turning windows server 2003 into xp

[dorfd1]

Would turning windows server 2003 into xp professional be considered hacking?

 

[navychop]

I don't see why, assuming you have a valid XP license. I also don't see why you would want to do it.

Our server is a SBS2003 & we will keep it as an exchange server when we add a Server 2008 in the spring. Probably.

 

[dorfd1]

I did this on one of my laptops.

I basicaly made a windows nt 5.2.3790 worksation 32 bit.

the mods from the other forum said I was hacking when I brought this same thing up.

 

[diogen]

I did this on one of my laptops.

There are a few how-to's about doing this
How to convert your Windows Server 2003... to a Workstation!
Convert your Windows Server 2008 to a Workstation!

Did you do anything different?

I think this goes back a long way when around 95-96 Mark Russinovich showed
how to convert an NT4 Server into a workstation (and vice versa) with a few registry tweaks.
Differences Between NT Server and Workstation Are Minimal - O'Reilly Media
And this despite the fact that Microsoft claimed those two had different kernels. Alchin was furious...
BTW, SP6 killed this workaround.

Fast forward some 12 years and Microsoft bought Russinovich's Sisinternals shortly after he explained to the world Sony's rootkit!
Windows Sysinternals: Documentation, downloads and additional resources

Diogen.

 

[dorfd1]

There are a few how-to's about doing this
How to convert your Windows Server 2003... to a Workstation!
Convert your Windows Server 2008 to a Workstation!

Did you do anything different?

I think this goes back a long way when around 95-96 Mark Russinovich showed
how to convert an NT4 Server into a workstation (and vice versa) with a few registry tweaks.
Differences Between NT Server and Workstation Are Minimal - O'Reilly Media
And this despite the fact that Microsoft claimed those two had different kernels. Alchin was furious...
BTW, SP6 killed this workaround.

Fast forward some 12 years and Microsoft bought Russinovich's Sisinternals shortly after he explained to the world Sony's rootkit!
Windows Sysinternals: Documentation, downloads and additional resources

Diogen.

I used this
Windows X's Live | Windows Server 2003 - XP Conversion Pack

this is the result

 

[diogen]

I don't think it is much more than proof of concept nowadays.
Not quite clear what shortcomings of XP it addresses: Stability? I believe XP is one of the best among the Windows flavors.
Drivers? Updates? Security? I'm not convinced Server 2003 is better, especially out of the box.

And on a box with a 1.6GHz CPU and 256MB RAM shared (8MB) with onboard video - like on your pictures - neither will offer decent performance.
Server? Maybe. Workstation? No...

Diogen.

 

[dorfd1]

I don't think it is much more than proof of concept nowadays.
Not quite clear what shortcomings of XP it addresses: Stability? I believe XP is one of the best among the Windows flavors.
Drivers? Updates? Security? I'm not convinced Server 2003 is better, especially out of the box.

And on a box with a 1.6GHz CPU and 256MB RAM shared (8MB) with onboard video - like on your pictures - neither will offer decent performance.
Server? Maybe. Workstation? No...

Diogen.

what I don't get is I created this thread on http://www.dbstalk.com and I got a two week ban because the mods thought I was hacking.

update:

just ran everest and it thinks my 32 bit os is Windows XP professional x64 edition, that is licsensed to use up to 8 processors.

 

[mike123abc]

The only reason win server 2003 is more secure out of the box is that they have everything turned off in IE. If you cannot browse the web and run scripts, the odds of getting a virus goes way, way down. A few minutes trying to browse with Win Server 2003 will convince you that it is not really something you want to do, approving every site and link as you go to it.

 

[dorfd1]

The only reason win server 2003 is more secure out of the box is that they have everything turned off in IE. If you cannot browse the web and run scripts, the odds of getting a virus goes way, way down. A few minutes trying to browse with Win Server 2003 will convince you that it is not really something you want to do, approving every site and link as you go to it.

I change the settings in IE and I also installed firefox.


through the use of everest I found out one could get a datacenter machine and put 32 core i7 processors(128 cores total) and 64 gb on a 32 bit or 64 core i7 processors(256 cores total) and up to 1 tb of ram for 64 bit environment and run a version of windows server 2003 datacenter edition. you would have one awesome workstation!

notice that it thinks it windows xp x64 edition with a 32 bit kernel with support for up to 8 processors.

 

[Ramy]

what I don't get is I created this thread on http://www.dbstalk.com and I got a two week ban because the mods thought I was hacking.

update:

just ran everest and it thinks my 32 bit os is Windows XP professional x64 edition, that is licsensed to use up to 8 processors.

That's DBSTalk for you. They never investigate anything before banning someone.

 

[Pepper]

There are also people using Server 2008 as Vista, and Server 2008R2 as Windows 7, though the client and server are so ridiculously similar at this point it's really not worth it. Unless you just want a DHCP or DNS server on your desktop, for example.

if you have valid licensing, whatever the heck floats your boat is legal, no reason for a ban.