Posted on 04/13/2009 7:00:03 PM PDT by dayglored
For the same reason I run CentOS server and NetBSD server OSes as "clients".
W2K3 makes a fine client workstation, has more and better tools for managing it than the consumer OSes, and isn't nearly as brain-damaged (what some folks call "user-friendly").
The only drawback to using the server versions of Windows is that they're pricey. But maybe one has a friend with MSDN... ;-)
There are very affordable Macs for the basic stuff -- including video & audio.
I'm not sure how "having a friend at MSDN" gets you that kind of deal on server licesnses, but I know that the desktop versions prioritize the foreground process at the expense of background processes, and the server versions do not.
That's something you'd generally want to happen on the desktop, but not on a back end server.
By client I mean any box that is on a network that has access to various file servers and storage. Could be a desktop. But those don’t run Win2k3 server, of course. Some run XP, occasionally I see Vista rarely, mostly it’s Win2k for those.
Not "at MSDN" (maybe you're thinking "MSN", different thing).
"With MSDN" Microsoft Developer's Network, something software developers join. The subscription to MSDN generally provides a number of licenses to all current and supported Microsoft operating systems, on the assumption that the subscriber (a software developer) will install them and use them for software development. Microsoft encourages that, of course, so they're willing to hand out licenses for the server OSes, if you're doing good things with them.
What I meant was, if you have a friend who is a s/w developer, and they have an MSDN subscription, you can probably sweet-talk them out of a W2K3 license, since they have at least a few of them via the subscription.
So that you can assist their software development effort, of course. ;-)
It sounds like the “developer” might be working as a consultant/vendor and installed that on their desktops thinking because it says “server” it must be better.
They should have the same kernel, but the XP install comes with a bunch of other software that MS deems appropriate for the "desktop". A good custom install that removes a lot of that would be better than installing WeK3, IMHO. The server comes with different optional components, but a lot of those I'd consider totally inappropriate to be running from a user workstation, like making it a dhcp server.
Go to Open Office. - www.openoffice.org
I've installed that, but it's not a complete solution. I still don't have Outlook and all the contact and archived emails on the new computer. I prefer Excel to the spreadsheet in Open Office, especially if I'm doing a lot of formatting.
More like this: if one is familiar with one's computers, and one gets frustrated by the limitations of the consumer version of the OS (e.g. XP-Pro, we won't even mention XP-Home), then one might view Windows Server as the "real" version, and the consumer variants as "stripped-down" tool-wise and "tarted-up" fluff-app-wise.
Windows Server qualifies as a real server (though it's missing a compiler and some system tools). OTOH, if you run OS-X or Linux, in addition to all the nice user apps and features, you're getting everything useful in a server, too... except Active Directory, which I consider a very good (if overdone) LDAP. But damn few individuals have use for their own home AD.
But do the folks running OS-X and Linux consider that their "workstation OS" is overblown because it's also got server features? Hell, no. That assumption of built-in limitation is a Windows mentality. IMO, of course; YMMV. ;-)
So, again IMO, if one is going to run Windows, one might take a good look at the Server version. The only thing that stops me from running it all my own Windows boxes at home is cost. My employer has an MSDN subscription, but I don't consider taking the "extra" licenses home ethical. So my home servers are stock OS-X and Linux.
But if WinServer was less expensive, my current crop of XP, Vista, and Win2K boxes would all be Server editions.
Linux is a server OS trying to work it's way down to the desktop. Windows is a desktop OS trying to work it's way up to a server
You're obviously more comfortable with *nix, than Windows, and you assume that what you're used to is the "right" way, and therefore the "other" way is wrong.
Would you run them on 2008 Server Core?
True. But let's ignore Linux for the moment, and consider the other viable "desktop OS".
Both Windows and Mac OS started out as toy operating systems, and developed over decades. So of course Windows is a desktop OS trying to act like a server. It will always be trying, until it lets go of its dead NT codebase. Back-compatibility is a tempting siren, but it's also an albatross.
For Apple, that path was a loser, and they ditched the original Mac OS because like the NT codebase, it was doomed. They took a solid and proven operating system (BSD Unix) and layered their pretty GUI and pretty applications over it.
Microsoft could do exactly the same thing, if they got rid of their "Not Invented Here" mindset. And they would thrive and retake the marketplace momentum they've lost.
There's no reason Microsoft can't put the Windows GUI over a better base. They have thousands of excellent programmers (I know a few, and I respect them), and done right (unlike the Vista debacle), they can change things and not create havoc.
> You're obviously more comfortable with *nix, than Windows, and you assume that what you're used to is the "right" way, and therefore the "other" way is wrong.
I grant that having spent 35+ years designing, building, programming, deploying, and supporting computers of ALL types, I have a certain fondness for how Unix does things under the hood. It does most things quite well.
What's "wrong" with Windows is only somewhat technical; it's more the marketing and attitude. Windows is still stuck in the old MS-DOS-mindset technically, and stuck in the 1990's in how it treats its users. Some day it'll grow up, and we'll all rejoice. (I use Windows a lot.)
Until then, Windows Server is a good step in the direction of supplying the necessary tools and utilities for a user who likes to do things WITH their computer, instead of just ON it.
That said, to each their own. I ain't in any mood to force Windows Server on folks. Just saying, for some of us, it's more attractive, other than cost.
Depends. Some of the boxes are for testing, and need to be older codebases.
But mainly, Server Core is -too- spare for regular desktop use. It'd be like trying to make a desktop out of CentOS server (the single-CD version), or a bare-bones NetBSD install. Disaster, desktop-wise.
I have a handful of special-purpose servers (mostly VMware VMs) that are built on CentOS or NetBSD cores, and if I needed one with Windows Server Core, I would not hesitate.
But from the MSDN product description:
Server Core is designed for use by network and file service infrastructure developers, server management tool and utility developers, and IT Planners.It's got almost nothing in terms of desktop user applications. So could it do the job of Server 2K, 2K3, or 2K8? Nope.
Damn good question, though! ;-)
There's a reason for that......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.