Win 2k8 as a workstation?

[chadbr]

Is anyone doing a Win 2008 Server as a workstation guide?

That won't be published, of course?

I have it on a workstation - very impressive responsiveness compared to Vista, but I haven't installed the "desktop enhancements"

thanks --

[neufuse Veteran]

There is absoutly NO reason for W2K8 to be a workstation... with SP1 anything that was in W2K8 has been updated to be the same in Vista... this is something they didnt do in XP with w2k3...

the kernel even in Vista was updated to match W2K8! which was the main reason for the w2k3 workstation thing...

even IIS7 was updated in vista to match the new version in w2k8...

all the performance is the same... now they are using the same exact code basically minus the server components...

so in the end there is no real reason for it

[Lewism]

The only reason it feels fast it because there is no "desktop enhancements". This slows it down.

[jason13524]

Is anyone doing a Win 2008 Server as a workstation guide?

That won't be published, of course?

I have it on a workstation - very impressive responsiveness compared to Vista, but I haven't installed the "desktop enhancements"

thanks --

Can you please show your testing method to show your claimed "very impressive responsiveness compared to Vista"

[Joe User]

In Vista SP1, At a administrative command prompt, type 'net stop themes'.

You have now turned off the desktop experience.

Vista will operate like Windows Server 2008, only without most server components.

[chadbr]

re: why

- same reason they had the 2k3 as a workstation guide - some people need the server components for everyday work.

re: show your testing method

- nothing to show - I have 2 identical dell workstations that sit side by side. one has vista pre-sp1, one has 2008. The speed difference, as I said in my post, is probably because of the desktop stuff not being on - and almost nothing is installed yet...

Sooo - I'm guessing that's a "no" -- nobody is working on one...

Thanks --

[neufuse Veteran]

re: why

- same reason they had the 2k3 as a workstation guide - some people need the server components for everyday work.

re: show your testing method

- nothing to show - I have 2 identical dell workstations that sit side by side. one has vista pre-sp1, one has 2008. The speed difference, as I said in my post, is probably because of the desktop stuff not being on - and almost nothing is installed yet...

Sooo - I'm guessing that's a "no" -- nobody is working on one...

Thanks --

and what server components do you need? Terminal services? DNS? DHCP? MSMQ? IIS? A lot of them you can get in Vista with out wasting the money on server... IIS is there to start with in business... DNS and DHCP you generally get with a router... or a freeware tool... Terminal services... if you are running this on a workstation then you should rethink why (not talking remote desktop here)...

[Master_X]

re: show your testing method

- nothing to show - I have 2 identical dell workstations that sit side by side. one has vista pre-sp1, one has 2008. The speed difference, as I said in my post, is probably because of the desktop stuff not being on - and almost nothing is installed yet...

The reason you probably see the speed difference is because your Vista desktop is pre-SP1. Install SP1 on it and it should run the same as Server 2008, except it will have the eye candy (which you can disable) and it won't have all the server components that you probably wouldn't use on a normal desktop.

[Solema]

Wow, it's amazing how fast you jumped down the guy's throat for wanting to use Server 2008 as a desktop OS. You want a reason?

HYPER-V

Google it. If any of you knew anything about Server 2008 you'd know that right there is reason enough for A LOT of people to want to use it as a desktop OS. It's the main reason I am using it as one. And don't bother countering with VMware. VMware Server doesn't work correctly with Vista x64, and Workstation doesn't allow VM's to run as services and launch at boot. Not to mention, Hyper-V is DAMN FAST in 2008, even in beta form.

And as for your insistence that Server 2008 is no faster than Vista just because it uses the same kernel, have any of you ACTUALLY TRIED running the two in comparable states? You say the speed difference is "probably because of the desktop stuff not being on." Go ahead, turn it all on. It still MUCH faster than Vista. I'm running 2008 with the Desktop Experience on, Aero Glass with full effects, AND THREE VIRTUAL MACHINES, (two running Server 2008, and one Vista x64 SP1, each with 1 CPU and 1GB of RAM) and the OS is STILL faster and more responsive than Vista SP1.

If you check out TheHotfix.net's forums, you'll see that people have pared down Vista's services to match 2008's running services and they are still getting upwards of 20FPS improvements in games like F.E.A.R.

Think of 2008 like this: Basically, Microsoft took Vista and streamlined and tweaked the hell out of it for a year, and made it as efficient as possible. Then they added in all the server role options. That's what Server 2008 is.

I have to say that I never bought into the "2003 Server as a workstation" scenario before, but if it yielded the kinds of performance gains I've gotten with 2008 vs. Vista, I completely understand now.

I know this is my first post, and I usually start off with something pleasant to say, but I had to back the OP up on this one. OP, just wait a bit. As more people discover what we have someone will make a great "how-to" for running 2008 as a workstation. I'm really only waiting for someone to hack DreamScene and/or Media Center into it and I'd be happy as a clam!

[chezy666]

What the price of a Server 2008 license ? , can one buy a single license ?, I think it would be too costly.

[KevinN206]

What the price of a Server 2008 license ? , can one buy a single license ?, I think it would be too costly.

Most users will probably get it from MSDN or Academic MSDN (I get XP, 2003 Server, Vista Business free). It will cost probably as much as 2003 Server, maybe $800 for a 5CAL OEM.

[Swift33]

Sooo - I'm guessing that's a "no" -- nobody is working on one...

Thanks --

An MS employee already posted one:

http://blogs.msdn.com/vijaysk/archive/2008...desktop-os.aspx

[Premgenius]

Nice, I was thinking of Vista but I'm skipping Vista to Windows Server 2008 just need to test some of my games and see if they actually work before I move over :D

[Solema]

Games should work fine. The ones I've installed have so far.

[Linkinfamous]

Think of 2008 like this: Basically, Microsoft took Vista and streamlined and tweaked the hell out of it for a year, and made it as efficient as possible. Then they added in all the server role options. That's what Server 2008 is.

Think of Vista SP1 like this: They brought the Server '08 and Vista code branches back together, so in a LOT of cases, the code you're running on Vista SP1 will be exactly the same as with Server '08.

[Steven P. Administrators]

Think of Vista SP1 like this: They brought the Server '08 and Vista code branches back together, so in a LOT of cases, the code you're running on Vista SP1 will be exactly the same as with Server '08.

Hmm, yeah.. except a lot of un-necessary services are disabled on Server 2008 at Default, unlike Windows Vista where a lot of those services are enabled (or set to manual -which still loads it into memory) for compatibility reasons.

[pippi123]

I'd also like to hear experiences on this. I have a license for Server 2008 from MSDNAA. I have licenses for WinXP and Vista Business as well but they are already in use.

Is Server 2008 slower? Is it less secure because of the server components?

[AltecXP]

just install Vista SP1...kill the services...then you will be just as fast at Server......when XP and 2k3 were out, there was a valid reason to run 2k3 as a desktop OS...it was faster with better memory management...thats not the case anymore, Vista and Server 08 have teh same codebase, the ONLY difference is Vista got end user tools added in, Server has Admin tools added in. The only "speed increase" is that Server has some of Vistas services off by default.

[SBeaver]

There were a lot of complaining from so called knowledgeable people here last time regarding 2003 and I can safely say they were all proven wrong.

2003 and of course xp x64 which was based on 2003 were a lot better than XP in a lot of ways, not compatibillity though but those were problems artificially created by software firms to take more money from people who want to use the software on a server OS.

In this case however, it's probably mostly the same as Vista, but if you don't have to pay for the license, then why not use 2008?

I use 2008 server as a desktop OS right now, though it also works as a server some of the time, at least I plan to use it that way.

It's easy to manage and there isn't so much crap by default settings.

Just install firefox, install desktop experience, disable shutdown tracker, and it's pretty much the same thing. (enable themes and win audio services too)

[Julius Caro]

mmm they might add win 2008 (I'd say 2k8, but I always thought 2k8 = 2800) to the academic alliance thing... so maybe Ill give it try if so happens :D

[Menge]

i don't know if this link was posted before. but was posted from a Microsoft employee in India :p

Using Windows Server 2008 as a SUPER workstation OS

[qdave]

just install Vista SP1...kill the services...then you will be just as fast at Server......when XP and 2k3 were out, there was a valid reason to run 2k3 as a desktop OS...it was faster with better memory management...thats not the case anymore, Vista and Server 08 have teh same codebase, the ONLY difference is Vista got end user tools added in, Server has Admin tools added in. The only "speed increase" is that Server has some of Vistas services off by default.

not really. i installed vista last friday, and with sp1 it takes 17gb. win 2008 on the other hand only 5gb.

anyway those tips from server 2003 as workstation + the ones about 2008 makes a complete package :)

[Joe User]

not really. i installed vista last friday, and with sp1 it takes 17gb. win 2008 on the other hand only 5gb.

anyway those tips from server 2003 as workstation + the ones about 2008 makes a complete package :)

Sounds like media center & the other desktop software that isn't installed on server.

Unless you're developing software, Windows server 2008 is overkill. It's like choosing Windows 2000 Server over Windows 2000 Pro, they are the same codebase.

[chadbr]

why 2k8? same as 2003 + more new features - Hyper-v, enterprise versions of databases, development testing, all on one box..

Thanks for the pointers!

Vijayshinva's blog entry was pretty much what I was thinking -- I wasn't aware of the audio service (don't listen on those machines...)

[Sam Pearson]

As a developer who also likes to play games, would you guys recommend a dual-boot between 2008 and Vista, or are most games that are compatible with Vista compatible with 2008? Are there any issues/regrets with using 2008 over Vista as a workstation OS? Driver support/application compatibility/etc?