So I switched to Windows 2008 Server


Recommended Posts

jjrambo

I enabled Aero and all candy features. Also I turned on .NET 3.0 and installed .NET 3.5 Framework. Windows Defender And Windows Firewall are running. Windows Search, Offline Files, Superfetch, UAC are off by default in Windows 2008 Server and i didn't turned it on. Readyboost is off as well. There is no Sidebar and there is no Media Center. Tablet PC Input is there. Windows 2008 Server performs as Windows XP X64 Edition on my configuration. It's pretty interesting that 3dMark06 scores same as in Windows XP x64 and under Vista x64 3DMark06 is for 1500 points less. The file transfer over the network is faster then with Vista x64. Also it correctly works with my WD Network Storage 1TB. Under Vista it wouldn't remember my user and password when i access to my shared folders even though i set to remember. In Windows 2008 Server that problem doesn't happen. Overall system is more responsive. Games are running faster especially UT3 engine based, and much smoother. It seems that SLI works way way better under Windows 2008 Server then under Vista.

The configuration is the following:

Q6700@3.2 Ghz, i680SLI, 4GB DDR2 800, 2x8800GTX SLI, Xi-Fi Platinum, ATI TV Wonder 550PRO. All the drivers were perfectly supported by OS. I didn't have any problems installing it. Also i installed DX SDK March Update for DX9.0.

It seems that Server 2008 is really really modular. You can highly customize it as you see it. I wish Vista was like that.

Here is the interesting feature

feature1tc1.jpg

Edited by jjrambo
Link to post
Share on other sites
thejohnnyq

No matter how much people say it is the same, the facts show that it is not.

Vista on many machines can only see 2.8 to 4.3 gb of ram. 32 or 64 bit.

Server 2008 can see 4gb. Both 32bit and 64bit.

Configured the same, with all the same drivers and software, (nvidia, Office 2k7, cutepdf, foxit) Vista uses more ram, (almost 400 megs more).

I have been using Win2k8 on my laptop and desktop since i got a copy back in earily March.

Link to post
Share on other sites
waruikoohii
No matter how much people say it is the same, the facts show that it is not.

Vista on many machines can only see 2.8 to 4.3 gb of ram. 32 or 64 bit.

Server 2008 can see 4gb. Both 32bit and 64bit.

Configured the same, with all the same drivers and software, (nvidia, Office 2k7, cutepdf, foxit) Vista uses more ram, (almost 400 megs more).

I have been using Win2k8 on my laptop and desktop since i got a copy back in earily March.

Meh, you can tweak Vista so its RAM usage is pretty close to a default install of 2008 (to within about 50MB). My Server 2008 and Vista configurations are similar, and Vista doesn't use that much more RAM, but I have put a lot of time into finding and eliminating processes and services that I don't need and that use up RAM.

As for the memory issue, Vista SP1 will see all 4GB, but cannot use all 4GB on 32bit architectures. Server 2008 behaves exactly the same way. The 32 bit version will see all 4GB, but cannot use all 4GB.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TurboTuna

Guess I'm the only person that believes a Server OS should be for servers, and not for Joe Bloggs playing crysis.

Each to their own...

Link to post
Share on other sites
jjrambo
Guess I'm the only person that believes a Server OS should be for servers, and not for Joe Bloggs playing crysis.

Each to their own...

I believe there should be only one version of OS which acts as workstation or server based on that what services you have installed. It's possible with modular based OS such as Windows 2008 Server where you can remove or add features, add or remove roles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
waruikoohii
Guess I'm the only person that believes a Server OS should be for servers, and not for Joe Bloggs playing crysis.

Each to their own...

There's no real reason why this should be true.

With pickup trucks, yes, they should really only be used for hauling things. Why? Because they get poor-ish gas millage, so they shouldn't be used to cruise around.

With server OS's, though, there's no reason like that. The only "Reason" is the name. "Windows Server 2008". But what's in a name?

Anyways, to each their own. I don't see a problem with it (but I don't use Server 2008 or 2003 as a desktop OS), but if you do, then that's fine, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
naap51stang

Now is the time for you youngin's that drink those energy drinks to go through vista & server 08

and find all the services that are enabled/disabled and let us old farts like me turn off the useless

crap in vista. We would be grateful :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mordkanin
Vista on many machines can only see 2.8 to 4.3 gb of ram. 32 or 64 bit.

Server 2008 can see 4gb. Both 32bit and 64bit.

Uh. What?

That's completely wrong. The memory you can use in Vista and Server 2008 should be the exact same number.

The 32-bit version of Server 2008 cannot use more than 3.2gigs without turning on PAE, which probably won't work out too well on a typical desktop PC. Seeing as how Server '08 and Vista use the exact same drivers for everything, there is no difference between them with regard to whether or not PAE will work out for you.

Vista x64 is fully capable of addressing 4+ gigs of RAM on any machine with hardware that supports it. The same as in Server '08.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Doli
I enabled Aero and all candy features. Also I turned on .NET 3.0 and installed .NET 3.5 Framework. Windows Defender And Windows Firewall are running. Windows Search, Offline Files, Superfetch, UAC are off by default in Windows 2008 Server and i didn't turned it on. Readyboost is off as well. There is no Sidebar and there is no Media Center. Tablet PC Input is there. Windows 2008 Server performs as Windows XP X64 Edition on my configuration. It's pretty interesting that 3dMark06 scores same as in Windows XP x64 and under Vista x64 3DMark06 is for 1500 points less. The file transfer over the network is faster then with Vista x64. Also it correctly works with my WD Network Storage 1TB. Under Vista it wouldn't remember my user and password when i access to my shared folders even though i set to remember. In Windows 2008 Server that problem doesn't happen. Overall system is more responsive. Games are running faster especially UT3 engine based, and much smoother. It seems that SLI works way way better under Windows 2008 Server then under Vista.

The configuration is the following:

Q6700@3.2 Ghz, i680SLI, 4GB DDR2 800, 2x8800GTX SLI, Xi-Fi Platinum, ATI TV Wonder 550PRO. All the drivers were perfectly supported by OS. I didn't have any problems installing it. Also i installed DX SDK March Update for DX9.0.

It seems that Server 2008 is really really modular. You can highly customize it as you see it. I wish Vista was like that.

Would you get around the same 3DMark score if you turned off/on the same features in Vista that you have done in Server 2008 instead of the default Vsita setup?

The way people in here are posting about Server 2008 it just seems like Vista SP1 with special server features that you wont use. It seems like you really cant compare the two unless they have the same number of services running ( setup Vista to Server 2008's level or the other way around). Default instaliation-wise, Server will beat Vista because it was made for a different audience and not home users. I just dont see the value of paying that much for home non-server use if you can just turn off the services in Vista to Server 2008's level.

Link to post
Share on other sites
thejohnnyq
Meh, you can tweak Vista so its RAM usage is pretty close to a default install of 2008 (to within about 50MB). My Server 2008 and Vista configurations are similar, and Vista doesn't use that much more RAM, but I have put a lot of time into finding and eliminating processes and services that I don't need and that use up RAM.

As for the memory issue, Vista SP1 will see all 4GB, but cannot use all 4GB on 32bit architectures. Server 2008 behaves exactly the same way. The 32 bit version will see all 4GB, but cannot use all 4GB.

MioTheGreat - "Uh. What? That's completely wrong. The memory you can use in Vista and Server 2008 should be the exact same number."

No, and No, and Should be but it's not.

Tweaking or not, Vista will use all the ram avialable, where server does not, that is a difference. Vista is optimised to return free ram as needed, but use up as much as it needs to. Server is not configured that way.

Server 32bit or 64bit will see more then 4gb, i have a system with 8gb that 32 is on, and it sees all of it, (Dell PowerEdge 1750), and Enterprise 32 will see it all.

Vista, again has issues with the PCI/PCIE ram hole just above 3gb, where Windows 2008 does not have the issue.

The ram issue relates to the same issues that gave us 640k as max, it is a memory page swap area that is addressable as a exchangeable area for physical with hardware memory for access. Some OSes don't require a physical remapping, thus allowing all the ram to be used, where other OSes can not handle the ram without creating the hole. I have put 6gb in a system, and vista sees 5.4gb, Server 2k8 sees 6gb, (vista 64bit, serve 32 or 64bit)

Link to post
Share on other sites
jjrambo
Would you get around the same 3DMark score if you turned off/on the same features in Vista that you have done in Server 2008 instead of the default Vsita setup?

The way people in here are posting about Server 2008 it just seems like Vista SP1 with special server features that you wont use. It seems like you really cant compare the two unless they have the same number of services running ( setup Vista to Server 2008's level or the other way around). Default instaliation-wise, Server will beat Vista because it was made for a different audience and not home users. I just dont see the value of paying that much for home non-server use if you can just turn off the services in Vista to Server 2008's level.

No, it wouldn't make any difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
fix-this!
same with Server2003- it was much faster than XP but goddamned nobody believed me, in fact I got flamed quite a bit for trying to tell people there was a big difference.

Guess nobody on the internet tests anything out, they just believe the almighty golden word of these major corporations- oh well.

yeah theres a big overall speed difference between 2008 and vista.

Link to post
Share on other sites
waruikoohii
Tweaking or not, Vista will use all the ram avialable, where server does not, that is a difference. Vista is optimised to return free ram as needed, but use up as much as it needs to. Server is not configured that way.
If you enable Superfetch in Server 2008, it too will use as much RAM as it can. If you disable Superfetch in Vista, it will no longer use more RAM than it needs to function.

The "use all the RAM available" thing is Superfetch, which can be enabled or disabled at will.

Server 32bit or 64bit will see more then 4gb, i have a system with 8gb that 32 is on, and it sees all of it, (Dell PowerEdge 1750), and Enterprise 32 will see it all.

Vista, again has issues with the PCI/PCIE ram hole just above 3gb, where Windows 2008 does not have the issue.

Vista SP1 changes Vista RTM's behavior to match Server 2008's behavior. They will function the same way with the same amount of memory.
The ram issue relates to the same issues that gave us 640k as max, it is a memory page swap area that is addressable as a exchangeable area for physical with hardware memory for access. Some OSes don't require a physical remapping, thus allowing all the ram to be used, where other OSes can not handle the ram without creating the hole. I have put 6gb in a system, and vista sees 5.4gb, Server 2k8 sees 6gb, (vista 64bit, serve 32 or 64bit)
Was this the exact same hardware?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Daxbash5000
As opposed to you, Mr Internet Nobody? No offense but without knowing the person making the comment, either personally or based upon past postcount, there is no way to assess whether their opinion is any more valid than any other - I do not find it at all surprising that people wouldn't believe if you, even if you were telling the truth.

Wow, this kind of reaction is the reason I said that- did you even read what I said? 1st.. I wasn't even talking about the person who posted- in fact I don't even know what the person's name was who posted I was talking about the mindless out there that don't do anything for themselves and just jump on the bandwagon of whatever's popular, lol

Also I never said 2003 was the same as XP... I said it was faster, more reliable as a workstation and especially a gaming OS... which seems to be a trend now from all the success stories i've heard for Server2008- now I haven't personally tested Server2008 so I can't make those claims I can just rely on the opinion of others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
medium_pimpin

Have you compared 2k8 to Vista with Superfetch disabled?

I followed this guide

http://www.win2008workstation.com/wordpress/

And i successfully installed my nvidia, xi-fi drivers, printer etc. I didn't enabled features like Windows Search, Superfetch.

It works much better then Vista. I don't know what to tell you, but I don't experience that feeling of system being chocked. I think superfetch is the biggest problem that can be. It proves to me that it slows down system even Microsoft denies it. Games are running faster and smoother. My 3DMark06 is up for 1500 compared to Vista. I run same drivers i had on Vista 64 Edition.

I enabled Aero Glass, .Net 3.0, Audio Support, installed latest DX9.0 SDK and everything works great. Got all my software installed Office, Live Messenger, Nero etc, AVG 7.5 etc.

Defragmentation works fast much faster then under Vista. Overall experience is so nice, really pleased with everything. HDD doesn't trash, no CRAP running with no reason.

It's interesting that Windows 2008 Server gives you control to enable or disable VSS and you can reserve how much of HDD space you want to dedicate to. It gives me much more of control then Vista. I can decide what feature I want to install or remove.

Windows 2008 x64 Server is just great.

I'm sticking with 2008 Server. Right now i have 60 days to activate, i'm buying a copy. As I said Windows 2008 Server is proof that superfetch doesn't do that much for ya. It proved to me that Windows Search is totally useless for this home computer i have cause even without it, search is instant. I see no difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fabian-
Guess I'm the only person that believes a Server OS should be for servers, and not for Joe Bloggs playing crysis.

Each to their own...

Nah, you're not alone ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
jjrambo
Have you compared 2k8 to Vista with Superfetch disabled?

Yes and the performance is not just there under Vista compared to Server.

I just played Frontlines Fuel of War (Online). First problem that i had in Vista and it was not the case with Server is that video options would reset every time after i quit the game. In Vista it simply doesn't work right. Secondly, my game doesn't slow down anymore with no reason to the point where it's totally unplayable. It usually happens for a few seconds, sometimes i would get random freeze. Same drivers under Server and the game runs smooth. I get higher FPS compared to Vista as well. I got this game through Steam, and Steam works great as well. Second game i tested was UT3. Still i get higher FPS, really noticable in Deck17 level. In order to install UT3 you have to remove lunch control check in MSI package (it checks for OS). Gameplay is smoother. 3DMark06 as I said scores 1500 more then under Vista pretty much in pair with Windows XP x64. I will test tomorrow a couple more games like Test Drive Unlimited, and of course Crysis :)

I think that Vista is more optimized for media/business then for actually gaming. Microsoft almost could make Windows Vista Gaming Edition since they are so many versions of it.

Edited by jjrambo
Link to post
Share on other sites
Denis W.

Just out of curiousity: for those reporting poorer performance in Vista compared to Server 2008, did you update Vista to SP1 (clean install or not)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
jjrambo
Just out of curiousity: for those reporting poorer performance in Vista compared to Server 2008, did you update Vista to SP1 (clean install or not)?

I updated Vista to SP1 before i loaded any drivers or programs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
KPark214
Just out of curiousity: for those reporting poorer performance in Vista compared to Server 2008, did you update Vista to SP1 (clean install or not)?

I have done a clean install of both operating systems in a dual boot mode on a x64 machine. After doing benchmarks on both systems, it clearly states that server os is completely faster then the vista sp1. Yes it is however true that most services are turned off by default in server 08, but you will never get the same speed from the vista sp1 as you would with server 08. I love being a M$ tester because I get free software from them I would usually have to pay for but don't have to. I love my server 08.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Doli
I have done a clean install of both operating systems in a dual boot mode on a x64 machine. After doing benchmarks on both systems, it clearly states that server os is completely faster then the vista sp1. Yes it is however true that most services are turned off by default in server 08, but you will never get the same speed from the vista sp1 as you would with server 08. I love being a M$ tester because I get free software from them I would usually have to pay for but don't have to. I love my server 08.

I think some people want to see a test with Vista vs Server 2008 with the services in Vista turned off to match Server 2008's running services or turning on services in Server 2008 to match the same services in Vista SP1.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon Live

A Server 2008 install and a Vista SP1 (full build) install are identical code. They only differ by configuration and included features (based on Edition).

Basically, Server 2008 is as different from Ultimate as Home Premium is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
thejohnnyq
If you enable Superfetch in Server 2008, it too will use as much RAM as it can. If you disable Superfetch in Vista, it will no longer use more RAM than it needs to function.

The "use all the RAM available" thing is Superfetch, which can be enabled or disabled at will.

Vista SP1 changes Vista RTM's behavior to match Server 2008's behavior. They will function the same way with the same amount of memory.

Was this the exact same hardware?

Related to Superfetch, No Server uses less then Vista, as mentioned, it uses a lot less.

Yes the hardware test were done on the same machine. Each machine recieved at least 3 OS installs.

HP Nw9440 Laptop, IBM t61 laptop, HP ML350, Dell PE 2950, Dell PE 1750.

I am not the only that has seen this, and this makes the point perfectly clear, they are simular but not the same.

Edited by thejohnnyq
Link to post
Share on other sites
+NJ Louch
A Server 2008 install and a Vista SP1 (full build) install are identical code. They only differ by configuration and included features (based on Edition).

Basically, Server 2008 is as different from Ultimate as Home Premium is.

This is the opinion I trust!

Link to post
Share on other sites
TruckWEB

Where is the ultimate guide to tweaking Vista SP1 to get the full speed we need without all the crap services running? Would be nice to have a step-by-step guide of what to disable to gain some speed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.