 go with Windows 2003 Server. Your PC specs will have no issues running it.

[BeNooL]

fact is that 2003 is less ressource demanding than XP.

[D.D.]

Originally Posted by BeNooL

fact is that 2003 is less ressource demanding than XP.

really im only used to windows taking up more resources the newer they are >.<

so i guess i should go with windows 2003 because i will leave the files as "shared" the whole time (i think this is part of your questions RZetlin), but definitely not everyone will be accessing them all the time. its just so when im away from home my parents have some place to store their photos and such without filling up their computers harddrives.

[S.SubZero]

Originally Posted by BeNooL

fact is that 2003 is less ressource demanding than XP.

Can you back that? I ran 2003 for a while and never saw any appreciable savings in CPU or RAM usage over XP. It actually used more, since 2003 just runs more services.

For a simple file server that's just for one person (or a small number of people) there's no problem with XP. It is simple and won't overwhelm someone that just wants to share some files. XP has a connection limit, but it's not anything for a simple file sharing situation for a low number of people to worry about.

[RF]

Well, since you have access to Win2k3 then go for it. After you get the machine setup you may feel like using the features of 2003 afterwards. Either way, it is fun to play with

[KillerShots]

Go with 2003.

1. It will be supported longer
2. If you get that for free, that's a $800 - $1200 value (2k3 server isn't cheap)
3. Not crippleware (Yes, XP home and professional are crippleware)
4. You won't have problems with those specs - I have contractors that have similar machines running 2k3

On the other hand...

1. Security - Microsoft in general isn't well-thought of for security
2. Software licenses - So you get 2k3 server... now what? Each piece of server software you install will drill deep holes in your pockets.
3. Assume you do learn the ins and outs of 2k3. Now 2kx (whatever the next server version is) comes out, and it costs $2500. Are you going to spend not only the cash, but the time and effort (on your own) to keep up-to-date on the next version? Even in a few years when the price drops to $1200, will you be tempted to buy in?

In general, hobbyists find Microsoft products unaffordable (in a legal sense) and unmaintainable - especially when dealing with servers.

[D.D.]

i have already installed 2k3 though i have yet to play around and actually set up the computer to do its duties though.