Windows 2008... workstation???

blargoe

Well, not EXACTLY...

I happened upon this blog at MSDN this weekend that was linked from an article that claimed Server 2008 completely killed Vista SP1 when configured as a workstation.

http://blogs.msdn.com/vijaysk/archive/2008/02/11/using-windows-server-2008-as-a-super-desktop-os.aspx

It's supposed to be the exact same kernel. How is this possible? Being ever the willing experimenter, I had a fresh ISO of Server 2008 Standard so I figured I'd give it a whirl. I had installed Vista SP1 a couple of weeks ago on my Dell Precision M65 (Core2 Duo 2.33, 2GB RAM)and, while much improved over Vista RTM, it has been sluggish when pushed to do simultaneous tasks that XP could handle easily.

So I figured what the hell. I installed 2008 last nght. Holy crap, this thing screams. It's as fast as my XP was before. Apparently the default server install doesn't install any of the crap you don't absolutely need. I had to install the Vista version of my video drivers, start a couple of services to enable audio and desktop themes, and enable support for "desktop experience". Now I'm even running aero with no noticible reduction in performance. All apps that installed on Vista SP1 install on 2008 too.

Also, the annoyance of not having server admin tools for Vista is no longer an issue, you can use the "remote server administation tools" to administer 2003 AD, DNS, WINS, DHCP, etc.

I think I'm going to keep running this for a while.

royal

The consulting team at my company are allowed to be local admins at my company and we all have full access to MSDN. A couple of the guys have installed Server 2008 with Hyper-V on their desktops and they said it runs very well on their Lenovo laptops. I plan on following suit with server 2008 on my T61P and giving Hyper-V with SCVMM a whirl instead of VMware workstation. Of course I could always install VMware workstation on Server 2008 if I wanted. So it seems like a win-win situation.

blargoe

That's cool royal, please post your experiences if you get around to installing it.

Doing this is an added bonus for me, since my company isn't looking to do anything with 2008 server this year it gives me some exposure to the new operating system that I wouldn't have been able to get until probably training time next year.

JDMurray

royal wrote:

So it seems like a win-win situation.

The price-versus-features comparison of Vista Ultimate and Server 2008 keeps it from being a total win. M$ charges the big bucks for its server OSes; they'll use that strategy to keep most businesses and end-users from thinking about replacing Vista with Server 2008, regardless of the performance difference.

royal

I meant it's a win-win situation for my needs, not the general public.

JDMurray

royal wrote:

I meant it's a win-win situation for my needs, not the general public.

Only until you read the licensing for the MSDN and discover that using the software for commercial/business purposes is a violation of the licensing agreement. The MSDN is only for software development and testing and is not a substitute for buying the software outright yourself.

royal

JDMurray wrote:

royal wrote:

I meant it's a win-win situation for my needs, not the general public.

Only until you read the licensing for the MSDN and discover that using the software for commercial/business purposes is a violation of the licensing agreement. The MSDN is only for software development and testing and is not a substitute for buying the software outright yourself.

Yes, MSDN is definitely for testing only, but the software we do use on our laptops for business use is fully licensed via Volume Licensing. We don't just have the MSDN subscription and install it on all business machines across the enterprise. That'd be just plain silly!

RussS

All I can say is thanks for server 2008 .................


It might just save me from Vista ............. the new Muppett Edition