What are the differences, advantages, disadvantages? It seems Server 2008 is basically Vista with a lot of useless crap stripped away and since I can get either via MSDNAA I was thinking about maybe trying Server 2008. What do you think? Worth it?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Server 2008 has the "crap" you probably meant. If you install the user experience package, you'll get Aero and all that in Server 2008 just like Vista. It's just optional, thats all.
Server 2008 focuses on server features & software. You can convert it to be a workstation if you like by following this site -> http://www.win2008workstation.com/wordpress/
There is nothing wrong with using a server OS for a workstation OS and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Damn I love reading these forums everyday. Simply put, there may be "nothing wrong" with doing so, but there's no reason to do so, either, other than maybe to boost e-wang size. By the time you tweak a server OS down to run as a workstation, you are pretty much left with the workstation OS, so why go through the extra work and hassle? Just because you can bang in a nail with a brick, doesn't make it a better tool for the job than a hammer. Commonse sense. K.I.S.S. Call it what you want, but the concept and advice is the same. Use the right tool for the job.you may have incompatabilities and you may loose features
Damn I love reading these forums everyday. Simply put, there may be "nothing wrong" with doing so, but there's no reason to do so, either, other than maybe to boost e-wang size. By the time you tweak a server OS down to run as a workstation, you are pretty much left with the workstation OS, so why go through the extra work and hassle? Just because you can bang in a nail with a brick, doesn't make it a better tool for the job than a hammer. Commonse sense. K.I.S.S. Call it what you want, but the concept and advice is the same. Use the right tool for the job.
By the time you tweak a server OS down to run as a workstation, you are pretty much left with the workstation OS, so why go through the extra work and hassle?
You can compare all of the features
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/compare-features.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/compare-editions/default.aspx
The biggest difference is that Vista Business is a workstation OS that includes Home Premimum's features.
Server 2008 focuses on server features & software. You can convert it to be a workstation if you like by following this site -> http://www.win2008workstation.com/wordpress/
Security Software: Check what Antivirus and Firewall programs are compatible with Windows Server 2008.
Games and Entertainment: List of Gamesthat can (not) be played and articles about how to get them working.
Wish List: Features we want to have in Windows Server 2008, but arent working yet.
Other Posts: Missing gameux.dll, Disabling DEP, Patching .msi installers, Game Controllers, Install GTA2, Win2008Workstation Converter.
Useful forum Topics: TV Tuner in Server 2008, Applications Compatibility (x86) (x64), Windows Live Applications, Skype, Windows Movie Maker.
What is "all this time spent" you speak of? When I installed 2K8 on my laptop..it installed in like 15 - 20 minutes...a reboot, I put NO32 on it (I'd have to do that with XP or Vista anyways)..I put Firefox and my usual IT productivity software on it (I'd have to do that with XP or Vista also).......and it runs undeniably clearly much faster than Vista did. It's usable for me. With Vista..I ended up not having the patience..and booting into PCLinux or Ubuntu instead.
With newer servers OS's...on that first boot to desktop..when it's just a stand alone server..it pretty much IS just a desktop OS..until you "configure my server"..and stuff it with DCPROMO or IIS or terminal..or whatever. There is no "time spent tweaking and removing stuff".
Same exact laptop I had Vista on, same exact hard drive, ram, cpu, hardware, etc. Night and day difference.
You folks actually have software that won't work under Server 2K8? How very interesting... works with everything I've ever thrown at it and then some... weird.
You folks actually have software that won't work under Server 2K8? How very interesting... works with everything I've ever thrown at it and then some... weird.
Why bother...
Because it's fast as fuck, lean and mean, that's why. Would have thought you folks got that point by now... perhaps not. I used to think Windows Server 2003 was the highest performance OS Redmond ever put out... until Window Server 2008 came along and I did some pretty extensive performance testing with SuperFetch enabled. It makes Vista look like it's standing still, especially with a lot of RAM to play with.
And 8GB is plenty, lemme tell ya... and it screams... but, alas, I still prefer XP Pro x64 and will for a long time to come.
No, not enough. As I said, I could not reproduce this. I did all of my tests with a stock Server 2008 Enterprise x64 install, with the print spooler disabled. That was it. Nothing else stopped, nothing tweaked. I used the *exact* same driver as my Vista SP1 Ultimate x64 install. My Vista install is a general desktop install. It's not tweaked much and has Aero. Vista has even been installed since March. Server 2008 was installed last weekend. They benchmarked the same. Virtually identical scores.No offense folks, but if you install 2K8 and run it untouched - aka Leave it alone - you'll never get any other version of Vista to work that fast, and I don't care what you break, tweak, twist, dismember, cut out, vLite out, stream out, disable, terminate, uninstall, or whatever.
2K8 ain't Vista and I don't care what people say otherwise... and Vista Business is the only edition of Vista I'd use, but 2K8 blows it out of the water, period, no matter how much tweaking you to do Vista Business.
'Nuff typed.
My 2 cents..
If you're an IT guy, and you think you'd like to mess around with stuff, and given that you have access to both at the same cost, then here's some stuff to consider...
Virtual machines run faster on Server 2008 with Hyper-v than they do on vista with virtual PC 2007.
- if you're going to do any significant amount of virtualization, its something to think about.
No, and no.If you earn your living in IT then will the experience you gain with 2008 be more valuable than the experience you'd gain with vista?
If you are a web developer, is most of what you develop for hosted on IIS? 2008 has a newer version of IIS than vista.
Do you play games? Want a Media Center experience? Vista might be the way to go - on the 2008 side, if you install hyper-V, it installs at a base level - everything gets virutalized, including 2008 - I'm told that can lead to sound issues.
Build one of each? It's not like I couldn't dual-boot, eh?----------------
if you have more money than decisiveness, you could build one of each.
I couldn't tell a difference either. If I was forced into only using one or the other, I wouldn't have any complaints because both ran very well, but I couldn't say one was faster than the other. I set them both up with my identical software I use on a daily basis, and I spent a week with each going about my usual daily routines.As I said, I could not reproduce this.
Its more adding or I should say enabling with the server os. Turning on direct x, video acceleration, sound, etc.
Either way it takes only a few minutes extra. 08 should go smoother then the 03 setups as well. Wireless support sucked in 03 before sp2.
No, not enough. As I said, I could not reproduce this. I did all of my tests with a stock Server 2008 Enterprise x64 install, with the print spooler disabled. That was it. Nothing else stopped, nothing tweaked. I used the *exact* same driver as my Vista SP1 Ultimate x64 install. My Vista install is a general desktop install. It's not tweaked much and has Aero. Vista has even been installed since March. Server 2008 was installed last weekend. They benchmarked the same. Virtually identical scores.
What are the differences, advantages, disadvantages? It seems Server 2008 is basically Vista with a lot of useless crap stripped away and since I can get either via MSDNAA I was thinking about maybe trying Server 2008. What do you think? Worth it?
This is not a strong argument. "Well, you only tested THIS,," The original comment was that it was faster. Period. My testing did not show this. This comparison is a *perfect* place for synthetic benchmarks, even crappy ones. What's even more revealing is that they benchmark the same. If one was dramatically faster than the other then yeah, I'd probably question it, but this is not the case. They benchmark in these apps exactly the same.Yeah..but you benchmarked with "game junk". 3DMark is mostly video benchmarking. Even this site here laughed at it as a serious benchmark.
They are when you're comparing apples to apples. My testing was not between radically different things. I wasn't comparing XP to Vista or an AMD to an Intel. I was comparing two very similiar operating systems using drivers that were the same between both.Benchmarks are not the end all be all final stamp of approval on whether one OS is superior to another on the same hardware.
I would get business, then get an Ultimate Upgrade for 65 bucks, that's what I am planning on doing. I love Server 2008 and I have thought of running it as an OS but since I can get Vista Ultimate for cheap and upgrade my free Vista Business I am going to go that route. You should too cause you won't find the upgrade cheaper anywhere else.
http://www.microsoft.com/student/discounts/theultimatesteal-us/default.aspx
Look under additional products on the left, you can't get the upgrade till 9/8/08 though.
You can install Vista without a bunch of the components (see: http://www.vlite.net ) and that will cut down on the "junk" you don't need. Although, I always thought the sidebar is total junk, till I actually installed Vista and started to use it, now I wouldn't want an OS without the sidebar anymore. It's functional, extensible, and just plain useful. YMMV of course.
Why would I need Ultimate? IIRC it just adds Media Center which I don't really need anyways... Besides, I can't get that upgrade because I don't live in the US (and just being a US citizen probably won't help)
The sidebar has a nice calendar built in to it, or you could get a gadget that ties it in with your Outlook Calendar.
Aww, ok I want to upgrade because I need Media Center program so I can use my 360 as an extender.
On the topic of memory usage, given a 64 bit system, and given the price of memory, there's very little reason to not stick 4-8 GB in one's system. I am tempted to say that even though the stated minimum requirement is probably lower than 2 GB, 2 gigs is the absolute minimum one should run Vista on.