Recommended Posts

Well some people here claim Vista and Server are the same. I say no. Vista - Build 6000. Server 2008- Build 6001. Server has less services running than Vista. It responds much quicker, connects to the internet in a flash. When you tell it to close an application after the application crashes, it closes it. Vista thinks about it. It boots faster too. Server 2008 is not Vista. There is something internally different in it. It's designed better than Vista (internally). There are just so many things better on Server 2008 is not funny. I hate Vista. I tried it, twiked it to the max and I still found it slow and annoying. I am quite happy with Server 2008. It simply works.

Server 2008 is at the same level as Vista SP1, hence why Server 2008 has SP1 in the name ;)

Vista SP1 - Build 6001 - sorry, what were you saying about different?

edit - Too slow :happy:

I am not the only one that has noticed Server 2008 is faster than Vista. Google is your best friend. Read on:

http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2008/03/windo...done-right.html

http://www.itwriting.com/blog/596-vista-sp...omparisons.html

http://wastingtimewithmikeandari.wordpress...e-ram-of-vista/

Server 2008 is still different. There is something about it that works better. MS hurried Vista out the door. They took their time with Server.

Less enabled services by default. That's it. Anything else you're thinking is purely a placebo effect.

I am not the only one that has noticed Server 2008 is faster than Vista. Google is your best friend. Read on:

[

Server is faster than Vista precisely because it is a server and has most of the bells and whistles that Vista comes with turned off. There is no need to have these on a server.

Server 2008 and Vista do however share the exact same kernal codebase.

Well, having run Server 2008 for a few weeks after its release and customizing it to be just as useful as Vista (SP1) for daily usage, I have to say there is NO difference.. Links from a few blogs really won't prove that cuz bloggers say what they want

EDIT: In fact driver installation has been slower on Server 2008

Well, having run Server 2008 for a few weeks after its release and customizing it to be just as useful as Vista (SP1) for daily usage, I have to say there is NO difference.. Links from a few blogs really won't prove that cuz bloggers say what they want

EDIT: In fact driver installation has been slower on Server 2008

OK I tell you what, why don't you conduct your own benchmark tests and post the results here so we can see? That way we can see if the "bloggers" are wrong. One of the "bloggers" that has many times stated that Server 2008 is better and faster than Vista happens to be a Microsoft employee. I wish I was at home right now to get the link from my Favs and post his Blog site link so you can read what he says about it, but I will be more than glad to see your own test results on the two OSs.

^^I have read that Microsoft employee's entry. I don't think he works in the Windows group. Microsoft is a vast company.

My personal experience is that the perf is equivalent on Windows 2008 and Vista SP1 when configured with the same features.

I disabled Windows Search since I don't need it anymore on my main system.

OK I tell you what, why don't you conduct your own benchmark tests and post the results here so we can see? That way we can see if the "bloggers" are wrong. One of the "bloggers" that has many times stated that Server 2008 is better and faster than Vista happens to be a Microsoft employee. I wish I was at home right now to get the link from my Favs and post his Blog site link so you can read what he says about it, but I will be more than glad to see your own test results on the two OSs.

I have both 64-bit and the 32-bit versions of Standard (OEM). I've ran both, and conducted my own testing, on the same exact system. This is the same crap as the '2003-as-a-workstation' BS that was fluttering about for years. By the time you bring 2008 up to the level of usability that Vista has out of the box, and jump through all those hoops...if you still feel you've spent your money well just to run it as a desktop...well, good on you. I can't related, but good on you. Personally, I'll stick with Vista Home Premium for most of my at-home usage.

OK I tell you what, why don't you conduct your own benchmark tests and post the results here so we can see? That way we can see if the "bloggers" are wrong. One of the "bloggers" that has many times stated that Server 2008 is better and faster than Vista happens to be a Microsoft employee. I wish I was at home right now to get the link from my Favs and post his Blog site link so you can read what he says about it, but I will be more than glad to see your own test results on the two OSs.

You are completely missing the point here. Server and Vista are both built on the same code. Server is "faster" than Vista because a lot of the components and services that Vista have turned on by default are either not installed or turned off in Server.

If you turned on/installed these on Server then compared on like machines then you would find that server should actually run a little slower than Vista as Server would then have more services than Vista does.

I know which post you're referring to but that does not turn Server into Vista as not all the services/components are installed, just the most widely used ones. If Server wasn't the same code base as Vista then you couldn't do this at all.

Nope, not true. Was in the early beta for Vista and for SP1 so have used it extensively and don't like. Sticking with XP SP3 and will probably just wait on Win7 (yes I know it's based on the vista kernal but there will be changes).

Sooner or Later. People change along side w/ their usage and as a result their opinions change with it. They'll use for whatever they see benefit with even if it is small.

That my friend is how the game is played, it's the nature of any product out on the market.

Edited by The Intruder

Yeah i dont know why everyone is So "Against" Vista

This afternoon it proved (for me) again that it was better... i was running a game on XP.. and it got stuck cause i shut down MDM in my services.. (My pc tried to initialize it.. and get like 20 errors trying to do so.. and after it just got stuck)

On vista i never get this Same game..

IMO people who work in the computer industry who still recommend XP to their customers have no business being there. Vista is now a fine operating system to use, and soon enough the XP fanboys will migrate to it.

The corporate boys would still be happily running their people on Windows 2000 Professional if Microsoft had continued full support of that product.

The corporate boys would still be happily running their people on Windows 2000 Professional if Microsoft had continued full support of that product.

I would still be running Windows 2000 if MS was still supporting it. That was probably MS most stable and best OS. Too bad its history now.

Someone just needs to do some digging and find out what is and what isn't running on Server so that we can do the same to Vista and see how it behaves. I think Vista has way too much crap running on the background and that affects some of its performance. Vista is not a bad OS but it could be faster and I know it can be made faster by turning off a lot of useless crap. No need to have 50+ services running. Server 2008 has 35 and XP 18 and they run perfectly fine.

I would still be running Windows 2000 if MS was still supporting it. That was probably MS most stable and best OS. Too bad its history now.

Someone just needs to do some digging and find out what is and what isn't running on Server so that we can do the same to Vista and see how it behaves. I think Vista has way too much crap running on the background and that affects some of its performance. Vista is not a bad OS but it could be faster and I know it can be made faster by turning off a lot of useless crap. No need to have 50+ services running. Server 2008 has 35 and XP 18 and they run perfectly fine.

I have 37 services running on Vista Business.

I would have thought so, but it doesn't change the fact that he needs XP for that specific software version.

Well I don't know if its adobe's fault, but I have other reasons, that I can't play some games in the same quality as in xp. Even when I use Windows Classic as theme for some reason. I hate Apple, I hate Microsoft. I'm on nobody's side. Well maybe linux a bit.

It's good to hear people actually giving objective views of Vista. Soon, others will too.

Objective views on a tech site? Nooo way :rolleyes:

The false perspective out there is pretty damn strong, and everyone who hates it has probably not tried it or just hates MS (aka Apple/Linux fanboys/girls)

Yes, but Vista Premium has more services running. Vista business doesn't have certain things that Premium version has.

I run Vista Ultimate. Fresh install and messenger running in the background. 40 services. Still not as low as xp but not the +50 you say.

Only problem i have with vista (32 bit and 64 bit (current)) is the random atikmdag.sys BSOD's when watching full screen movies.

But the question is, who is to blame?

people say they don't get them in XP, but i cba to try it out.

Overall Vista have only surprised me in a positive way tho.

Downgrade or upgrade your video drivers.

ATI's 8.8 drivers caused this error for me, so I downgraded back to the 8.7, which doesn't.

Yes, but Vista Premium has more services running. Vista business doesn't have certain things that Premium version has.

Yes I know, I beta tested Vista Ultimate(Premium), the only real differences are the media center and Dreamscene. It would have more services.

Vista Home Premium and Ultimate have useless stuff that drag it down. For example:

Windows Media Center - Who the hell uses this?

Windows DVD Maker - Excellent idea...but...you can't customize the DVD menu with your own stuff, can't add more templates and you all know that MS is not going to bother making any new templates for it either. Ashampoo Burn Studio 6.6 Free Edition has better templates and features than this crap.

Windows Defender - A joke. Lots of freeware anti-spyware stuff out there that do a better job than this.

Windows Paint - Totally useless

Windows Word Processor - Another useless application

Should I go on?

Vista Home Premium and Ultimate have useless stuff that drag it down. For example:

Windows Media Center - Who the hell uses this?

Windows DVD Maker - Excellent idea...but...you can't customize the DVD menu with your own stuff, can't add more templates and you all know that MS is not going to bother making any new templates for it either. Ashampoo Burn Studio 6.6 Free Edition has better templates and features than this crap.

Windows Defender - A joke. Lots of freeware anti-spyware stuff out there that do a better job than this.

Windows Paint - Totally useless

Windows Word Processor - Another useless application

Should I go on?

Please don't.. enough BS posting.

Vista Home Premium and Ultimate have useless stuff that drag it down. For example:

Windows Media Center - Who the hell uses this?

Windows DVD Maker - Excellent idea...but...you can't customize the DVD menu with your own stuff, can't add more templates and you all know that MS is not going to bother making any new templates for it either. Ashampoo Burn Studio 6.6 Free Edition has better templates and features than this crap.

Windows Defender - A joke. Lots of freeware anti-spyware stuff out there that do a better job than this.

Windows Paint - Totally useless

Windows Word Processor - Another useless application

Should I go on?

1) i do, to watch tv, as do countless other people, it actually is a great pvr

2) used it one or two times to make a dvd without having to think too much. Doesn't use any resources when you don't use it

3) not using a lot of resources, never had spyware or viruses, never tried something else

4) uses no resources (except a few mb of hard disk space)

5) same as 4 and I assume some people use it

In fact, I assume a lot of people use dvd maker too, for someone who doesn't know the first thing about making dvd's it's a godsent. You on the other hand assume way to much, it's not because you don't like somethig other people don't use it.

You have been throwing all kind of FUD around in this topic, regarding server 2008 and vista and actually have proved just one thing: <snipped>

Edited by Fred Derf
Vista Home Premium and Ultimate have useless stuff that drag it down. For example:

Windows Media Center - Who the hell uses this?

I use it actually. I just recently built a machine just to use Media Center as my TV. It's not to have a version of windows where you don't have to install another program as a Media Center or have two disks for XP MCE.

Windows Defender - A joke. Lots of freeware anti-spyware stuff out there that do a better job than this.

Agreed 100% here

Windows Word Processor - Another useless application

And here as well

But Vista isn't all that bad really. I was hesitant to try it until I bought a laptop with Vista pre-loaded. I don't mind it.

Where it gets its bad name is from.. Microshaft tried to push an unfinished product out the door while other companies were dragging their feet to make their hardware/software compatible while waiting for MS to make the OS better.

Stupid.. stupid stupid... :no:

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Poll: Grand Theft Auto VI price predictions, cast your vote by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe After years of waiting, Rockstar will be solidifying the launch date of Grand Theft Auto VI with the launch of pre-orders next week. While the studio has confirmed a date for this occasion, it is yet to attach a price to the highly anticipated game. So let's see what our readers think it will cost at launch. The Grand Theft Auto VI pre-orders will kick off on June 25 for digital and physical editions. Unless some last-minute changes happen, the release date will be November 19, 2026, across Xbox Series X|S and PlayStation 5. Unfortunately, there's still no information about a PC version from the developer or the publisher Take-Two. Now the question becomes, how much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost at launch? The game is predicted by some analysts to be the biggest launch of an entertainment product ever. With the amount of hype that has been built behind it and with ballooning development costs, Take-Two may price this Grand Theft Auto entry differently from other AAA titles. The current price of a AAA game is $69.99. That norm almost rose to $79.99 before calming down. But with such a massive release, Grand Theft Auto VI may be the game that pushes the boundary again. It's also possible that Take-Two keeps the price relatively low to increase the number of players that jump in early and keep them hooked on Grand Theft Auto Online to spend on microtransactions for years to come. Keep in mind that the below poll is asking for a prediction of the standard edition price, not a deluxe or any other special edition that Take-Two will introduce for additional benefits. Also, there is also the chance of the company splitting up the campaign and online portions. If you think that will happen, put your vote on what you think will be the total cost of the two. Poll Poll: How much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost? $59.99 $69.99 $79.99 $89.99 $100 or more Submit Vote If you have a very specific prediction in mind, sound off in the comments below.
    • Would you please fix your graphics. They are outdated and don't fit the article.
    • The Light of Life? We actually do glow till our Death, study finds by Sayan Sen Image by Rafael Rendon via Pexels A study by researchers at the University of Calgary has found that living organisms produce an extremely faint light known as ultraweak photon emission, and that this glow appears to drop significantly after death. The research was published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry in April 2025 and quickly drew widespread attention, leading to more than 200 news stories about the findings. Ultraweak photon emission (or UPE), sometimes called biophoton emission, refers to tiny amounts of light released by living cells as a result of normal biological activity. A photon is the basic particle of light, and researchers say every living system examined so far, including plants and animals, has been found to emit these photons. The glow is far too faint to be seen by the human eye. “I suppose it has a little to do with people being reminded of auras,” says Dr. Christoph Simon, PhD, one of the authors of the study and a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy in the Faculty of Science. “It is a fact that living beings glow. It’s a very weak glow, but it’s there and visible with very sensitive cameras.” According to the study, the light involved is extremely weak, ranging from 10 to 1,000 photons per square centimetre per second across a spectral range of 200 to 1,000 nanometres. For comparison, a nanometre is one-billionth of a metre and is commonly used to measure wavelengths of light. Detecting emissions at such low levels requires highly specialized equipment. To study the phenomenon, researchers used electron-multiplying charge-coupled device (EMCCD) and charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras. These imaging systems are designed to detect extremely small amounts of light, including individual photons, while minimizing background noise. The technology allowed researchers to capture signals that would otherwise be impossible to observe. The team worked with the Human Health Therapeutics Research Centre at the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) in Ottawa to examine photon emissions in mice. Researchers took two-hour exposure images of the animals before and after death and compared the results. “We saw that the level of light that they emit – this biophoton glow – is distinctly different between living and dead animals,” says Dr. Daniel Oblak, PhD, an associate professor in Physics and Astronomy and the corresponding author of the study. The images showed a clear decrease in photon emissions after death across the entire body of each mouse. According to the researchers, this provided direct evidence that living and dead tissue produce different levels of ultraweak photon emission. “It’s a very small amount and it’s, of course, very tricky to detect,” Oblak says. The study grew out of discussions between Simon, whose research interests include quantum biology, and Oblak, whose work focuses on detecting light for quantum communication experiments. Quantum biology is a field that explores whether processes described by quantum physics, which studies matter and energy at very small scales, may also play a role in living systems. “Since I work as a quantum physicist on light detection for quantum communication, I thought that experimentally we have a lot of the tools to be able to detect the light,” Oblak explains. The researchers also investigated UPE in plants and found that the light changed in response to stress. When plants were exposed to higher temperatures or physically injured, their photon emissions increased. Chemical treatments also affected the glow. Among the substances tested, the local anesthetic benzocaine produced the strongest emission response when applied to injured plant tissue. These findings suggest that ultraweak photon emission is closely linked to biochemical and metabolic activity inside living organisms. Metabolism refers to the chemical reactions that allow cells and organisms to stay alive and function. Because these reactions change when an organism experiences stress, injury or disease, researchers believe UPE may provide a way to monitor those changes. The researchers stress that the glow is a physical and biological phenomenon, not a metaphysical one. Oblak says more research is needed to understand exactly how the light is produced and what information it may reveal about the condition of living tissue. “We must understand what that is to figure out what’s happening,” he says. “If we can understand how that relates to certain influences on the body – stress, diseases – then that could be used as a diagnostic tool.” The researchers believe the technique could eventually help scientists study health and disease without invasive procedures. Because UPE can be measured without adding dyes, markers or labels, it may offer a way to monitor whether tissue is healthy, damaged or alive. In plants, it could help researchers better understand how organisms respond to injury, heat and other forms of stress. While the work is still in its early stages, the study demonstrates that ultraweak photon emission imaging can provide a non-invasive and label-free way to observe biological activity. Researchers say the approach could become a useful tool for studying vitality, stress responses and other important processes in both animals and plants. Source: University of Calgary, ACS publication This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Damn, I loved this show back in the day.  
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      hhgygy earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      AMV earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      AMV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      512
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      171
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      82
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!