Why doesn't everyone use Windows Server 2003?

This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.


Thread Starter
Oct 11, 2003
I dont know, but its way better than XP. Has anyone had any real problems with it?
Oct 5, 2003
XP is mostly designed for Home use and Windows Server 2003 is designed for servers.

You will not find many home users upgrading to server 2k03 because there is no need.

Win 2k server users may find this more of an appropiate move:)


Retired Moderator Retired Malware Specialist
Dec 14, 2002
First Name
Simple reason

I cannot afford to pay uncle bill any more of my hard earned money until I actually have to

XP works well enough and has only been out a short while, when my computer gets old and disabled (like me) then I will change it and will almost certainly install the latest & greatest operating system around at that time.

There is absolutely no point in just throwing money away, just to keep up with the latest "improvement"

And knowing uncle Bill's reputation I prefer to wait at least until the 1st service pack has come out and some of the bugs and sewcurity holes have been found and plugged

I have no intention of being Uncle Bill's unpaid tester
Oct 21, 2002
I agree on all points. It is better, not for home use, and have you looked at the price?
I've had a few minor problems, like with Cold Fusion, but overall, its a great improvement. Keep in mind it's more like win2k than XP.


Retired Moderator
Oct 19, 2002
Server versions of Windows are targeted to a different audience, and have different capabilities and requirements.


Oct 14, 2003
If part of what your up to is to learn Windows in more depth, the server version is a good choice where there is all sorts of additional software that is important from a development perspective.

I have yet to find a situation where typical workstation software will not run on the server version, but there is a significant number of applications that will NOT allow you to load their product on a server class machine. Usually the vendor has a version that will install under server but most often it is much more expensive than the workstation software. Beware!

Micro$oft has yet to get it right on the first iteration of any product of theirs that I know of. The standard posture in most IT departments is to wait until the first service pack is issued for a product before placing it into a production environment (particularly it it is mission critical!).

So if you have not purchased Windows 2003 server, get ready for sticker shock, it is very expensive. But I don't suggest that you run out and buy Windows 2000 server either. If you opt to buy 2003, you have downgrade rights to previous versions as part of the license agreement. So if you buy 2003, you can get the 2000 media from Micro$oft and keep the 2003 sorfware in a box until you are ready for it.
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 807,865 other people just like you!

Latest posts

Members online