yes ur right - its my personal opinion too abt the x64, it is considerably faster & has better memory management & handling of the threads/processes. I even feel its more stable than 32bit XP. I have been using it as my main OS for 8-9 months now but its still time for it to be used by ‘each & everyone’ for daily use mainly due to application or driver compatilbility.
To be honest even win 2003 server is faster than Windows Xp. After tweaking it into a workstation like setup (enabling direct x, disabling a few servces etc) it runs pretty stable and much faster. Windows XP slows down an awful lot after a few months of use. I had genuine win xp pro on my pc and it still slows down. I have used all tweakers and tuners and antispyware and everythin it still wont be like it used to be. So when Microsoft offered me a free uprgade ( i had to give my 32 bit xp back) i gladly accepted now i have windows xp x64 and no slow down like the other xp. i tried the 180 day trial version of win2k3 server i got from my mcse courseware. I found it faster than xp even when using active directory and Microsoft Exchange server 2003. Finding antivirus is a problem with win2k3 but if u convert it into a workstation with a tool available on the net so that aint a problem either.
The free version of avast works with windows xp x64 and offers decent protection. i use windows firewall. still cant find drivers for my creative webcam and pinnacle pctv lol
also win 2003 gives priority to background processes that needs to be chanded to other way round
i am moving towards vista
@anyone who doesnt believe that 2k3 is better…
can you try testing graphics wit 3dmark 01 se on xp and on 2k3… (i say 3dmark01se cause ive used only that...and i know)... try that and ull get better scores on 2k3 than on xp…it was that way for me…
both were fesh installs… and on the same system…
even i admit that server 2003 is one among the best windows releases ever seen .
Lack of support for popular applications is what turns me off. Any method to deceive applications to feel it is a client OS and not Server2k3?
2003 is Powerfull, Stable, & Advanced ,
Vote for 2003 Enterprise Server…
2K3 is costly, very costly, as for performance, 2K3 was the base for Windows Vista.
Edit: Forgot to mention this Windows Server 2003 - Xp Conversion Pack - TechConnect Community Forums
(use it wisely)
There is a small app that changes the os identifier to winXP but I cant find it right now nor do I remember its name, let me search for it a bit.
EDIT: The conversion utility I mentiond above allows the modification of the platform Identifier to install WINXP only apps, but, make sure You dont run windows update before changing the identifier back to server 2K3. By the way, server2K3 web edition is very cheap compared to enterprise.
2K3 was the base for Windows Vista.
Any document to support that statement?
I presume Vista is (almost) from scratch new code.
From “http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/vista.asp”,
Future Windows versions are always be based on the most up-to-date Windows version at the time, and at the time that Microsoft reset Longhorn development and began work on what we now know as Windows Vista, that version was Windows Server 2003 with Service Pack 1 (SP1). When Windows Vista development originally started in 2001, however, it was then based on Windows XP. In mid-2004, Microsoft had to restart the core development of Windows Vista because it was too hard to go back and componentize the existing Windows Vista core code. So when it restarted Windows Vista development, Microsoft naturally used the Windows Server 2003 with SP1 code base instead of that of XP.
Don’t be confused by this: Windows Vista still includes all of the great features and compatibility from XP with Service Pack 2 (SP2). As Microsoft writes in its internal documentation, the company is simply taking the best features of both XP with Service Pack 2 (SP2) and Windows Server 2003 with SP1 to create Windows Vista.
Also this wiki, Development of Windows Vista - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia