Windows Server 2003?

[Hyperluminal]

I've read that Windows Server 2003 is, supposedly, better than Windows XP in terms of speed and reliability, even for home users. One person even said that the "Server" name just serves to scare away people who could otherwise benefit from it.
So I was looking to buy a copy, to see how much it is. From MS's site, it looked like you could only order multiple licenses.. which start at several hundred dollars, so I wouldn't be able to get it. Then, just out of curiosity, I did a Google search and found several places that seem to sell individual copies. Like eCost (http://www.ecost.com/ecost/shop/detail.asp?DPNo=136602&adcampaign=email,ECOSTDEAL) and Gateway (http://accessories.gateway.com/AccessoryStore/Software_316896/Operating+Systems_316946/Network_316949/2270988_ProdDetail?cm_ven=Shopper_com&cm_cat=Consumer&cm_pla=Data_Feed&cm_ite=Windows_Server_2003_License).

First of all, I'm wondering if I can get these. It does say license only.. does that mean I'd need to already own a copy of WS2003 to buy this? If so, can I get a single full copy of it somewhere else?

Also, those of you that have WS2003, is it worth getting in the first place, assuming I can? Is it that much better?

[Jason Dunn]

Hmm...that's the first I've heard of it, and to be honest, I have a very hard time believing that something designed to be a server OS would be better than Windows XP. But since I have no proof either way, I can't offer that much of an opinion. ;-)

[jeremyweisser]

Windows Server 2003 is not supposed to be used as a desktop OS. It is complete waste of money unless you are planning to install it on server based hardware.

If you want to waste your money on a license you will need to order a copy of the Windows Server 2003 media from Microsoft Worldwide Fulfillment. It is about $30.

You will not notice any performance benefit over Windows XP, in fact you will probably suffer because of driver problesm and extra services being loaded that you do not need in a desktop OS.

[Janak Parekh]

I agree with those that say that WS2k3 is not intended to be used as a workstation. However, if you have a need of some of the features that WS2k3 provides over Windows XP, http://www.msfn.org/win2k3/ has a lot of good tips on how to make WS2k3 fit for workstation use. It's surprisingly adaptable.

Cost, on the other hand, is a problem. I think 5 CALs is the minimum you can buy it with -- and it ain't cheap at that price.

--janak

[Roosterman]

Another aspect to consider are utility programs. Things such as virus scanner or firewall need to be commercial grade. Most of the home use ones (norton/mcaffee) won't run on 2k3. You need to get the more expensive commercial/enterprise versions.

[Hyperluminal]

Interesting.. thanks guys.
Most of what I had heard about WS2K3 was just from people posting on other discussion boards, which is why I asked here. :)
So from what I can tell, WS2K3 really doesn't have a real advantage as a desktop OS, and actually does seem worse.
So, unless someone disagrees, there really would be no point to getting it, for me at least. :roll:

Glad I asked here, thanks again... :)