Anyone tried Windows Server 2003 for audio?
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 102 posts since 20 Mar, 2003 from baton rouge, la
Just wondering if anyone has put Windows Server 2003 to the litmus test to see if it can be tweaked.. and if there are any performance improvements for audio use?
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 33296 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
Its a server OS (hence the name), so there's no way I'd consider using it for a workstation. Even if it could be tweaked, Im pretty sure there's core architectural configurations which just wouldnt be as suitable for workstation use.
Plus Server starts about 5 times the price of XP Pro; what the hell would be the point of spending the extra money?
Plus Server starts about 5 times the price of XP Pro; what the hell would be the point of spending the extra money?
my other modular synth is a bugbrand
-
- KVRAF
- 7809 posts since 24 Feb, 2003 from Earth, USA
I'm sure if you searched the archives, you'll find who had done it, as I know someone did get it working. All's I see are disadvantages though, because if you run into problems, NO ONE will support you since it's not a supported OS for audio 'stuff'.
Devon
Devon
Simple music philosophy - Those who can, make music. Those who can't, make excuses.
Read my VST reviews at Traxmusic!
Read my VST reviews at Traxmusic!
-
- KVRer
- 14 posts since 3 Jun, 2004
Im not saying servers are a good choise, but I think the below is interesting...
Windows2k server has many default settings that are more suited to audio than those in windows XP
1. "background services" is default instead of "applications"
2. There are no fancy graphics like the bubble buttons and other effects you see on XP
3. Its fairly easy to disable all unwanted services. Dont forget a basic server install has very little running by default unlike XP.
4. Windows 2k3 server allows much more interesting RAID options than XP striping etc.
just a thought
Windows2k server has many default settings that are more suited to audio than those in windows XP
1. "background services" is default instead of "applications"
2. There are no fancy graphics like the bubble buttons and other effects you see on XP
3. Its fairly easy to disable all unwanted services. Dont forget a basic server install has very little running by default unlike XP.
4. Windows 2k3 server allows much more interesting RAID options than XP striping etc.
just a thought
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 102 posts since 20 Mar, 2003 from baton rouge, la
"1. "background services" is default instead of "applications"
- I tried this tweak and found that I could no longer run one project that previously almost maxed out my resources. In other projects, I saw no change.
(therefore, over all I saw a reduction in performance after that tweak)
- I tried this tweak and found that I could no longer run one project that previously almost maxed out my resources. In other projects, I saw no change.
(therefore, over all I saw a reduction in performance after that tweak)
-
- KVRer
- 13 posts since 29 May, 2004 from chandler, arizona
I use 2003 for everything, its not hard to tweak it to be used as a workstation.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 102 posts since 20 Mar, 2003 from baton rouge, la
Is 2003 more cpu/memory efficient than XP pro?
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 33296 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
Im not saying servers are a good choise, but I think the below is interesting...
Windows2k server has many default settings that are more suited to audio than those in windows XP
1. "background services" is default instead of "applications"
The problem is whether the same background services actually get the the same priorities. Its entirely possible that other settings mean that 'server' services get priority.
2. There are no fancy graphics like the bubble buttons and other effects you see on XP
These can be switched off in XP.
3. Its fairly easy to disable all unwanted services. Dont forget a basic server install has very little running by default unlike XP.
Ummm, Im not convinced by that. A basic server install of W2000 server had more services running than a workstation install.
4. Windows 2k3 server allows much more interesting RAID options than XP striping etc.
Yeah, it does; but as software RAID. Unless you've got RAID running on the drive controller, then you've got a performance hit right there...
Windows2k server has many default settings that are more suited to audio than those in windows XP
1. "background services" is default instead of "applications"
The problem is whether the same background services actually get the the same priorities. Its entirely possible that other settings mean that 'server' services get priority.
2. There are no fancy graphics like the bubble buttons and other effects you see on XP
These can be switched off in XP.
3. Its fairly easy to disable all unwanted services. Dont forget a basic server install has very little running by default unlike XP.
Ummm, Im not convinced by that. A basic server install of W2000 server had more services running than a workstation install.
4. Windows 2k3 server allows much more interesting RAID options than XP striping etc.
Yeah, it does; but as software RAID. Unless you've got RAID running on the drive controller, then you've got a performance hit right there...
my other modular synth is a bugbrand
-
- KVRAF
- 7809 posts since 24 Feb, 2003 from Earth, USA
Especially RAID 5. Raid 0+1 does a signifiant amount more writes as well. Software raid is not a good idea. Hardware raid is going to cost you, and significantly in most cases. For audio you DON'T NEED RAID.whyterabbyt wrote:Yeah, it does; but as software RAID. Unless you've got RAID running on the drive controller, then you've got a performance hit right there...
Devon
Simple music philosophy - Those who can, make music. Those who can't, make excuses.
Read my VST reviews at Traxmusic!
Read my VST reviews at Traxmusic!
-
- KVRist
- 142 posts since 3 Jun, 2003 from Edmonton AB Canada
Server 2003 is almost exactly the same as XP except for the default configuration & included (optional) applications.
It's true it's optimized for server applications. A lot of fine-tuning has gone into it to make it competitive with Linux servers. I'm sure many of these optimizations are beneficial to users regardless of application.
You'll find a lot of backward compatibility has been ripped out of Server 2003 but you'll have no problems with XP compatible software. This is a part of the reason why 2003 runs faster than XP.
Server 2003 is lighter than XP in general and I highly recommend it for a workstation if you can afford it.
Edit: BTW, I have it down to 6 or 7 services and it screams.
It's true it's optimized for server applications. A lot of fine-tuning has gone into it to make it competitive with Linux servers. I'm sure many of these optimizations are beneficial to users regardless of application.
You'll find a lot of backward compatibility has been ripped out of Server 2003 but you'll have no problems with XP compatible software. This is a part of the reason why 2003 runs faster than XP.
Server 2003 is lighter than XP in general and I highly recommend it for a workstation if you can afford it.
Edit: BTW, I have it down to 6 or 7 services and it screams.
