windows Server 2008

Ugh, if you want to run Windows Server 2008 as a workstation OS, you are in luck. It is already a product, also known as Vista. This isn't Server 2003 versus XP, where the cores and kernels were different. If you need a workstation, save yourself time and hassle, and just use Vista. All those guides do is tell you how to turn Server 2008 into Vista, which may seem great until you find out you'll need anterprise system utilities, like AV and defrag software.
 
I've run Windows 2008 in a VM, with VT-enabled and 1 GB of memory allocated to it. It ran pretty well.
 
I hate to break it to ya, Deacon, but Vista ain't 2K8, not even in the same ballpark to be honest. :p You could spend a week tweaking out Vista (Business would be the closest edition I think to Server 2008 Standard/Enterprise as it's got no fluff going on) and you still wouldn't match the sheer raw speed and performance of 2K8 Standard/Enterprise out of the box.

I'm one of those people that's been running "server" OSes for years as workstation OSes. By default, the server OSes are "tweaked" already for better memory management in multitasking situations, better performance overall actually. It's tough to explain, but I assure you, if I was there at your PC and we installed any edition of Vista, and then did some testing and basic getting around in it, and then we wiped it and installed 2K8 on the same machine, same hardware, even the same drivers, you'd nearly piss your pants at the amazing difference you'd notice and could actually test for to some degree.

The original "Windows Server 2003 As A Workstation Guide" had a lot of input from a lot of people, including myself. I've also tossed out some tidbits that turned up in the "new" "Server 2008 As A Workstation" PDF file that's floating around these days. So far so good... 2K8 is screamingly fast on most any hardware you install it on...

I just build a Q6600 (at 3 GHz right from the gitgo), 8GB of Corsair DDR2 6400, a nice Gigabyte mobo, and some other goodies just today and it's got <drumroll please> Windows Server 2008 on it, tricked out and smokin' fast on all 4 cores with Hyper-V ready to roll.

Truly amazing piece of code considering its size, and faster than you might imagine possible. As far as 'testing it in a VM' forget it: you'll lose so much performance it's not even funny, even with VT-x support. It's just not the same thing, but yes it'll give you a chance to look around, kick the tires as it were. Microsoft offers a 60 day trial of 2K8, so go have fun with it.

And you typically don't need any special versions of software either. Nothing I've tried yet complained... but then again... I do know what I'm doing. ;)
 
phr0m said:
Looking tthrought the forums, I haven't been able to find any information about server 2008 and its features.... I've also seen a few things about it beening used as a workstation http://blogs.msdn.com/vijaysk/archive/2008/02/11/using-windows-server-2008-as-a-super-desktop-os.aspx
has anybody here used this os and have any more information about it?
Click to expand...

Hmmm...

calebb said:
Using Server 2008 as a Super Workstation @ MSDN
Click to expand...


Hmmm...

Seems someone isn't reading threads and just jumping in... ;)
 
Joe Average said:
And you typically don't need any special versions of software either. Nothing I've tried yet complained... but then again... I do know what I'm doing. ;)
Click to expand...

Depends. Thing like AV tend to care as they want you to buy a more expensive version to make it work. Same with some programs that will not run because they have an OS check built into them that doesn't reconize the OS. That check can generaly be bypassed pretty easy. Weird example of this is the sprint software for my evdo card. The older version of it loaded fine on 03. The newer version does an OS check and doesn't reconize 03 as a valid os so it will not install. Hell I was deploying an 08 server this weekend and noticed one it lists it as sp1 which I found a little odd and two pretty much every os check shows it as vista sp1 which is a good thing in the sence that os checks shouldn't kick out consumer apps for it.

As far as information with 08 OP what do you want to know about it? Overall I've been pretty happy with its setup.
 
for the people already running server 2008 as a workstation, what tweaks did you use on the os and did you opt to make server 2008 look like vista (turning on aero and themes)?
I have an msdnaa account and server 2008 was put up just recently for me, so I'm taking it for a test drive right now. I also have vista business x64 installed and i must say I have noticed improved memory usage on server 2008 compared to vista. UAC is gone too which is nice.
hyper-v has been interesting to mess around with, but I haven't figured out all its secrets yet.
 
i also had another question.... is it possible to make server 2008 have a standby mode or low power state mode?
 
Joe Average said:
It's tough to explain, but I assure you, if I was there at your PC and we installed any edition of Vista, and then did some testing and basic getting around in it, and then we wiped it and installed 2K8 on the same machine, same hardware, even the same drivers, you'd nearly piss your pants at the amazing difference you'd notice and could actually test for to some degree.
Click to expand...
Pack your bags for Philly then, because I couldn't tell a difference between the two on the same system. I had been using a Vantec swappable drive cage to compare the two on the system in my sig called Titan. I can't do any more testing at the moment, because I wiped Server 2008 and replaced with with XP x64, so I could move Server 2008 out to a dedicated machine. Once I RMA one of my Seagate drives from home, I'd be happy to load it up again and run through some actual tests. Now, don't take this as me complaining...I was very happy with the performance of both OSes.
 
I don't really understand why Server 2008 should be a better workstation OS than Vista SP1. It has the same kernel for a start, which immediately means the most important things are the same. In general, though if it were so much faster, then why wouldn't they have rolled those changes into Vista SP1? One of the main complaints leveled against Vista was about how it's allegedly very slow, and this has hindered takeup, so it would seem like the perfect thing to do as part of the harmonisation process between Vista and Server 2008. The people working on Vista and Server 2008 don't work in a vacuum, they're all part of the same division - and now the codebases have been brought together, the core Windows OS is practically the same product anyway.

I feel that there's an attitude that a server OS is necessarily faster and more stable than a workstation OS, and so it feels powerful to be using one on your desktop. But it would be pretty stupid of Microsoft to deliberately cripple the workstation OS for no reason at all; there's already plenty of product differentiation between server and workstation versions and they've never tried to sell Server as a workstation OS for power users or such. It's for servers, because it's got the code you need to run a server, and lacks things that would be superfluous for a server.

Or maybe just because it's not saddled with the name "Vista".
 
Server 2008 is Vista. Same kernel. A bunch of services disabled, some new ones enabled. And of course server specific apps.
Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about.
 
The performance differences they are speaking of are in day to day operations. I read a writeup on it recently about why it does it, but basically a lot of file transferring operations are different, lots of hard disk access/caching is different and of course the networking stack is tweaked different too (for MUCH more connections simultaneously).
There is actually a huuuuuuge amount of differences between 2k8 and vistard.
Kernel != Entire OS.
Anyone that says it is the same thing "doesn't know what they are talking about"
-Ash
 
Joe Average said:
It's tough to explain, but I assure you, if I was there at your PC and we installed any edition of Vista, and then did some testing and basic getting around in it, and then we wiped it and installed 2K8 on the same machine, same hardware, even the same drivers, you'd nearly piss your pants at the amazing difference you'd notice and could actually test for to some degree.
Click to expand...

I've installed Vista Business SP1, XP64 and Server 2008 in the same HP xw8600 quad core workstation and found them to be roughly the same in performance using AutoCAD and FEA benchmarks. Solidworks ran best with XP64.

I never bothered with benchmarks like Sandra because that doesn't mean much to me, I'm only concerned about the software I use.
 
Ashtefere said:
I read a writeup on it recently about why it does it, but basically a lot of file transferring operations are different, lots of hard disk access/caching is different and of course the networking stack is tweaked different too
Click to expand...

Certainly, there are differences in the ways the OSes work. But the differences are designed to be optimised for a server, not for a single-user workload. For example, by default it will favour giving CPU time to background processes over interactive applications (this is something you can change in workstation and server versions). Granted, the ability to handle more simultaneous TCP/IP connections isn't in workstation versions, but that's part of product differentiation - no-one would buy Server for a file server if the workstation version did that just as well.

However, take hard drive caching. If the Server method is superior for server use-cases and the workstation method is better for a single-user, then that would make sense. But what people seem to think is that the Server method is just outright superior. If so, why isn't it used in workstation versions? Why would Microsoft intentionally cripple Vista by giving it worse caching algorithms, especially as the same people are very likely involved in writing the algorithms for both versions? The only way it would make sense would be as a form of product differentiation, but Microsoft has never tried to sell Server as a high-performance OS for workstations. What's more, Windows is a platform; a robust high-performance server OS is useless if the client OS is slow and rubbish, and it's the desire to deploy the client OS that drives server sales.

So, there are differences between the versions, but, in general, each version is designed to work best for the job it was designed for.
 
Ashtefere said:
the networking stack is tweaked different too (for MUCH more connections simultaneously).
Click to expand...


you can change this on vista...



will server 2008 work as a workstation OS... YES

can you configure vista to pretty much be identical... YES

which one is cheaper ?



I swear ever since NT4 server people have been downloading server OS's and running them as workstations for no real benfit at all... other than to make their epenis bigger...
 
Lemme see here...

XP Pro SP2 32 bit, stock install on P4 2.4 with 1GB of DDR 333, ATI Radeon 9550 256MB, 7200 rpm hard drive with 8MB of cache, bleh bleh bleh.

Or... Windows Server 2003 SP2 32 bit stock install, on the exact same machine.

I like using Quake 3 for benchmarks (yes, even I do some gaming benches on occasion), and on that machine, I did a few comparisons in the past. The comparisons were on the same exact hardware, using the same exact video drivers (literally, I used the same ATI .exe file for both as they're both 32 bit - the only issue was running the .exe in compatibility mode under 2003 to ensure it wouldn't complain about it being the wrong OS, somewhat).

And by stock install I mean I install the OS, then install the video drivers, reboot, run the game which is located on a secondary partition, at the beginning of the drive so it remains in exactly the same place between both the XP Pro and 2003 installations. Fragmentation isn't an issue, reinstalling it isn't an issue, etc. I did nothing else across the board - the OSes were stock aside from killing off the stupid balloon popups for the Windows Tour in XP Pro and closing Server Manager on 2003.

XP Pro 32 bit gave me 182 fps at 1024x768@32 bit color running the default demo file, "Four" in Quake 3 v1.32.

Windows Server 2003 game 219 fps at 1024x768@32 bit color running the default demo file, "Four" in Quake 3 v1.32.

Same hardware, same drivers, same game - the only difference is the OS.

Not sure what other people get, but I can duplicate this test across the board between those OSes and get roughly the same results each time, regardless of the platform. And don't even get me started on an x64 OS comparison either.

They are not the same OSes, not XP Pro 32 bit vs Server 2003 32 bit, nor Vista 32 bit vs Server 2008 32 bit (or even 64 bit vs 64 bit). They don't perform the same, as they were not designed to be the same, even though they do share some aspects of the codebase.
 
Joe Average said:
I did nothing else across the board - the OSes were stock aside from killing off the stupid balloon popups for the Windows Tour in XP Pro and closing Server Manager on 2003.
Click to expand...

So Server 2003 without hardware graphics acceleration (the default) was faster than XP with acceleration?
 
Ok, Mr. Semantic-boy... obviously I missed admitting that aspect of things. One would assume (yeah, I'm an ass, both u and me) that people would realize enabling such a thing is required to even run proper 3D accelerated games under Server 2003, right?

But then again...
 
Joe Average said:
Ok, Mr. Semantic-boy... obviously I missed admitting that aspect of things. One would assume (yeah, I'm an ass, both u and me) that people would realize enabling such a thing is required to even run proper 3D accelerated games under Server 2003, right?

But then again...
Click to expand...

Don't be a dick, I was asking the question because what you were claiming didn't make sense.
 
Can someone suggest some tests to run? I have both OSes, and I'd like to do some actual testing on this.
 
Mithent said:
I don't really understand why Server 2008 should be a better workstation OS than Vista SP1. It has the same kernel for a start, which immediately means the most important things are the same. In general, though if it were so much faster, then why wouldn't they have rolled those changes into Vista SP1? One of the main complaints leveled against Vista was about how it's allegedly very slow, and this has hindered takeup, so it would seem like the perfect thing to do as part of the harmonisation process between Vista and Server 2008. The people working on Vista and Server 2008 don't work in a vacuum, they're all part of the same division - and now the codebases have been brought together, the core Windows OS is practically the same product anyway.

I feel that there's an attitude that a server OS is necessarily faster and more stable than a workstation OS, and so it feels powerful to be using one on your desktop. But it would be pretty stupid of Microsoft to deliberately cripple the workstation OS for no reason at all; there's already plenty of product differentiation between server and workstation versions and they've never tried to sell Server as a workstation OS for power users or such. It's for servers, because it's got the code you need to run a server, and lacks things that would be superfluous for a server.

Or maybe just because it's not saddled with the name "Vista".
Click to expand...

well yes, server OS are usually more stable, less crap in them - why, because they run as SERVERS 24/7 365 - a desktop os may run alot but most desktops dont come close tothe work load a server would run or have.

it isnt an attitude, it is a fact.

your comparing 2 OS's for 2 very different markets, if vista is so great why isnt it used on servers...
 
You guys are also forgeting all the DRM that doesnt exist on server 2008. Remember the tests anandtech did on file copy operations? Where they renamed a new text file from document.txt to spiderman3.avi, and it took an hour to copy from one hdd to another? It was a 1kb file...
No one is sure exactly what drm is running in the background on vista, as MS doesnt talk about it - but it isnt there in server 2k8... and it also contributes to it being a whole lot faster.
Oh, and the reason serker 2k8 is much more expensive?
Cos a lot more work has gone into making it FASTER. Yes, thats the point of a server, you see? to be fast.
Why would MS cripple vista compared to 2k8?
Well, they didnt. Vista is an older product. Server 2k8 has had a lot of changes and optimizations (not just the kernel, all of it) to make the OS run at its maximum possible speed.
In the server market, linux is a freaking juggernaught for speed and stability... and its free. In fact, in a server environment it isnt really possible to beat linux. Thats why MS have worked so hard making 2k8 at least comparible to its speed and stability.
Its not as simple as turning off some services and tweaking its settings. There is a whole other world of changes between the two. If there wasnt, do you honestly think any server farm operators would spend the difference between vista x64 ult or server 2k3 if an hour of tweaking would get a different result?
I have tested both OS's. 2k8 is faster in every way. Its not actually comparible at all. And yes, I have tweaked vista to be faster (turned off indexing, etc, disabled ipv6, disabled windows defender, etc etc etc).
2k8 just rocks.
-Ash
 
Ashtefere said:
You guys are also forgeting all the DRM that doesnt exist on server 2008. Remember the tests anandtech did on file copy operations? Where they renamed a new text file from document.txt to spiderman3.avi, and it took an hour to copy from one hdd to another? It was a 1kb file...
No one is sure exactly what drm is running in the background on vista, as MS doesnt talk about it - but it isnt there in server 2k8... and it also contributes to it being a whole lot faster.
Oh, and the reason serker 2k8 is much more expensive?
Cos a lot more work has gone into making it FASTER. Yes, thats the point of a server, you see? to be fast.
Why would MS cripple vista compared to 2k8?
Well, they didnt. Vista is an older product. Server 2k8 has had a lot of changes and optimizations (not just the kernel, all of it) to make the OS run at its maximum possible speed.
In the server market, linux is a freaking juggernaught for speed and stability... and its free. In fact, in a server environment it isnt really possible to beat linux. Thats why MS have worked so hard making 2k8 at least comparible to its speed and stability.
Its not as simple as turning off some services and tweaking its settings. There is a whole other world of changes between the two. If there wasnt, do you honestly think any server farm operators would spend the difference between vista x64 ult or server 2k3 if an hour of tweaking would get a different result?
I have tested both OS's. 2k8 is faster in every way. Its not actually comparible at all. And yes, I have tweaked vista to be faster (turned off indexing, etc, disabled ipv6, disabled windows defender, etc etc etc).
2k8 just rocks.
-Ash
Click to expand...

The DRM support in Vista makes no difference. It's ONLY active if you play a protected disc that calls for it. I don't know what copy test you are referring to but i'm going to call BS. I work with ALOT of video files. My WHS holds over 128 movies. HD-DVD and blu-ray rips. Never had a problem with ripping, encoding, renaming, etc.

Vista and Server 2008 use the same exact kernel.

Linux as a desktop OS is free. But companies pay huge sums of money to deploy linux servers. While you may not pay for the OS itself they do pay big bucks for support. Otherwise companies like redhat would not exist.

Server 2008 IS Vista. Some services disabled, new ones enabled. Special server software and tweaks. And yes, most of it can be done in Vista as well.
Vista just had a service pack. The optimizations you talk about in server 2008 that make sense for desktop use go into SP1. Both are built on the same code base, both use the same kernel.
They spend the money for 2k8 instead of tweaking Vista because there are several server apps that they need. You can't tweak Vista into being Server 2008 as it won't have the server software or other apps related to the server. So Microsoft takes Vista and throws on all the server software, disables and removes what isn't needed for a server OS and adds in what is needed.
Both use SMB 2.0 for file transfers.
Vista has apps for working with pictures and movies and such, Server 2008 has stuff for working with servers and securing data. Beneath that they are the same.
You say you have tweak Vista to be faster but only named a few things. There is far more that can and should be done to make it comparable. Start with services for one. Here's a link that may help: http://www.speedyvista.com/services.html

Things were different when comparing XP and Server 2003. Different code, different kernels. Vista/Server 2k8 is actually based off of Server 2003.

So tell me, what feature that exists only in Server 2008 and not Vista is responsible for making it faster? Some people say it feels faster, they say they tweaked Vista to perform as fast but those doing the tweaking seem to fail to do all the necessary things and then just assume Server 2008 is vastly different.
Those who actually know what they are doing, tweak Vista the correct way for a comparison with Server 2008 say it's no faster at all.
 
Archer: You almost sound insulted to hear our comments. Almost like a fanboy. Your attitude is typical of someone that just spent a lot of money on a purchase and is trying to justify it when a newer, better product has just been released.
Do you know what I do for a living? I build and manage most of the servers in my country's internet betting companies. I am the technical manager for my company which is contracted for doing so.
This "server stuff" is my work 6 days a week.
"Same exact kernel" doesnt matter at all. Server 2k3 and xp x64 is the same exact kernel, but they both perform differently.
I personally prefer linux for any server OS, mind you, and I have used a lot of tweaks to ensure vista is faster than the out of the box experience -> http://www.warp2search.net/contentt...indows_vista_performance_tips_and_tweaks.html - assuming that I had only done a few tweaks - even though i wrote "etc etc etc" is silly.
As for the anandtech article, you can call BS if you like, but it was an actual test done on a (admittedly) beta version of vista.
As for the services, a lot of services can not be disabled on vista that just arent there on 2k8. In fact, vista has a lot of activation/licensing stuff going on that server 2k8 doesnt have (for example, deleting 3 system files on 2k8 disables activation, where as its a whole different story with vista sp1)
Also, one last thing: the guide that started the whole "use 2k8 as a super workstation" works for microsoft in asp, etc. I am (and most likely the people of this forum) more inclined to believe him than someone who's name holds no great achievements.
-Ash


EDIT: And in case you wish to spew more uneducated rage, check this out -> http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2008/03/windows-2008-vista-done-right.html
Test results indicate a huge difference.
-Ash
 
Ashtefere said:
Do you know what I do for a living? I build and manage most of the servers in my country's internet betting companies. I am the technical manager for my company which is contracted for doing so.
This "server stuff" is my work 6 days a week.
Click to expand...
I know you have only been here 3 days, but I'm going to just make one suggest/comment. Don't throw around what you do for a living and expect people to take your word because of it. That doesn't work very well on an internet board. I could say I'm Hugh Hefner's stand-in when the old guy can't tend to all his women.

If you have the experience and the skills, you should be able to make your points with facts and links. The whole "my e-penis is bigger than yours" just makes people roll their eyes and ignore what you wrote. Stooping to personal attacks and flames is another way to be ignored as well.

As for the DRM comments, I believe Archer75 is correct. If those "features" aren't available in Server 2008, then you won't be watching HD content on a Super Server 2K8 workstation. There is no "funny business" going on with DRM, and it is a tired argument to bash Vista because of it. It doesn't prevent you from doing anything legal, and it wasn't Microsoft's idea to include it. Had they not included it, you'd see forums full of people bitching that they can't play HD content on their shiny new Vista systems.
 
Ashtefere said:
Archer: You almost sound insulted to hear our comments. Almost like a fanboy. Your attitude is typical of someone that just spent a lot of money on a purchase and is trying to justify it when a newer, better product has just been released.
Do you know what I do for a living? I build and manage most of the servers in my country's internet betting companies. I am the technical manager for my company which is contracted for doing so.
This "server stuff" is my work 6 days a week.
"Same exact kernel" doesnt matter at all. Server 2k3 and xp x64 is the same exact kernel, but they both perform differently.
I personally prefer linux for any server OS, mind you, and I have used a lot of tweaks to ensure vista is faster than the out of the box experience -> http://www.warp2search.net/contentt...indows_vista_performance_tips_and_tweaks.html - assuming that I had only done a few tweaks - even though i wrote "etc etc etc" is silly.
As for the anandtech article, you can call BS if you like, but it was an actual test done on a (admittedly) beta version of vista.
As for the services, a lot of services can not be disabled on vista that just arent there on 2k8. In fact, vista has a lot of activation/licensing stuff going on that server 2k8 doesnt have (for example, deleting 3 system files on 2k8 disables activation, where as its a whole different story with vista sp1)
Also, one last thing: the guide that started the whole "use 2k8 as a super workstation" works for microsoft in asp, etc. I am (and most likely the people of this forum) more inclined to believe him than someone who's name holds no great achievements.
-Ash


EDIT: And in case you wish to spew more uneducated rage, check this out -> http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2008/03/windows-2008-vista-done-right.html
Test results indicate a huge difference.
-Ash
Click to expand...

Rage? Fanboy? I'm typing this in Leopard!!!!

And the site you linked to is a VERY biased site. Nothing more than a blog. And I have used thier benchmarking tools which are useless. They didn't tweak their Vista install very much either. Which is what we are talking about here. A properly tweaked Vista install is on par with Server 2008. And turning off the GUI does squat as it's handled by the Video Card, which would otherwise sit idle. Still aside from that, yes, a fresh install of Server 2008 will be faster than an untweaked copy of Vista.
Also including info from beta is useless, I don't care what the anandtech article says, it's from beta.

In terms of activation blah blah blah, Both Vista and Server 2008 can use the same exact crack to get around that. Both have the same activation, both have WGA. And yes, I have used said crack. Both a automated version and manually removed files.

Just because you "do this for a living" doesn't make you intelligent. In fact I find most people in that line of work that think so highly of themselves are actually morons. I work in the semiconductor industry. Our entire IT department is full of idiots. It just doesn't mean as much as you'd like to think it does.
 
Ashtefere said:
You guys are also forgeting all the DRM that doesnt exist on server 2008. Remember the tests anandtech did on file copy operations? Where they renamed a new text file from document.txt to spiderman3.avi, and it took an hour to copy from one hdd to another? It was a 1kb file...
Click to expand...

I'd like to see some sort of a link to that...

Searching anandtech finds nothing...trying that test on two different vista machines, ultimate and business, shows no difference in copy speeds between .txt and .avi...in fact, copying a large dwg file and a large .avi file (an actual avi rip of a dvd, not a renamed file) shows no difference in speed...
 
BTW, following the http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2008/03/windows-2008-vista-done-right.html link, I saw this new link in the comments:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=242891

The test compared Windows XP, XP 64-bit edition, Vista 32-bit and 64-bit Home Premium, Vista with SP1 upgrades, and Server 2008 Enterprise 32 and 64-bit editions. This test gives the most common operating systems and tackles the 64-bit as well as the latest claims of Windows Server 2008. Vista was set up using full Aero as well as Server 2008 being set up using the Desktop experience and full Aero.

I apologize for the massive test results, but there's a lot of information included:
http://www.imagebam.com/image/9786675364575

Summary of test results:
CPU:
All 64-bit OS dominates with the exception of Prime Numbers and SSE.
Best-Worst: 2008, Vista, XP

2D Graphics:
64-bit performed better. XP tested very well with the exception of 2d shapes.
Best-Worst: XP, 2008, Vista

3D Graphics (no full screen):
32-bit performance better except with 2008.
Best-Worst: XP, Vista, 2008, Vista SP-1

3D Graphics (full screen/complex):
64-bit performance better except Vista SP-1
Best-Worst: Vista, 2008, XP 64, Vista 32, Vista 64, XP 32

Memory:
64-bit performance better
Best-Worst 64: XP, Vista SP1, 2008, Vista
Best-Worst 32: Vista, Vista SP1, 2008, XP

Disk:
32 vs 64-bit had little difference except with Vista's sequential writing. 64-bit performed better there.
XP and Server 2008 both showed even, but noticeable faster results vs Vista.
Click to expand...
 
Jay_oasis said:
has anyone tried terminal services with 08?
Click to expand...

In testing yes.
Printing seems to be fixed.
The best thing for me though, is Application Publishing.
Users no longer have to have a desktop to use an applicaiton. (yep, like Citrix!)
We'll be implementing this in about two weeks for our ERP.
 
I'm extremely skeptical about this spiderman3.avi thing.. I'm not aware of there being any DRM involved in file operations, only when playing protected (and only protected) media. But even if there were some kind of DRM on file copying, it's completely unfeasible that it would take an hour to copy a 1kb file because of it. The only way such a thing could realistically would would be to scan files for some kind of signature, which would obviously not be present in a 1kb text file. It would be ridiculous to search for a string like "spiderman" in the file name, and such a scheme would be trivial to avoid, never mind the false positives when you're downloading a Spiderman trailer or writing a review of the latest Spiderman film. Even if the file were being searched for something, even on a 386 it wouldn't take anywhere remotely near an hour for a 1kb file.

If this 'DRM' is to deliberately slow down copying of any .avi to a ridiculously slow speed, people would definitely be up in arms about it, and I'd have noticed. Plus, again, everyone would be renaming their .avi files to some other extension. And overall, it wouldn't actually prevent the media being copied at all.

I've not seen any realistic data that suggests that DRM affects anything except playing protected content in Vista, only rumours and hypothetical situations and, in this case, dubious-sounding tests that no-one can either find or reproduce.
 
even though there should be no difference between Vista and Server 2008, I do notice a considerable difference between the two. I have an old Celeron 2.0 with 512MB RAM that I was using as a file/web server and Vista was (understandably) quite slow, even when I turned off all the bells and whistles, it just wasn't happening. I later installed Server 2008 on the same machine and it was significantly faster. Maybe its the way it optimizes services, or maybe a lot of the background stuff in Vista is not enabled in 2008, but all I know is that the old Celeron is quite usable with 2008 where it's dog slow with Vista.
 
maw said:
even though there should be no difference between Vista and Server 2008, I do notice a considerable difference between the two. I have an old Celeron 2.0 with 512MB RAM that I was using as a file/web server and Vista was (understandably) quite slow, even when I turned off all the bells and whistles, it just wasn't happening. I later installed Server 2008 on the same machine and it was significantly faster. Maybe its the way it optimizes services, or maybe a lot of the background stuff in Vista is not enabled in 2008, but all I know is that the old Celeron is quite usable with 2008 where it's dog slow with Vista.
Click to expand...

That's what we are talking about. Go through Vista and turn off all the unused services, all that background stuff and it will be faster.

Just turning off aero doesn't do a thing. It's being processed by the video card. And since the video card doesn't have anything to do while not gaming it makes sense to offload all that to the video card.
 
I just did a quick benchmark on XP Pro, Vista Business, and Server 2008 Enterprise with Quake 3 Arena. My XP installation is nLited and Vista is vLited. I did not tweak the base install of Server 2008 other than enabling sound and installing drivers.

Edit: All are 32-bit versions of the OSes.

[OS]: [demo001] / [demo002]
XP Pro SP3: 274.2 / 270.0
Vista SP1: 243.3 / 239.1
Server 2008: 238.2 / 234.5

Results pretty much show Server 2008 and Vista SP1 are the same. Had I tweaked Server 2008 more, I probably would have gained a few FPS to match a vLited Vista.
 
demo001 and demo002 are the original release demos in Q3... pretty old stuff but I guess it works. If you're not willing to compare stock installs of each OS then the results are tainted and worthless as a comparison.
 
Sorry, I don't have many PC games. :[

I never said I wasn't willing to compare stock installs. This thread's discussion just piqued my curiosity, and I wanted to do a quick comparison to what I already have. I just slipstreamed an XP disc with SP3 and a Vista SP1 disc, so I'm good to go.

Joe Average said:
You could spend a week tweaking out Vista (Business would be the closest edition I think to Server 2008 Standard/Enterprise as it's got no fluff going on) and you still wouldn't match the sheer raw speed and performance of 2K8 Standard/Enterprise out of the box.
Click to expand...
 
Joe Average said:
demo001 and demo002 are the original release demos in Q3... pretty old stuff but I guess it works. If you're not willing to compare stock installs of each OS then the results are tainted and worthless as a comparison.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's worthless at all. The discussion here is that Server 2008 can be tweaked to be a fine workstation and that Vista can be tweaked to perform just as well as Server 2008. So we are dealing with tweaked operating systems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top