Windows 2008 Server opinions

L

Liver

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
5,929
Has anyone used this for gaming and what are your thoughts?

My situation. I had Windows XP Pro (32 bit) and I moved to Windows XP 64 bit edition and I love the 64 bit version! No issues at all. Seems to be snappier, but I don't have the number to back up such a claim.

I have read that Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP 64 bit edition are quite similar.

I am currently using the trial version of Windows XP 64 bit edition and will need to purchase a legit version soon. I'd rather upgrade to a current edition, as XP 64 bit is somewhat old.

So that is why I ask if Windows 2008 Server is good for gaming and stability.
Don't want to go Vista, want to keep it lean and mean.
I get a substantial educational discount for MS products, but I can only buy one operating system.

I know I can trial out Server 2008 prior to purchase, but wanted some opinions first.
 
from a gaming aspect, it's basically vista...



Kind of ludicrous that you dislike vista, but like 2008... IMO
 
I've seen some "claims" that Server 2008, when trimmed down, can beat Vista in benchmarks, but I'm skeptical. Vista and 2008 are closely aligned and share the same code. 2008 is just tweaked for server use. Unless you want to run a server (2008 is pretty nice), Vista will be fine. Definitely go 64-bit tho!
 
If your comment is, that you want to avoid Vista, because you want to be "lean and mean", I'd suggest doing some factual reading about Vista, instead of buying into all the misinformation and bullshit that's floating around. My backup point for this is because you want to avoid Vista, but want to go with "Vista tuned for server use, not gaming" aka Server 2008.
 
I couldn't get crossfire working correctly on Server 2008, so I reverted back to Vista x64 for my main workstation. Other then that, it ran great once you did all the tweaks and enabled aero.
 
Makes no sense to me at all why anyone would want to use a server OS as a gaming machine or even a desktop pc. If you'd want an efficient gaming system you'd have to disable a bunch of services and other things on the server to get it to run optimally. If you disable that stuff, then why have a server OS?
 
If it's anything like 2003 you'll hate it. Every time I rebooted 2003 I had to write something in the field for the log. That alone was enough to convince me it wasn't useful as a Desktop OS.
 
no sense for gaming I agree, but for a workstation, absolutely. Especially if you do development work.
 
Mister Natural said:
Makes no sense to me at all why anyone would want to use a server OS as a gaming machine or even a desktop pc. If you'd want an efficient gaming system you'd have to disable a bunch of services and other things on the server to get it to run optimally. If you disable that stuff, then why have a server OS?
Click to expand...
Compare the guides on how to make Server 2008 into a workstation/gaming system, and you'll notice one thing. Each step is to make it more un-server-like, and more like Vista. When you are finished, you basically have Vista, so why not skip all the work, the BS, the chances of incompatible software (needing server versions), and just stick with Vista from the get-go?
 
Arainach said:
If it's anything like 2003 you'll hate it. Every time I rebooted 2003 I had to write something in the field for the log. That alone was enough to convince me it wasn't useful as a Desktop OS.
Click to expand...

You do realize you can turn that off?
 
Arainach said:
If it's anything like 2003 you'll hate it. Every time I rebooted 2003 I had to write something in the field for the log. That alone was enough to convince me it wasn't useful as a Desktop OS.
Click to expand...

you can turn it off, jeebus
:rolleyes:
 
I've installed several servers with 2008 and I could say that its basically Vista + server tweaks, services - aero

I don't see any reason why it should be faster than vista, since it runs more than twice the services.
 
just install 64 bit vista and game on that. no need for server 2008...not to mention even at an academic price the license is going to be significantly more expensive.
 
thanks for the opinions. makes a lot of sense.

to clarify, I have no experience with Server 2008.

Based on reading here, many people compared Server 2003 to XP 64 bit. I like XP 64 bit. So I was thinking maybe I'll like Server 2008.

Perhaps flawed logic, but that is the reason I asked the question. I don't know.

Perhaps I'll just get Vista 64 bit and be done with it. I can snag ultimate for around $20.

Thanks again.
 
Unsubstantiated rumor has it that Server 2008 doesn't have all the DRM baggage of Vista, which may account for the faster performance. No sure if that's true or just plain speculation.
I do know that 2008 is hands down the best server OS to ever come from Microsoft. I've never been able to warm up to Vista, but I instantly fell in love with 2008. There are a bunch a little changes to the interface that just make it feel more polished to me.
 
maw said:
Unsubstantiated rumor has it that Server 2008 doesn't have all the DRM baggage of Vista, which may account for the faster performance. No sure if that's true or just plain speculation.
I do know that 2008 is hands down the best server OS to ever come from Microsoft. I've never been able to warm up to Vista, but I instantly fell in love with 2008. There are a bunch a little changes to the interface that just make it feel more polished to me.
Click to expand...

sigh...

:rolleyes:
 
Liver said:
thanks for the opinions. makes a lot of sense.

to clarify, I have no experience with Server 2008.

Based on reading here, many people compared Server 2003 to XP 64 bit. I like XP 64 bit. So I was thinking maybe I'll like Server 2008.

Perhaps flawed logic, but that is the reason I asked the question. I don't know.

Perhaps I'll just get Vista 64 bit and be done with it. I can snag ultimate for around $20.

Thanks again.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it is flawed logic this time around. Though it is a common perception. Server 2008 lacks features of Vista the average user may want. And adds many server services you will likely never use. I have run 2008 at work, and I personally would never run it on my desktop machine. The kernel is supposedly the same, but Vista has better features. Run what you wish to run, but I would go Vista, given the choice.
 
I would disagree with this.

A server kernel is hardened and performance-tuned different than a workstation. If stability is your concern, you should stick with the server. I have been using server OSes as workstation since NT and I never experienced instabilities that plagued others during all these years.

Same hardware... My friend runs Vista... Same action causes explorer crash on my machine and BSOD on his.

I don't know what services you are talking about but my initial boot contained 10-15 services less than his Vista boot. He was shocked to find my platform so much more responsive than his bloatware on identical hardware. Needless to say, he is running 2008 server now.

Only downside is that not all the applications would be available for a server OS... but I don't use that many apps anyway and there are alternatives that do work on server.


xxEIEIOxx said:
Unfortunately, it is flawed logic this time around. Though it is a common perception. Server 2008 lacks features of Vista the average user may want. And adds many server services you will likely never use. I have run 2008 at work, and I personally would never run it on my desktop machine. The kernel is supposedly the same, but Vista has better features. Run what you wish to run, but I would go Vista, given the choice.
Click to expand...
 
I had Server 2008 running on my gaming system for a few months and it was great.. until all the little compatibility problems just made it unbearable. Server 2008 has DirectX 10 and even worked with my Sound Blaster x-Fi card. I was amazed that all my games worked just fine. But there were a lot of things that didn't work. Now I'm running a vLite-pared down Vista Ultimate x64 install and it's just as fast. The problems with Server 2008 were these:

1. No native bluetooth stack. No matter what version of Widcomm or Broadcom software I installed, bluetooth would not work correctly. This is because Server 2008 doesn't come with the dlls it needs to connect with bluetooth devices.

2. No TV tuners. Server 2008 is missing the software to allow TV tuners to access channels. Google and you'll find tons of people that can't get even basic analog tuning working.

3. Windows Live software will not install. None of the free Windows Live apps (mail, toolbar, desktop) will install on Server 2008. The only way I could access my Hotmail accounts was via the web - yuck.

4. No free antivirus. Most free AV programs will not install on a server OS. You'll have to pay if you want to run AV.

If you're going to be running an entertainment/gaming machine burn your own Vista install ISO with vLite and remove some of the things like Windows Defender and the indexing service (install Copernic if you need a desktop search engine) and you'll be much happier.
 
Thanks for that feedback Crispin. If you didn't need all that stuff that didn't work, what was your overall impression otherwise?
 
The Vista SP1 kernel is aligned with that of Server 2008; why would they deliberately make the workstation kernel slower and less stable? It would be pretty stupid. They are probably tuned differently, of course - the workstation kernel is tuned for single-user workloads and the server is tuned for server workloads.

A server is better as a server, but it's not inherently a better OS. Microsoft need both the server and workstation to be good, stable operating systems - they don't get world-class programmers to work on the server release while they leave the workstation release to interns, or deliberately detune the workstation.
 
its not about better or stability, its about all the junk that is or isn't installed that you may or may not need which may or may not effect performance.
 
I still love Server 2008 and have it running on my work laptop. It's an awesome workstation. It doesn't seem to chew on the hard drive like Vista does.
 
im going to be rebuilding/reformating all my drives/os when my new drives come in.
right now im running XP/Vista ult dual boot, but I just never use Vista.
Im debating doing XP and then server 2008 dual boot just to play with it.
I guess im just too used to XP to want to make Vista my primary OS.
 
Stoly said:
I've installed several servers with 2008 and I could say that its basically Vista + server tweaks, services - aero

I don't see any reason why it should be faster than vista, since it runs more than twice the services.
Click to expand...

That's because its not. This is just more Vista hate.
 
Nasty_Savage said:
That's because its not. This is just more Vista hate.
Click to expand...

That is a lot of bull. My 2008 Enterprise default install had at least 10-15 services less than vista... And yes it surely did perform better that my friend's vista which had the identical equipment as mine (we bought everything together). Go read independent benchmarks. 20% performance improvement under same conditions is just average.

My 2003 Server is more responsive a multitude times faster than 2008 though... I don't even want to imagine how Vista bloatware would stack up to that. But than again, XP was a bloatware for me compared to 2000 Server and 2003 Server. It all depends up to the end user at the end of the day.
 
I'll believe the increase for certain apps under certain conditions. However, in most cases, a server OS is not designed, nor should be used as a desktop OS. Quite possibly, it could be used for a business workstation, with the appropriate applications made for server OSes, but for a typical home computer, that's meant for multimedia and gaming, you wouldn't want to use it.
 
Seeing as how Windows 2008 and Vista are built off the same NT kernel, I don't see how one is faster than the other. Saying one is faster than the other seems like you're pulling things out of the air.

If you plan on using your host computer as a DC, amongst other things, then Windows 2008 is the obvious choice. If not, Vista 64-bit is the best solution to go with for now.
 
I am sorry, I don't get you. I can tune and recompile my FreeBSD stock kernel million different ways... I can go with a monolithic kernel, I can go with a modular one... I can tweak a bazillion of kernel table options most of which will have a direct effect and influence on the performance. Just by going mono, I can have 15-20% performance improvement over a modular kernel out of the box.

Same program (Outpost) causes a BSOD on my friend's vista and an explorer crash on mine with the same trigger. Need I say more? Server kernel and workstation kernel is not built and tuned the same way.

I think Microsoft is wise enough to know that a company's 2 million dollar per day transaction processing online backend is more emportant than the average joe's random game that might or might not crash five times a day. Hence it passes different set of quality testing and assurance. End that is the end of the story.


Gott said:
Seeing as how Windows 2008 and Vista are built off the same NT kernel, I don't see how one is faster than the other. Saying one is faster than the other seems like you're pulling things out of the air.

If you plan on using your host computer as a DC, amongst other things, then Windows 2008 is the obvious choice. If not, Vista 64-bit is the best solution to go with for now.
Click to expand...
 
I do use my pc for extensive multimedia works (editing, playing, etc) and everything just works very well. It has always been that way with server OSes no matter what those that have never used a server OS in their lives are saying.

I don't play games and I have never played. So I cannot comment how each game will interact. But I do have 8800 GTX that works very fine with a 19" CRT and 100" LCD Projector and it has been subjected to extensive periods of graphics stress testing (3dmark06, rhdtbl, etc). My rollouts feature days of stress testing prior to using a system for production. There is absolutely no problem in any kind of graphics performance on a server OS. I would not know how each game would react though. That is a personal issue and one that is not important for me.

DeaconFrost said:
I'll believe the increase for certain apps under certain conditions. However, in most cases, a server OS is not designed, nor should be used as a desktop OS. Quite possibly, it could be used for a business workstation, with the appropriate applications made for server OSes, but for a typical home computer, that's meant for multimedia and gaming, you wouldn't want to use it.
Click to expand...
 
6_6_6 said:
I am sorry, I don't get you. I can tune and recompile my FreeBSD stock kernel million different ways... I can go with a monolithic kernel, I can go with a modular one... I can tweak a bazillion of kernel table options most of which will have a direct effect and influence on the performance. Just by going mono, I can have 15-20% performance improvement over a modular kernel out of the box.

Same program (Outpost) causes a BSOD on my friend's vista and an explorer crash on mine with the same trigger. Need I say more? Server kernel and workstation kernel is not built and tuned the same way.

I think Microsoft is wise enough to know that a company's 2 million dollar per day transaction processing online backend is more emportant than the average joe's random game that might or might not crash five times a day. Hence it passes different set of quality testing and assurance. End that is the end of the story.
Click to expand...
What's there not to get? It's still based off of NT 6.0 regardless of how you look at it. The only differences between Vista and Server 2008 are their abilities and they're overall functionality.

I'm not debating whether or not one is worse over another but comparing performance between the two just doesn't make any sense when it comes down to the basic architecture of both, they're the same. Server 2008 is designed for a server environment so additional steps to make it operate as a server are done while Vista is built as a standard workstation.

And show me any credible benchmark comparing Server 2008 and Vista that shows a 20% performance increase with Server 2008.
 
I see the issue was not so cut and dry as I first expected.
 
Are you not understanding me? I am telling you I am getting about 20% performance improvement in multiple benches just by building a monolithic version of the same kernel -- let alone fine tuning its stock options and you are telling me it is based on NT and no difference to be there? Besides there is so much more to overall system performance and like the 2 million dollars per day ecommerce backend against gamer joe, it is not hard to understand microsoft knows what it is doing.

As for your benchmarks, go read them in the first page as someone posted or look around.

I dont need any benchmarks to tell that, coz I tested Vista for a week and I have been using 2008 server for half a year now. Vista is a bloatware, while 2008 is a whole lot better.... But none can come even close to 2003 Server though.

And as for the original poster, yes, if possible do not even think twice about the server over Vista.


Gott said:
What's there not to get? It's still based off of NT 6.0 regardless of how you look at it. The only differences between Vista and Server 2008 are their abilities and they're overall functionality.

I'm not debating whether or not one is worse over another but comparing performance between the two just doesn't make any sense when it comes down to the basic architecture of both, they're the same. Server 2008 is designed for a server environment so additional steps to make it operate as a server are done while Vista is built as a standard workstation.

And show me any credible benchmark comparing Server 2008 and Vista that shows a 20% performance increase with Server 2008.
Click to expand...
 
6_6_6 said:
Are you not understanding me? I am telling you I am getting about 20% performance improvement in multiple benches just by building a monolithic version of the same kernel -- let alone fine tuning its stock options and you are telling me it is based on NT and no difference to be there? Besides there is so much more to overall system performance and like the 2 million dollars per day ecommerce backend against gamer joe, it is not hard to understand microsoft knows what it is doing.

As for your benchmarks, go read them in the first page as someone posted or look around.

I dont need any benchmarks to tell that, coz I tested Vista for a week and I have been using 2008 server for half a year now. Vista is a bloatware, while 2008 is a whole lot better.... But none can come even close to 2003 Server though.

And as for the original poster, yes, if possible do not even think twice about the server over Vista.
Click to expand...
I've seen the benchmarks and read through most of the blogs/articles comparing the two and the tests are to be looked at with a grain of salt. Comparing ADO and MAPI between a server/developer and workstation is a biased test. Seeing as how Server 2008 is more of a developer OS than a end-user workstation, those two tests would perform better. Server 2008 is a fast operating system, but saying it's better/faster than Vista based off of those tests is quite ridiculous.

As a gamer, one test that I'd like to see would be FPS of games between Vista 64-bit SP1 and Server 2008. That's a test that would affect me.

But it's your choice to use whichever OS you want so pick whatever one that fits your needs.
 
6_6_6 said:
I tested Vista for a week
Click to expand...
I think we can end the thread right there, to be honest. You've done nothing but bash anyone who disagrees, but you put one giant hole in your arguments with that one statement. If you have to ask what I mean by this, it shows you haven't done much research into Vista to even understand why I'm quoting this statement. I was going to go into how you can't trust synthetic benchmarks, and how you don't do any gaming, but at this point, I don't need to.

Let's just sum it up right here and move on. If you want a server, use a server OS. If you want a gaming/multimedia system, use the OS that is designed for that task. That's how it's been with XP vs 2003, and that's how it is now.
 
It's like the new emo nerd of the internets, lets be different and use windows server as a primary OS.

Yah, fuck you Microsoft, im different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top