Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > Performance: Windows 2003 64 bits Terminal Services + Office 2003

Reply
Thread Tools

Performance: Windows 2003 64 bits Terminal Services + Office 2003

 
 
Lolo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-03-2006
Anybody has tested a Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition 64 bits
with Terminal Services, Office 2003 and Internet Explorer as published
applications? In other words, is better Windows 2003 32 bits if you
plan run a applications a 32 bits? What's the difference performance??

In my case, the real problem is the famous limit of 4 GB RAM. My server
has 6 GB.

Exists the flag /1G in boot.ini to force the kernel run in 3GB an the
aplication in 1 GB??

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2006
Yes, I've run Server x64 with Terminal Services. This is a key target
audience for x64, which performs much better than 32-bit as a Terminal
Server. Office 2003 loads and runs just fine, as does OE.

There is no such switch. But not to worry - with x64 Edition as your base OS
you won't need it.

You might find this whitepaper I wrote for the launch of interest. Terminal
services was a key deployment scenario discussed in it.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...64/deploy.mspx Also, there
are good FAQs and additional technical content there, and linked off my blog
site, that can help you understand the benefits (and concerns) of x64
Edition.

(BTW, you didn't specify, but you do NOT want to run the Itanium 64-bit
version of Windows Server as a Terminal Server. It's a bad fit.)

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64


Lolo wrote:
> Anybody has tested a Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition 64 bits
> with Terminal Services, Office 2003 and Internet Explorer as published
> applications? In other words, is better Windows 2003 32 bits if you
> plan run a applications a 32 bits? What's the difference performance??
>
> In my case, the real problem is the famous limit of 4 GB RAM. My server
> has 6 GB.
>
> Exists the flag /1G in boot.ini to force the kernel run in 3GB an the
> aplication in 1 GB??



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
mabra
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2006
Hi !

From my point of view - and sad to say - the time is not really ripe
for x64TS.

TS is mostly used to replace fat clients in the office environment, ok,
not only. In the office environment, you'll usually have all that
difficult things like printer/scanner combinations, copiers with scan
and print functions and so on. I would like to migrate to x64, but I
found not one driver, which supports x64

Even MS does'nt offer the "Office Document Printer" as a x64 version ....

Have a look for your special applications also and test them before you
go this way. There are lot of, which are failing, mostly due to
incorrect use of the WIN32API. A correct written x86 program usually
works fine and without problems. Regard:I am testing Mozialla Firefox
and this is the only application, which crashes on my box regularly

Just my two cents
Manfred

Lolo wrote:
> Anybody has tested a Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition 64 bits
> with Terminal Services, Office 2003 and Internet Explorer as published
> applications? In other words, is better Windows 2003 32 bits if you
> plan run a applications a 32 bits? What's the difference performance??
>
> In my case, the real problem is the famous limit of 4 GB RAM. My server
> has 6 GB.
>
> Exists the flag /1G in boot.ini to force the kernel run in 3GB an the
> aplication in 1 GB??
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?Qm9i?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2006
Hi Charlie,

Question for you. We have just installed x64 version of Windows 2003 server
and will make it a Terminal Server. Should the 32bit Windows 2003 license
server be able to serve licenses to the x64 Terminal Server?

Bob

"Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

> Yes, I've run Server x64 with Terminal Services. This is a key target
> audience for x64, which performs much better than 32-bit as a Terminal
> Server. Office 2003 loads and runs just fine, as does OE.
>
> There is no such switch. But not to worry - with x64 Edition as your base OS
> you won't need it.
>
> You might find this whitepaper I wrote for the launch of interest. Terminal
> services was a key deployment scenario discussed in it.
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...64/deploy.mspx Also, there
> are good FAQs and additional technical content there, and linked off my blog
> site, that can help you understand the benefits (and concerns) of x64
> Edition.
>
> (BTW, you didn't specify, but you do NOT want to run the Itanium 64-bit
> version of Windows Server as a Terminal Server. It's a bad fit.)
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>
>
> Lolo wrote:
> > Anybody has tested a Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition 64 bits
> > with Terminal Services, Office 2003 and Internet Explorer as published
> > applications? In other words, is better Windows 2003 32 bits if you
> > plan run a applications a 32 bits? What's the difference performance??
> >
> > In my case, the real problem is the famous limit of 4 GB RAM. My server
> > has 6 GB.
> >
> > Exists the flag /1G in boot.ini to force the kernel run in 3GB an the
> > aplication in 1 GB??

>
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2006
I don't know of any reason why not.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64


"Bob" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi Charlie,
>
> Question for you. We have just installed x64 version of Windows 2003
> server
> and will make it a Terminal Server. Should the 32bit Windows 2003
> license
> server be able to serve licenses to the x64 Terminal Server?
>
> Bob
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
>
>> Yes, I've run Server x64 with Terminal Services. This is a key target
>> audience for x64, which performs much better than 32-bit as a Terminal
>> Server. Office 2003 loads and runs just fine, as does OE.
>>
>> There is no such switch. But not to worry - with x64 Edition as your base
>> OS
>> you won't need it.
>>
>> You might find this whitepaper I wrote for the launch of interest.
>> Terminal
>> services was a key deployment scenario discussed in it.
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...64/deploy.mspx Also,
>> there
>> are good FAQs and additional technical content there, and linked off my
>> blog
>> site, that can help you understand the benefits (and concerns) of x64
>> Edition.
>>
>> (BTW, you didn't specify, but you do NOT want to run the Itanium 64-bit
>> version of Windows Server as a Terminal Server. It's a bad fit.)
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>
>>
>> Lolo wrote:
>> > Anybody has tested a Windows 2003 Server Enterprise Edition 64 bits
>> > with Terminal Services, Office 2003 and Internet Explorer as published
>> > applications? In other words, is better Windows 2003 32 bits if you
>> > plan run a applications a 32 bits? What's the difference performance??
>> >
>> > In my case, the real problem is the famous limit of 4 GB RAM. My server
>> > has 6 GB.
>> >
>> > Exists the flag /1G in boot.ini to force the kernel run in 3GB an the
>> > aplication in 1 GB??

>>
>>
>>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
MS Office 2003 SP3 blocks some Office 2003 files from opening, by design. why? Computer Support 0 01-02-2008 04:36 PM
UPHClean for Windows 2003 Terminal Services 64 bit =?Utf-8?B?SmVhbi1TdGV2ZSBTaGFrZXI=?= Windows 64bit 2 03-01-2006 11:33 PM
Windows Server 2003 Terminal Services Problem Tigerr Computer Support 1 06-18-2004 11:07 PM
8-Bits vs 12 or 16 bits/pixel; When does more than 8 bits count ? Al Dykes Digital Photography 3 12-29-2003 07:08 PM



Advertisments