Windows sever 2008

[zwanzig]

should I run my home pc with Win server 2008? I am just going to use it as an OS, not for gaming ..

or is it better to stick with vista/XP?

 

[ghostchamber]

Are you happy with Vista/XP? Is there something you're hoping to achieve with Server 2008 that you can't achieve with the other two?

 

[R8DERHED5150]

Server OS's are useless unless you are going to use the box as an actual server for something wheather it be a Termial server, File server, Domain Controller, pr0n server, virtual server, exchanger server. It's got some kewl new stuff for Active Directory and domain stuff, but otherwise server will do you no good for an everyday OS. Oh, unless you want to run an insane amount of RAM but for what? Stick with XP or Vista.

If you want to stick with a Microsoft OS and go light, try nLite or something like that where you can take out crap that you don't want/need and create your own custom streamline install of XP.

 

[Joe Average]

Bleh.

Most people will automagically say "don't use a server OS as a workstation OS, it's stupid" and not really have much to back up why except a lot of hot air and big words. A server version of Windows just means it's tweaked to perform better (by default, they are faster than any 'workstation' level OS from Microsoft) because they typically have a lot of the services disabled from the default installation.

Like with Windows XP Professional (32 bit) - by default the themes are on, sound is on, and a bunch of other services that enable how it looks and feels, and even how it sounds. By default, Windows Server 2003 has none of the enabled after the installation, and hence, it runs faster (really, it is, by quite a large amount but not just because of those services). There are many tweaks and optimizations that work to make a server OS multitask better, handle RAM/memory management better, etc. - and all that contributes to a better OS overall.

So yes, you can run Windows Server 2008 as a 'workstation' OS, it just takes some doing to get it tweaked and optimized for that purpose. Hell, even a Microsoft employee recently admitted he's using Windows Server 2008 as a workstation OS - and he talked about it, telling the whole world about it, on his MSDN blog no less. Webhosting provided by Microsoft itself allowing a Microsoft employee to say "Hell yes you can do this, and here's how!" Ain't that a kick in the pants? Anyway, here's the URL to the blog entry:

http://blogs.msdn.com/vijaysk/archi...indows-server-2008-as-a-super-desktop-os.aspx

The biggest hurdle to running Windows Server 2008 as a workstation OS is the price: because it's a server OS, it's hella expensive compared to Microsoft's consumer OSes like Vista and XP. But, some people get 2K8 for free by attending seminars, conventions, etc. It's just something you have to decide for yourself, really.

And that's all that advice that matters: go download the trial version of Windows Server 2008 from:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/trial-software.aspx

and figure out for yourself why it does make a kickass workstation OS when you do most if not all of the tweaks listed in that blog. I think you'll find that it's an amazingly fast and very high performance OS compared to Vista, and even to XP.

But, it's your choice in the long run. Check it out, see what it can do, kick the virtual tires as it were, take it for a spin...

 

[R8DERHED5150]

Bleh.

Most people will automagically say "don't use a server OS as a workstation OS, it's stupid" and not really have much to back up why except a lot of hot air and big words. A server version of Windows just means it's tweaked to perform better (by default, they are faster than any 'workstation' level OS from Microsoft) because they typically have a lot of the services disabled from the default installation.

Like with Windows XP Professional (32 bit) - by default the themes are on, sound is on, and a bunch of other services that enable how it looks and feels, and even how it sounds. By default, Windows Server 2003 has none of the enabled after the installation, and hence, it runs faster (really, it is, by quite a large amount but not just because of those services). There are many tweaks and optimizations that work to make a server OS multitask better, handle RAM/memory management better, etc. - and all that contributes to a better OS overall.

So yes, you can run Windows Server 2008 as a 'workstation' OS, it just takes some doing to get it tweaked and optimized for that purpose. Hell, even a Microsoft employee recently admitted he's using Windows Server 2008 as a workstation OS - and he talked about it, telling the whole world about it, on his MSDN blog no less. Webhosting provided by Microsoft itself allowing a Microsoft employee to say "Hell yes you can do this, and here's how!" Ain't that a kick in the pants? Anyway, here's the URL to the blog entry:

http://blogs.msdn.com/vijaysk/archi...indows-server-2008-as-a-super-desktop-os.aspx

The biggest hurdle to running Windows Server 2008 as a workstation OS is the price: because it's a server OS, it's hella expensive compared to Microsoft's consumer OSes like Vista and XP. But, some people get 2K8 for free by attending seminars, conventions, etc. It's just something you have to decide for yourself, really.

And that's all that advice that matters: go download the trial version of Windows Server 2008 from:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/trial-software.aspx

and figure out for yourself why it does make a kickass workstation OS when you do most if not all of the tweaks listed in that blog. I think you'll find that it's an amazingly fast and very high performance OS compared to Vista, and even to XP.

But, it's your choice in the long run. Check it out, see what it can do, kick the virtual tires as it were, take it for a spin...

A little contradicting no?. You say can't back it up, but then turn around and start in on the difficulties of getting it to run the way you want. Why waiste time and money on a server os unless its for production when you can slim down XP and get the same performance for less? If you know what to take out of a workstation OS and what not to install, you can still have one kick ass machine and not go broke or expire in 6 months. You can just the same turn all the candy off or remove the crapware if you know what you are doing.

Then again if experimenting is your thing well shoot, go for it. No one ever said you can't. I did it once but would never bother again unless I was building a full on server that would require a server OS.

The box will only to run so fast.

 

[Mithent]

In the case of XP and Windows Server 2003, Server 2003 was a product developed on a later codebase (Vista is based on Server 2003), and so there's a reason why Server 2003 can be better than XP.

Vista SP1 has the same kernel as Windows Server 2008, however, and it's hard to find compelling reasons why it should be better to use Server 2008 for a purpose it was never intended for instead of using Vista. There's no reason why a server OS should be inherently better than a workstation OS for single-user tasks; it's not as if Microsoft gets all their awesome world-class programmers to work on the server OS while interns write the workstation one, or that they deliberately detune the workstation. Things will be different, but they'll be aimed towards responding to multi-user loads.

If you follow all the things recommended in the blog, then everything you're doing is spending time making Server 2008 as much like Vista SP1 as possible. The only difference is that you have Hyper-V, but Virtual PC/VMWare/VirtualBox would meet most users' needs. If you need server-orientated features like Hyper-V, then that's a better reason to use Server 2008 than expecting it to be intrinsically better because it's a server OS.

 

[DeaconFrost]

Going by Mithent's second paragraph, the more "tweaking" you do to Server 2008 to make it a workstation, the more like Vista it will become. You can save a lot of time and potential hassle just by using Vista.

Now, if you have access to all these OSes through something like MSDN or TechNet, use whatever you want, since cost won't be an issue. I'd still prefer using Vista as the host OS, and then trying out Server 2008 on a spare system or in a VM.

 

[Archer75]

Correct, server 2008 is Vista with some tweaks. Easier to tweak vista than to tweak server 2008. You can't install most home anti virus software as it recognizes a server OS and requires you to purchase enterprise level software.