Operating System

After mounting an extra CDROM and DVD-R into our new workstation, it was time to load the operating system. Since our requirement was to have multiple websites, we decided to go with Windows 2003 Server Standard. That's right, a server OS instead of a desktop/workstation OS. Windows XP has served me well, but my daily focus is web development, and Windows 2003 fits that requirement right now.

To make the transition smoother to Windows 2003, I did some research on converting the operating system into more of a workstation environment. I found a great website that goes through all of the tips and tricks of customizing the OS for workstation use. Obviously, I'm not the only one who feels the pain of Windows XP's single site limitation. I'll outline the changes that I made below. They are all detailed in the tutorial located here (http://www.msfn.org/win2k3/).

Desktop/Theme changes

By default, Windows 2003 uses the classic theme. I used to prefer it over the funky blue in Windows XP. But, over the years, I got used to the funky blue and now prefer it over the classic theme. To enable the Windows XP themes, all you have to do is start the themes service from the Services panel - it's that easy. I also enlarged the icon size in Internet Explorer by right-clicking on the toolbar in IE and choosing Toolbars, Customize and Change the Icon Size to large (XP Default). Lastly, by default, Windows 2003 Icons are not transparent on the desktop. By following the instructions here, you can enable transparent icons.

Core Operating System changes

The first alteration for the core operating system was to modify the focus of the OS resources by changing its focus from background services to programs. You do this by going to System in the control panel, click on Advanced, then Performance Settings, and then select the Advanced tab. Change the processor scheduling to Programs instead of Services, and Memory Usage to programs instead of System Cache. Next was disabling IE security enhancements, which is that annoying feature that asks you to add the "safe" URLs before visiting them. This is simple; just go to the Control Panel, add Remove Programs, add/remove Windows Components and remove Internet Explorer Enhanced Security. Next, I removed the Shutdown Tracker functionality that is equally as annoying. For this change, click Start, then Run and type gpedit.msc. This brings up the Group Policy Editor. Open Computer Configuration, Administrative templates, System, and in the right window pane, look for Display Shutdown Event Tracker. Double-click on this, and choose "disabled" and then hit OK.

After dealing with the minor annoyances, it was time to bring the OS up to snuff for the occasional gaming. I installed Direct X 9 by going through MSFN's tutorial (http://www.msfn.org/win2k3/directx.htm).

One of the most useful parts of Windows XP is Remote Desktop - I use it all the time. Windows 2003 also uses Remote Desktop, but each Remote Desktop connection starts a new windows session; meaning, you aren't connecting to your running console login. Windows XP only supports one remote connection, which is why it defaults to the current console. To do this, all you have to do is start up Remote Desktop, select Options and fill in the configuration details. Then choose "Save As" to save the configuration information. Open that file with notepad (it's just an .INI file), and add the following line to the end of the config file: connect to console:i:1. Now, whenever you connect to your Windows 2003 workstation, it will connect to the first console.

So, after a day or so of installing some hardware into our new workstation and configuring the operating system, we are left with a fast, reliable workstation that is ready for work.

The New Powerhouse
Comments Locked

21 Comments

View All Comments

  • JasonClark - Friday, September 10, 2004 - link

    mikepeck, it certainly is overkill, we're speed nuts like the rest of you. Compile time for building isn't much at all, but compile time after a change (as .NET re-compiles all of the files) does take some time. As said in the article the opteron did just fine, but 7200 RPM IDE drives aren't all that quick during heavy compilation. This article was more information, not a benchmark or comparison between opteron/nocona as a workstation.

    We are interested in doing some real workstation benchmarks, but need some input as to what people would like to see.
  • mikepeck - Friday, September 10, 2004 - link

    Wow. This is what happens when you have a hardware nut from a hardware site put together a "workstation". Also, not sure how a measly dual opteron wouldn't hack it. How long of compiles are you talking about here? I've done serious .NET development on systems FAR less than what you speak of. Perhaps it is a bit of jealousy, but for a .NET development machine, ya, just a BIT of an overkill.
  • Booty - Friday, September 10, 2004 - link

    I know this is a bit off topic, but I've looked around for some good how-to's for building your own high-end workstations and/or servers, and haven't found much. There's tons of info out there about building your own PC, but not much for servers. Hell, I wouldn't even know where to go to buy the hardware - Newegg doesn't seem to carry much server stuff.

    Say I wanted to build the equivalent of a Dell PowerEdge 6600... anyone know of any good resources for someone wanting to get into that type of thing?
  • JasonClark - Friday, September 10, 2004 - link

    One thing this article brings up is the need for workstation articles. If any of you are interested, what benchmarks would you like to see, besides compiling.

  • JasonClark - Friday, September 10, 2004 - link

    Ryan, we keep most of the hardware we test around the labs for future articles/comparisons. Spare is a term to be used lightly in the lab, until its needed :).
  • RyanVM - Friday, September 10, 2004 - link

    You know, if dual Opteron 246s, 1GB memory, and a 120GB SATA hard drive are "spare parts", I want to rummage through you guys' junk pile! :P
  • PrinceGaz - Friday, September 10, 2004 - link

    I was under the impression that AMD K8 processors (Opteron, Athlon 64) are considerably faster than than Intel's best Pentium 4's for compiling. Given that a 3.6GHz Nocona is to all intents and purposes a P4 560, with 64-bit support which Windows Server 2003 does not use, and an Opteron 250 is equivalent to an Athlon64 FX53 (S940); the 3.6GHz Nocona is a long way behind the Opteron 250 in the Visual Studio compile test.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

    That gap will almost certainly widen in a dual-processor system.
  • JasonClark - Friday, September 10, 2004 - link

    Exmaster76, you'll see an article very shortly about Opteron 250 vs Nocona 3.6..

    Cheers
  • JasonClark - Friday, September 10, 2004 - link

    daniel, I had a look at that app as well, not bad but I wanted everything running at the same time as some sites depend on others.

    Cheers
  • daniel1113 - Friday, September 10, 2004 - link

    I've got one word for any web developers out there that use Windows XP Pro rather than a server OS:

    IISAdmin

    It allows you to easily switch between websites in IIS. Of course, you are still limited to one website at a time, but if you work on multiple sites on your home computer, this little program works wonders.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now