Anyone using Server 2008 as a workstation OS?

[Rubycon]

I tried this a few months back and it was very snappy and all the Vista x64 drivers seemed to work just fine. Anyone else using it longterm?

 

[nerp]

There have been a few threads here about it. Some people swear by it. Others say running a server OS, no matter what, is ludicrous. Essentially, installing the desktop components on Server 08 = vista.

 

[Rubycon]

That's what I abhor since the 95 days - animations, themes, etc. Vista is really bad with that. If I wanted the "Mac look" I would buy a Mac hehe.

Maybe that's why it runs better? Installation was much faster and it did not have that ridiculous evaluation of system performance either. A modern, secure OS that runs all my software - strictly business - is what all that matters. 🙂

 

[drebo]

So run Vista with the classic theme. Paying an extra $700 for it is just plain stupid.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: nerp
There have been a few threads here about it. Some people swear by it. Others say running a server OS, no matter what, is ludicrous. Essentially, installing the desktop components on Server 08 = vista.

Yep, your basically running Vista SP1 with some stuff already turned off for you.

 

[atbnet]

Originally posted by: Rubycon
I tried this a few months back and it was very snappy and all the Vista x64 drivers seemed to work just fine. Anyone else using it longterm?

I would like to use it, but I think overall it is cost prohibitive to do so. Vista x64 flies for me, so I really cannot complain.

 

[Rubycon]

I was provided with disks and keys for all platforms through our IT dept back in February. I had 2008 Datacenter running on a dual quad Xeon with 64GB of ram. :laugh:

I know what you're thinking - yes Vista x64 also runs fast on that hardware but the server variant just seemed lighter. Superfetch was not on by default and I did notice more disk activity when opening large programs but that's an easy fix to get it started in the registry.

If you were buying the OS I suppose ultimate vs. S2008 is kind of no brainer. I guess the hacker kiddies warez'd a copy! :Q

 

[atbnet]

Originally posted by: Rubycon
I was provided with disks and keys for all platforms through our IT dept back in February. I had 2008 Datacenter running on a dual quad Xeon with 64GB of ram. :laugh:

I know what you're thinking - yes Vista x64 also runs fast on that hardware but the server variant just seemed lighter. Superfetch was not on by default and I did notice more disk activity when opening large programs but that's an easy fix to get it started in the registry.

If you were buying the OS I suppose ultimate vs. S2008 is kind of no brainer. I guess the hacker kiddies warez'd a copy! :Q

64 GB holy... I can't even use my entire 8 GB most of the time. What do you do with that much? I guess if they can afford a workstation with those specs the price for 2008 is probably nothing.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Rubycon
I was provided with disks and keys for all platforms through our IT dept back in February. I had 2008 Datacenter running on a dual quad Xeon with 64GB of ram. :laugh:

My desktop is a dual quad xeon with 32gig, if there was any benefit to running Server trust me I would, but there isnt.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: Rubycon
If you were buying the OS I suppose ultimate vs. S2008 is kind of no brainer. I guess the hacker kiddies warez'd a copy! :Q

Well, there's tons of free Server 2008 software sitting out there from the MS Launch events.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: Rubycon
I was provided with disks and keys for all platforms through our IT dept back in February. I had 2008 Datacenter running on a dual quad Xeon with 64GB of ram. :laugh:

My desktop is a dual quad xeon with 32gig, if there was any benefit to running Server trust me I would, but there isnt.

So Vista Ultimate is where it's at then? I'm still holding on to an XP x64 image but it's very clear that nvidia's GT200 drivers are optimized for Vista far better. Drivers for pro audio gear that we use are getting better for Vista 64 too which is welcome news indeed.

 

[Smilin]

I'm not sure how many folks know this. Although 2008 and Vista sp1 are the same kernel that kernel has been tuned differently.

As an example:
The length of the time slices that a given thread gets are different. Vista will have shorter slices to let all threads (especially GUI) be "snappy". 2008 is tuned for many users hitting it at once and many more processes. It needs the long slices so that sh1t can complete before being preempted and therefore not have to be context switched in as many times.

Same thing with XP vs 2003.

 

[amddude]

I have been using it and I'm satisfied. I never really used vista though. I cut straight from 2k3 server to 2k8.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

Yup... Faster yes, but slower at boot-up for some reason. Placebo effect, maybe. I can tell you 100% the jump from XP SP2 to Server 2003 SP2 was day-and-night. My desktop is the Q6600 with 4GB, but it feels rather slow when loading applications in general. Most applications loaded from the laptop feels much quicker.

The application set is identical when Vista Home Premium SP1 was still installed. The SP1 was integrated using vLite final version. I still have a 12GB image if I want to go back to it, which won't happen any time soon. The Server is setup so that it's as close to Vista as possible.

 

[Chiropteran]

It's fun to play with Hyper-V, that is about the only reason I would use Server 2008 as a Desktop OS. And it's not really worth $800 when you can get VMware Server or VirtualBox for free.