• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Windows Server 2008 as desktop OS

R

Roguestar

Diamond Member
I've searched and can't see any threads or mention of anyone using Windows Server 2008. I recently got myself a copy off MSDNAA (thanks MSDNAA) and installed Server 2008 Enterprise, and took myself through the steps of setting it up tailored towards workstation use with the help of Win2008Workstation. I'm really quite happy with it at the moment, and it seems a bit more responsive than Vista. Not that I'm dissatisfied with Vista; on the contrary I really love it but for some reason I got bored enough to install Server 2k8 (read: procrastinating exam revision).

Once it's all set up to look identical to vista (screenshot) it's pretty much indistinguishable to the naked eye with Aero on and even the Vista hourglass-spinny-blue-circle-thing cursors but the difference I've noticed is that it sits idling on around 880MB of RAM out of 4GB whereas Vista would sit on 1.2GB. I've got Superfetch enabled and the search indexer is running so it's not like there's nothing going on. Having a little trouble getting wireless to work in the uni labs (special certificate and authentication required), installing the Intel wireless manager sorted that out, while at my friend's house it connected to his wireless just fine. This is all on a laptop, and after enabling hibernate it looks like in the long run it'll replace Vista as my desktop OS. Even if just because it amuses me that to buy Server 2008 normally it costs twice as much as my laptop 🙂.

Has anyone else in this too-infrequently-visited subforum using Server 2008? Anyone else with experiences, warnings, thoughts they'd like to share?
 
Originally posted by: Roguestar
Originally posted by: bsobel
Congratulations, your running Vista SP1 now.
Click to expand...

I'm aware they use the same kernel, yes.
Click to expand...

Your running Vista, you jumped thru hoops to make server act like workstation. What a shock, it is 😉
 
Well I guess it still wasted a few hours and handed me back a couple of megs of RAM I'd otherwise not be using. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Roguestar
Well I guess it still wasted a few hours and handed me back a couple of megs of RAM I'd otherwise not be using. 🙂
Click to expand...

Im willing to get your service load is still slightly different between the two (some things just arent shipped on both, such as UpnP support) which accounts for the difference.
 
UPnP support, like a whole rake of other stuff, has to be manually added. Even windows search isn't added until you add the file server role and windows search service. Still, it's an interesting experience to get to grips with it nonetheless, I've never installed a server OS before.

Originally posted by: nerp
The "2008" in "server 2008" feels so... NEW, though. It HAS to be better!!!
Click to expand...

How constructive, thanks for that.
 
Originally posted by: Roguestar
UPnP support, like a whole rake of other stuff, has to be manually added. Even windows search isn't added until you add the file server role and windows search service. Still, it's an interesting experience to get to grips with it nonetheless, I've never installed a server OS before.

Originally posted by: nerp
The "2008" in "server 2008" feels so... NEW, though. It HAS to be better!!!
Click to expand...

How constructive, thanks for that.
Click to expand...

UPnP support wasnt available (manually or otherwise) on 2003 server, I admit I havent checked to see if you can add it now on 2008 (would make sense, always thought it was a silly exclusion)

Bill
 
Originally posted by: Roguestar
Originally posted by: bsobel
Congratulations, your running Vista SP1 now.
Click to expand...

I'm aware they use the same kernel, yes.
Click to expand...

and xp64 and server 2003 are the same way....Yet server 2003 is still loads better. They sahre traits but don't use the same.


Server 2008 is also a shitload better than Vista. I'm using all my installs though for light duty server work so I haven't set it up as a workstation. there are a few at 2cpu that have done it that way and have enjoyed it.
 
and xp64 and server 2003 are the same way....Yet server 2003 is still loads better. They sahre traits but don't use the same.
Click to expand...

The problem is folks like you believe that. Its a registry/license change that reports XP64 vs Server 2003.
 
If you don't like those pesky graphical user interfaces stealing all your RAM, yeah. Not that it's particularly easy to surf the net from the command line.
 
:gift:I didn't mean to sound snarky. There's no harm in playing around with stuff, I do it all the time. I'm just one of those stubborn old farts who says "it's a server OS damnit" and think it's pretty silly, especially when you consider the cost aspect, but up until recently, a lot of people running server OSs did so to get around activation/WGA issues, but from what I gather Server 08 will put an end to that.

The main thing for me is the whole issue of "drastically better performance"... Running a server OS seems counterintuitve.. Save the money for better/faster hardware. Fast hardware should be fast enough that you're not wondering if the whole thing is a placebo effect or if it really IS faster. When you're straining to tell, that's usually a sign that the difference is, in fact, unnoticable. I highly doubt that putting server 08 on my intel box would make such an earth-shattering difference. Everything pops open instantly. I'm never sitting there going "come on, hurry up" I often sit and wait for things that already popped open and are buried in the background before realizing it's already open. I don't see how server 08 would speed up mpg4 encoding times over Vista Sp1. . . stuff like that, you know? Maybe I just resist a barrage of pro server 08 posts and every wanker recommending it over Vista as if it's the suggestion de rigueur from now on because some half-arsed website posted an excel graph.

 
Originally posted by: nerp
Maybe I just resist a barrage of pro server 08 posts and every wanker recommending it over Vista as if it's the suggestion de rigueur from now on because some half-arsed website posted an excel graph.
Click to expand...
It's common to get "how do I use Windows Server xxxx as a desktop?" questions after each new Microsoft Server xxxx Launch event, where MS hands out free NFR copies of the latest Server software.
 
Originally posted by: bsobel
and xp64 and server 2003 are the same way....Yet server 2003 is still loads better. They sahre traits but don't use the same.
Click to expand...

The problem is folks like you believe that. Its a registry/license change that reports XP64 vs Server 2003.
Click to expand...



They share the same kernel. XP64 is based off of server 2003 code base, not the XP 32bit code base. They follow the same server pack releases. XP64 is not the same as xp32 versions.

Which is also why i never understood why people who wanted to run server 2003 as a workstation, just didnt run xp64. Less headaches getting it to act like a desktop OS, because it includes all those features and is supported by MS to be a desktop OS.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top