Windows Server 2008 is 20% faster than Vista

It seems Microsoft may have a successor (or replacement) for Vista after all and it's already been released. Windows Server 2008 isn't easy to configure as a desktop operating system but when done correctly can be 20% faster than Vista while retaining most of the same features.

Windows Workstation 2008 is not a product sold by Microsoft and must be configured from a copy of Windows Server 2008. It seems this version of Windows lacks the "bloat" that is part of Vista. However, I am not sure what the author is referring to (but is likely talking about unnecessary services). Of course this version of Windows was designed with developers in mind who covet speed above all else. Workstation 2008 includes IIS and Hyper-V for creating virtual machines.

A Microsoft employee and third party website have created tutorials on how to use Windows Server 2008 as a desktop operating system. This is what I've been referring to as Windows Workstation 2008. Keep in mind that this will have the same driver problems as Vista does, meaning, if a Vista driver doesn't exist for a piece of hardware you still won't be able to use it with Server or Workstation 2008.

Source: Blorge

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft Submits Windows 7 For AntiTrust Review

Next Story

AMD reveals new Turion, Athlon, Sempron mobile CPUs

63 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Dudes,
If Vista SP1 = Server 2008 (x64 both), why do I get difference SuperPI 1M scores on them?
Server = 13.323s
Vista SP1 (slipstreamed) = 13.696s
(3.94GHz, E7200 running at "Realtime" priority)
People who know what SuperPI is should know it is a significant difference.

Once again we have the small minority of teenagers with no real world experience that immediately claim something is true without actually doing any work to verify it.

Server 2008 is more rebust than Vista and always will be....One reason: the lack of DRM (thats Digital Rights Management kiddies) without the overhead that Microsoft inserted into Vista to keep you kiddie pirates from stealing movies and music Server has less bloat to fight through. And funny thing is Server 2008 is Super secure...it is after all a SERVER class OS and guess what? I have yet to be asked if I was sure I want to do something...

Oh...and I was able to download Vista w/SP1 x64 from MSDN and install. It is faster yes...but copying files is still SLLLOOOOWWWWW. And I had to turn off the stupid UAC. Server 2008 is still a better OS even though they have the same Kernal...At least with Vista Sp1 you can actually install it if you have 4gb of ram...What did Microsoft not think to actually TEST Vista x64 in a system with 4gb or more..sheesh

My Specs:
Dual core Quad
8gb Ram
8800GT

Oh and I am a system Admin and a MCSE...

here go again...

When will people begin to write useful articles? Tons of blogs are full of whining about vista.

If you take the time to search for proper hardware, proper drivers, proper configuration vista will run smoothly wihtout any glitch, even those vista post-launch rants about disk trashing or copy/paste issues.

Let me say that for the copy/paste problem, they solve it almost completely. I test software for private purposes and i have been able to blame almost every major anti-virus or memory-resident anti-spyware programs to cause the delays. Namely, the one that causes the major delays when copying/pasting files is EST NOD32/Smart Security and on the spyware line i have seen SpywareDoctor and CounterSpy to hog the file system.

If you don't believe me, try another anti-virus or anti-spyware software to see what im talking about. This is not meant to favor one program because i think developers are still behind vista improvements but some are getting closer than others when it comes to take advantage of the new kernel, driver model, etc.

For the person that said that Vista took an hour to install let me say that i've installed vista pre-sp1 with all updates, custom drivers and about 30 applications each time on machines with an average 1.6-1-8 core duo or core 2 duo and 1gb of ram and all the process takes an hour, but with everything getting installed. In desktops this kind of setups take less time. And this is without removing any windows component.

(ajua said @ #28)
For the person that said that Vista took an hour to install let me say that i've installed vista pre-sp1 with all updates, custom drivers and about 30 applications each time on machines with an average 1.6-1-8 core duo or core 2 duo and 1gb of ram and all the process takes an hour, but with everything getting installed. In desktops this kind of setups take less time. And this is without removing any windows component.

Exaggerate much?

Not possible to update all 100+ updates to pre-sp1 and install the OS and install + 30 apps and updates to them and windows again if you installed office 2007.

Takes several hours. I do this for a living. Where I work I create the images used by our entire district Vista, XP, 2K3, and 2K8 all our machines run my image and I promise you that you cannot sit down and do what you are claiming.
You can't do a xp image in an hour with software and updates and its faster than vista with or with out sp1.

The only way to do it all is if you are loading the systems from an imagex wim file or some other disk image like acronis or the likes. That is not the same as a clean install.

(CyberWolf said @ #28.1)

Exaggerate much?

Not possible to update all 100+ updates to pre-sp1 and install the OS and install + 30 apps and updates to them and windows again if you installed office 2007.

Takes several hours. I do this for a living. Where I work I create the images used by our entire district Vista, XP, 2K3, and 2K8 all our machines run my image and I promise you that you cannot sit down and do what you are claiming

i also do this for a living a i never had to install more than 10 updates at a time. I should stated that i integrate about 40 updates to the images though.

with office 2007 it takes me hour and a hald tops. In desktops this goes in an hour.

nonetheless, not all experiences are the same.

hmmm interesting, while the kernel may be the same code, Windows Server 2008 does have a variety of tweaks, and of course different services would be enabled. How does 2008 compare to Vista SP1 running with minimum services?

IMO 20% is not good


I expect a Server OS to be considerably faster more like 40+

Sounds like it's Vista without Aero running

Why would Aero slow down your PC? The DWM uses very little in terms of processor time, and its memory impact is negligable given how much RAM computers have these days.

Vista SP1 and Server 2008 are the exact same code, as has been said countless times on here. There is no difference between them other than configuration.

its the same code lol

like i said, a vlite vista sp1 (already integrated) is the same as windows server 2008 as workstation

simply vlite it and remove all the bloat that he has (the same things that server 2008 dont have enabled or installed)

will be the same thing, plus you will not have any problems with programs dont wanting to install because its a server OS

If you read http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2008/03/windo...done-right.html ,

they said:

To make the comparison as even as possible, we disabled all of the UI goodies on Vista (i.e. set the Visual Effects to "Adjust for Best Performance" ) and installed the Desktop Experience feature under Server 2008. We also enabled SuperFetch and the Indexing services on the Server 2008 installation (both are disabled by default) and adjusted the "Processor scheduling" option to favor Programs (i.e. the way it's set under Windows Vista).

also:

As for what's dragging Vista down (the number of running processes and services was nearly identical across both OS and in each test scenario), that's a bit harder to define.

So in a test where both OS's were practically identical in settings, S2008 was considerably faster.

Same code or not, how do you explain that?

They compared RTM vista to W2K8... which RTM vista is not the same code as W2K8... Compare SP1 Vista to W2K8 and it's the same littearly byte for byte

It absolutely is not the same code. If that were the case tell me where in vista I can find hyperV. The kernal may be simular or the same, but is only a very small part of the total package. S2008 is not the same thing as Vista, had that been the case S2008 would have released with vista over a year ago.

I read this and then immediately backed up my data and blew out my xp and vista sp1 slipstream install.
1st thing I notice is server 08 installs faster. I also notice that it does not appear to "grind" the hard drive constantly. Im installing office 07 as I type, having converted this back to a workstation, im using about 840meg of the 2gig memory in this machine. I've not tweaked anything other then follow the change over guide which added aero, and at desktop with with the 64bit IE7 open (the 64bit feels far faster than the 32bit) 800meg memory usage. I am sure with some services tweaks that I can get her down below 800meg no problem. For vista or server 08 thats not bad. My vista 64 ultimate install at home idles over 1gig tweaked.

It is really responsive.

No media center in Server, although there are alternatives out there they only a few can really compete with media cente. Some are just a pain in the butt to setup.

I would also think that a server OS should be faster than a regular user PC, it should be doing more work and speed is important if its used in a server environment.

I have been running 2008 Server on my Laptop with out issue since the beta. The guides on how to do this are mostly derived from my How To guide as it has evolved.

How to run Windows 2008 Server as a Workstation

Over all the experience has been amazing, every so often I get a piece of Microsoft software that tells me that I can't run it on a Server, but this is mostly very high end stuff that has special licensing fees associated with Server versions of the software. Oh and MSN Messenger, which tells me you can't run it on 64 bit OS's before XP SP2.

well vista run slower because of the superfetch and many useless services, that its disable by default in windows server 2008. i think that vista sp1 will run the same with windows server 2008 if we tweak it.

Of course this version of Windows was designed with developers in mind who covet speed above all else.

Should be stability above all, at least in my book... Being a server edition and stuff...

Vista SP1 is W2K8... so not sure how there is a difference? what'd they test this against vista RTM?

I don't think the guy knows what he is talking about...

"It seems this version of Windows lacks the “bloat” that is part of Vista" - yeah well all that stuff is in W2K8 too its under the component user desktop experience that you can install...

then they try to say it has IIS... um Vista Business and Ultimate have IIS7 also... the same exact version W2K8 does at that! (if you install SP1)

In after "I HAVEN'T CHECKED, BUT IT'S THE SAME THING, STOP POSTING THIS CRAP!!!" , "BLOGS ARE NOT OFFICIAL SO THIS CLAIM IS OFFICIALLY FALSE", and "BENCHMARKS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!!!"

In before Godwin's law.

I think MS should just release one OS code base and perhaps update Vista to 2008 server codebase but have a "Home" edition and make it significantly cheaper. As it is right now, Vista is getting bad press and Server 2008 is getting much better press - this includes technical coverage and newspapers like the NY Times. Its going to be very hard for them to get rid of the public perception that Vista is "bad". I personally haven't tried Vista or 2008 Server. I'm just commenting on the *perception* according to press and public of the OSes.

(DrunkenMaster said @ #15)
I think MS should just release one OS code base and perhaps update Vista to 2008 server codebase but have a "Home" edition and make it significantly cheaper. As it is right now, Vista is getting bad press and Server 2008 is getting much better press - this includes technical coverage and newspapers like the NY Times. Its going to be very hard for them to get rid of the public perception that Vista is "bad". I personally haven't tried Vista or 2008 Server. I'm just commenting on the *perception* according to press and public of the OSes.

No idea what you mean by "one OS code base" Vista and W2K8 are the same code base... all versions of windows come from the same code base, they just add features in different branches of it... but the core OS is exactly the same code base... Vista SP1 IS W2K8! W2K8 just has more server features added in... Vista SP1 was updated to have the same core core as W2K8 even IIS7 was updated in vista to match the newer version in W2K8... so vista for the first time is exactly in line with the server edition... this person had to be compareing it with RTM not SP1...

Vista SP1 is the workstation version of Server 2008. Same code, same build, same branch... identical.

We have already done as you suggest. You're welcome.

(Azmodan said @ #13)
Windows Vista : Windows Me 2.
Windows 2008 : Windows 2000 2?

But Windows 2008 = Windows Vista SP1
So:
Windows 2000 2 = Windows Me 2
Windows 2000 = Windows Me

I think you're wrong.

Although I used to enjoy running Server 2003 as a workstaion, Server 2008 is so similar to Vista that there's little difference between what the author is suggesting and turning off services and disabling components in Vista. It's not going to be worth paying the extra bucks to get a server OS and then dealing with the bullsh!t associated with running it as a desktop.
For example, there are applications that will not run on a server OS (Norton, certain firewalls, etc.) because you're expected to buy the enterprise versions. There are also "stupid" apps that check for a specific version of Windows and won't run because it's not that exact version, even though they should be able to run on the platform. I wouldn't advise people to do this. In the long run, it's smarter to buy better hardware than foist over the extra cash for Server 2008 (Even the web edition is more than Vista Ultimate).

More than likely this is with Vista SP1, since SP1 is what brings Vista to the same code base as Server 2008. Is it really surprising that a "server" OS is going to be faster than a desktop OS?

Server 2008 > Vista?

I'm not surprised. Microsoft really got hurt when people had so much trouble with Windows Vista, and I'm not even talking about speed. I sure the team did a heck of a lot more optimizing in Windows Server 2008.

In any case, this is great news. XPS is supposed to be a "PDF killer", but it seems that Server 2008 might kill Vista first! :P

Server 2008 is Vista.

With SP1, everything in Vista has been brought to the exact same state as Server 2008. They merged the code branches.

I dont really think it makes a difference if a server OS is faster, I dont think an important number of people will make that switch.

blog crap. The author also wrote an article saying Vista's Windows Mail is far superior to Outlook Express. They're the same program...

(GreyWolfSC said @ #7)
blog crap. The author also wrote an article saying Vista's Windows Mail is far superior to Outlook Express. They're the same program... :rolleyes:

The new Windows Live Mail, on the other hand, is an entirely different email client that's superior to Windows Mail.

Fresh installation of Vista SP1 Slipstream ISO is much much faster than Vista + SP1 Upgrade and also more responsive!

The only thing I can see making Server faster is that more services are disabled by default then on Vista. If this is comparing Pre-SP1 to server then its utterly pointless as Server = Vista + SP1

Ummmm no, Server does not equal Vista + SP1. I installed Server 2008 last night on my laptop that has 2gb ram, 2.0ghz Pentium M processor, 80 gig hard drive, and an integrated x600 ATI graphics card. I had Vista installed and it was rated at a 4.0, by Vista standards, but overall it ran like crap with Vista even with SP1 installed. Networking was slow, copy and paste was still god awful, and just overall sluggish.

Now, I installed Windows Server 2008 Standard (full install) last night and immediatly you see a huge difference. The entire install took less than 20 minutes, Vista took about an hour plus another hour for SP1. And after all the configurations in the guide above and installing programs like Office 2007, antivirus, all the drivers, it looks exactly like Vista but really does perform a hell of a lot faster. You can see it with opening Computer or any other application, it's just fast. And as you can see from my specs above, this isn't a top of the line laptop here either.

Please give it a try yourself before commenting, the differences are huge!

(Yagi said @ #4.1)
Ummmm no, Server does not equal Vista + SP1. I installed Server 2008 last night on my laptop that has 2gb ram, 2.0ghz Pentium M processor, 80 gig hard drive, and an integrated x600 ATI graphics card. I had Vista installed and it was rated at a 4.0, by Vista standards, but overall it ran like crap with Vista even with SP1 installed. Networking was slow, copy and paste was still god awful, and just overall sluggish.

Now, I installed Windows Server 2008 Standard (full install) last night and immediatly you see a huge difference. The entire install took less than 20 minutes, Vista took about an hour plus another hour for SP1. And after all the configurations in the guide above and installing programs like Office 2007, antivirus, all the drivers, it looks exactly like Vista but really does perform a hell of a lot faster. You can see it with opening Computer or any other application, it's just fast. And as you can see from my specs above, this isn't a top of the line laptop here either.

Please give it a try yourself before commenting, the differences are huge!

Hope you paid for that

Server 2008 is NOTICEABLY faster. Holy God! Don't start saying things when you haven't given something a chance!!! Just don't do it, you'll look like a fool!!!

Anyway! We'll probably get replies from people who haven't tried it, but say they have. Then they'll say it isn't any different. Beware...

In my case, it feels a lot more responsive. Responsiveness means faster execution. Like when you launch adobe software Or input is smoother.

And another thing, my SBPCI128 magically started working on S08. (control panel was broken but works fine here) That's a + for me at least. I think this is the beginning of a new love 8 relationship. Get it? Server2008? Love 8 relationship? bwahaahah!

(Izlude said @ #4.3)
Server 2008 is NOTICEABLY faster. Holy God! Don't start saying things when you haven't given something a chance!!! Just don't do it, you'll look like a fool!!!

Anyway! We'll probably get replies from people who haven't tried it, but say they have. Then they'll say it isn't any different. Beware...

In my case, it feels a lot more responsive. Responsiveness means faster execution. Like when you launch adobe software Or input is smoother.

And another thing, my SBPCI128 magically started working on S08. (control panel was broken but works fine here) That's a + for me at least. I think this is the beginning of a new love 8 relationship. Get it? Server2008? Love 8 relationship? bwahaahah!


Did you compare fresh Vista+SP1 (slipstreamed) with fresh Server 2008?
I don't believe you.

Ummmm no, Server does not equal Vista + SP1


And yet, it does. They are exactly the same binaries, exactly the same versions. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

(Brandon Live said @ #4.6)


And yet, it does. They are exactly the same binaries, exactly the same versions. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

And yet, Server 2008 runs soooooooooo much better. Weird huh?

(Yagi said @ #4.7)

And yet, Server 2008 runs soooooooooo much better. Weird huh?


No, it's not weird, because Windows is much more than the kernel files.

Server 2008 is running in a mode where it tries to be streamlined for the kind of services it provides. For example, it doesn't have Aero Glass installed by default because it's not really needed for a web server where you barely ever interact with the desktop interface. Instant 50-60 MB RAM freed. There are probably many examples like this. Just imagine the whole line of dozens and dozens of system services fine tuned for an "average home user" in Vista vs "only what you need for your applied server roles" in Server 2008.

Some of you guys are comparing kernels here, when it's rather the full product that the user will experience. You can't just compare kernel files. Yes, they are largely the same in Vista SP1 vs Server 2008, but users never run just the kernels.

He said binaries, not just the kernel.

EVERYTHING is the same, minus components that Server '08 has that Vista doesn't (AD, RRAS, etc).

The only thing different is the out of box configuration.

(Izlude said @ #4.3)
Server 2008 is NOTICEABLY faster. Holy God! Don't start saying things when you haven't given something a chance!!! Just don't do it, you'll look like a fool!!!

Anyway! We'll probably get replies from people who haven't tried it, but say they have. Then they'll say it isn't any different. Beware...

In my case, it feels a lot more responsive. Responsiveness means faster execution. Like when you launch adobe software Or input is smoother.

And another thing, my SBPCI128 magically started working on S08. (control panel was broken but works fine here) That's a + for me at least. I think this is the beginning of a new love 8 relationship. Get it? Server2008? Love 8 relationship? bwahaahah!

Yes indeed it does feel smoother, but for some reason my LCD keeps blacking out when I return from Sleep. BTW lame joke bro.

@Yogi/Yugi/whatever your name is: Nice BS saying your computer was rated at 4.0. You sure it wasn't .4?

I think it's interesting they state it's 20% faster when Server 2008 and Vista are based on the same kernel and what-not. What makes it faster? (besides the supposed less 'bloat')

It is clear by now that Vista is slow OS, but claiming that Server 2008 is 20% faster without any benchmark to prove it is rather bold.

Vista SP1 performs reasonably well but I certainly wouldn't call it snappy. It's not like my specs are bad either (C2D @3.2GHz, 2GB RAM, 8800GT). XP is noticeably more responsive.

(theyarecomingforyou said @ #2.2)
Vista SP1 performs reasonably well but I certainly wouldn't call it snappy. It's not like my specs are bad either (C2D @3.2GHz, 2GB RAM, 8800GT). XP is noticeably more responsive.

Not snappy on those specs? I fail to believe. Either that or you are a serious speed-freak lol. Because my computer, C2D 2.2 Ghz, 2 GB RAM, 8600 GT, has almost no load times during regular use.

What do you mean by Vista here? pre-SP1 or post-SP1? There is a difference and still we are not sure how SP1 will make vista faster and more performant. Woody.

If all they mean by "bloat" is not having a number of services on which boosts performance. Then just fire up Vista with SP1 and go tweak your services. Turn off what you don't need/use and it should be just the same.

(GP007 said @ #1.2)
If all they mean by "bloat" is not having a number of services on which boosts performance. Then just fire up Vista with SP1 and go tweak your services. Turn off what you don't need/use and it should be just the same.

Server 2008 uses the Vista SP1 kernel, how could it possibly have different performance once you remove all the server addons? You are left with plain old Vista.

Win2K8, Vista - same kernel
Win2K3, XP - different kernels!

(toadeater said @ #1.3)

Server 2008 uses the Vista SP1 kernel, how could it possibly have different performance once you remove all the server addons? You are left with plain old Vista.

Win2K8, Vista - same kernel
Win2K3, XP - different kernels!


I wasn't talking about the Server addons/roles. I was talking about the OS services both OSs share in general. Things like the Themes service, task scheduler etc. You can turn those off or set them to Manual if you're not sure so that they can be used if needed but don't run when the OS boots.