Win 2k8 as a workstation?

[Skyfrog]

Responsiveness is not speed.

If something is more responsive, it IS faster. In this case, it responds faster. :)

And I'm not saying don't use server as a workstation, I'm pointing out that by the time you've turned on all the features that are off, you're going to wind up with the same feature set as Vista

Why would I want to turn on all the features that are off? One of the advantages of using 2008 is not having all that garbage running after installing. Then there is the large amount of disk space being saved since Server doesn't come with so much stuff that you may not even want.

but you'll have spent $900 and wasted more time.

No idea where you are getting the wasted time stuff, but did you miss where many people get it free or at a very low price? Besides, if someone has the money to spend I see nothing wrong with it.

The average user (or power user) doesn't need Hyper-V at the moment, nor any of the other features in server.

That's just your opinion, and people have already posted in this thread that they do want it and the other features.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Skyfrog

[Joe User]

If something is more responsive, it IS faster. In this case, it responds faster. :)

I'll clarify, front-end responsiveness is one of the many factors in the overall speed of a task. It is not the only factor and cannot be used to solely judge the overall system speed. You can dump x things into the queue faster, but they can come out later.

Why would I want to turn on all the features that are off? One of the advantages of using 2008 is not having all that garbage running after installing. Then there is the large amount of disk space being saved since Server doesn't come with so much stuff that you may not even want.

No idea where you are getting the wasted time stuff, but did you miss where many people get it free or at a very low price? Besides, if someone has the money to spend I see nothing wrong with it.

I guess you're right if they're getting it free, otherwise, it's a wash, you can spend a week tweaking the same codebase in both directions.

That's just your opinion, and people have already posted in this thread that they do want it and the other features.

The average user does not need the features in server 2008. The average user web surfs, checks email, writes letters, uses a spreadsheet, and plays music, games, and pictures. Developers are not the average user, they might be the typical user here, but they are in no way the average user.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

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.

It is exactly the same code. Identical binaries. There is no way, that in the same configuration, it is going to be any faster or slower.

[Joe User]

It is exactly the same code. Identical binaries. There is no way, that in the same configuration, it is going to be any faster or slower.

Exactly!

I think the problem is that it's not the same configuration. Even after turning on the desktop role, some features will still be off. (Indexing, Readyboost, etc...) and some features would be missing (Media Center). Basically, if you used something like TweakNT, and spent a few hours installing the extras, you would wind up with an exact copy of Vista SP1 from Windows 2008.

That being said, Vista is optimized for average user. It's designed to open Office and IE faster. It's designed to organize your photos and index your email. It's also designed to look pretty. Windows 2008 is the latest version of Windows 2000, it's designed to provide a no-nonsense desktop to administrate servers and develop/test server software on. Windows 2008 has a slightly more responsive GUI compared to Vista, but does not outperform Vista in average user day-to-day tasks.

Use the one that works best for your environment. But don't spend extra on Windows 2008 if you plan on using it as a typical end-user workstation, that would be a waste of money.

[Solema]

I get what you're saying Brandon, and it makes logical sense, but unless I'm missing something huge between the clean installs of each I've done to compare, I'm at a loss as to what makes Server 2008 so much faster. I don't have Media Center running on either, or DreamScene. I enabled SuperFetch on WS2008 to match Vista, as well as the other services like Windows Audio, etc. I've also changed WS to optimize for Programs instead of background processes. I've done a ton more as well, and I can't find out what else Vista has that slows it down.

But I digress, even if they did perform exactly the same (like they should, given the identical kernels) I would still run 2008 myself just for Hyper-V, which blows VMware Workstations and Server and Virtual Server out of the water. And honestly, if WS 2008 didn't include Hyper-V, I probably wouldn't even bother trying to run it as a desktop OS.

[qdave]

i think the only reason why people think its so responsive is that there is no theme,performance options are adjusted to minimal and it makes the impression of lightning fast os. try that on vista and you will get the same feel.

one of the reasons i wanted to use ws2008 because its much smaller in size then vista. vista was 17gb while ws was around 6ish :p and on 50gb hdd thats quite a difference.

now i was really looking forward to stay with it but there was some weird problems. firstly WLM wasnt working on it...crashing every now and then.

then skype wasnt working at all. one other things which led me to go back to vista was that ws wouldnt recognise my powershot a70 :p and i need the damn thing working. sound was a bit glitchy too. and yes i know it is not designed to recognise thousands of hardwares, but still. it found the drivers but wouldnt install them. so if it werent for those 3 issues i would choose WS2008 over vista any day.

there was some things which i liked about it too, like server managment console.

[Solema]

qdave, you didn't read what we are saying. I have installed the Vista theme, Aero glass with all effects, Windows Search, Superfetch, the whole shebang, and it is still much more responsive. That, combined with the substantial decrease in footprint size compared to Vista, leads me to believe that there are some other major optimizations in the 2008 Server build that give it that speed boost. I don't really know what else to look for to figure out why it's so much faster.

[MikeS2k]

I'm also a user of Win2008 as a workstation, only I followed the tutorial here:

http://win2k8workstation.googlepages.com/index.htm

I have not done any benchmarks, but for gaming it feels basically the same as XP, whereas Vista was a good 20% slower. I'll post some benchmarks here if I ever get round to installing Vista again.

This is with Aero (themes and DWM service), Indexing Service, Defragger, plus the Tablet PC service disabled on both configurations. Exactly the same drivers were installed in both cases, same with any GPU settings.

Vista drivers work in 2008, so my soundcard, graphicscard etc all install and work without issue.

2008's UI is very slightly improved for power-users (basically, there's better access to the administrative tools), and you only see config for AD, DNS etc if you specifically enable and install them in the server manager.

2008 (obviously configured for workstation use) should have been Vista "professional/power user", instead of the pointless Ultimate/Premium. IMHO.

oh, and yeah I didn't really see much point in using Server 2003 as a workstation, the performance gain over XP was negligable (all you needed to do in XP was disable the themes and indexing services).

Performance gain in 2008 seems a lot better. Further investigation is required.

I might even end up making a pre-configured, "workstation 2008" unattend iso if so.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

2008 (obviously configured for workstation use) should have been Vista "professional/power user", instead of the pointless Ultimate/Premium. IMHO.

That's exactly what it is!!!

[Windam]

Can 'Search' be installed as an optional component?

[anarkhy]

2003 and vista uses the same kernel? Its possible to use vista drivers in 2003?

[Brandon Live Veteran]

2003 and vista uses the same kernel? Its possible to use vista drivers in 2003?

2008 and Vista SP1 are the same. Obviously Server 2003 is very much not Vista.

[qdave]

2003 and vista uses the same kernel? Its possible to use vista drivers in 2003?

i tried using windows drivers in 2008, but it didnt work.

[K39modo Rex]

some of dell driver work in WS08Enterprise

Most item on Dell Laptop found by WS08

Me got free 1 yeer key for 32/65 bit physic and virtuel ...

[temis]

Hi evrey1 !

I just installed Windows Server 2k8 on the same HDD as Windows Vista : dual boot.

Everything works perfect here with vista drivers and most vista software

except nod32 : the business edition was required, and ghost : still looking for a similar light bachup solution with recovery CD if possible

I wanted to know if I could safely remove Vista partition from the HDD without affecting any of the Windows Server 2008 setup (mbr, boot files, config files etc ...)

This question because when I try yo use WS 2k8 backup it automatically selects both WS2k8 AND Vista partitions : which I guess means both are needed to future restoration.

So if it's possible to remove Vista : what are the steps I have to take before I can safely erase Vista partition ?

Thanks for an answer.

Temis

[Nose Nuggets]

i got server 08 installed last night and all setup for workstation use. i love it! its so fast. however i get a gameux.dll error every time i launch WoW. i guess its from the Games Explorer thing in vista. the only gameux.dll's i can find online are for the 32 bit version and not the 64. anyone have a fix for this?

[delta13]

does 2008 have features like speech recognition and all the tablet pc tools?

[temis]

does 2008 have features like speech recognition and all the tablet pc tools?

It has both !

[RageOfFury]

Does WS08 have support for notebooks?

[ephekt]

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.

I think you're giving these guys too much credit. Anyone 'needing' to use Server 08 as a workstation, that doesn't know which services to enable/disable, is probably not in a position to get it legally in the first place. I doubt most schools offer server OSes through their MSDNAA either, and you generally have to be in specific degree programs to get anything beyond XP/Vista or Office.

[CyberWolf]

I dual boot vista ultimate 64 and server 08 standard 64 and honestly speed wise server 08 wins hands down. It boots faster, programs load faster, it has the aero interface, and my games run faster.

I see a lot of people around the web saying that it 08 and SP1 are the same. They may be but 08 installs and runs faster. I run 08 at home exclusively for gaming the vista install is for the wife. 08 just seems to be tuned right out for speed hell I even download from the web faster in 08.

I followed the workstation guide and then followed my own vista tuning guide on 08 and well I will never use vista again as my primary OS. I spent days tuning vista and still cant get it to compare.

In CS:S stress test vista gets 271.54 fps

in Server 08 289.34 FPS

I think as a community we need more actual benchmarks on this subject. I think I will give it a run this weekend.

[thejohnnyq]

I run it on several machines, including my laptop. My main workstation is a ML350, which it runs awesome on, (8gb Ram, E5335 Quad Core, Raid 1 SAS, DVD RW, ATI Radeon X1550 video). My HP NW9440 laptop also runs it, and it is faster then Vista SP1 x86 or x64. Vista only sees 3.2gb of ram, Win2k8 sees all 4gb. The backup feature is great also, i love being able to mount the .vhd file and pulling out what i need when i need it. I have not enabled Hyper-V because i don't want to lose the power management features such as sleep and hibernation. Vista always has issues with hibernation and i have non under Win2k8. Under the x64 version, Win2k8 only has 2 devices that are not enabled, (ACPI Extension for Video, and HP Integrated module) where Vista x64 has 4 devices, (those 2 plus the media reader (2x).

i do laugh with the comments that 'there is no need to run it as a desktop OS', what OS are you running, since XP is all you need, you don't really need anything else to run it. To each there own. And yea, i am running the full editions, i have received from MS for beta testing, (2 copies), and full copies that i have received from MS reps.

[ephekt]

Vista only sees 3.2gb of ram, Win2k8 sees all 4gb.

You can enable PAE on Vista 32 as well. Someone with a need for a server OS should know this though.

By need I think most people mean that you're an admin who is trying to learn the new features, or someone who needs to actually use the server roles (AD, DNS, DHCP so on), rather than a 'need' to play CS 1.6 at 300 FPS.