Slashdot Mirror
Making the Switch To Windows "Workstation" 2008
snydeq writes "Disenchanted with Vista? Why not convert Windows Server 2008 into the lean, efficient, reliable 'power user' OS that Windows should be? InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy, who has been using a converted 'Workstation' 2008 as his primary OS since hitting a wall using Vista as a Visual Studio development platform four months ago, says the guerrilla OS has turned his Dell notebook into a well-oiled machine that never gets sluggish and rarely needs to reboot. Those interested in making the switch should check out win2008workstation.com, a clearinghouse for 'Workstation' 2008 tips and techniques. Kennedy also offers a link to a Windows 2008 Workstation Converter utility for those looking to quickly convert a fresh Server 2008 install without hacking the registry or manually installing/enabling lots of services and features."
A Windows install without all the needless bells and whistles runs nicely. Who'd have thunk it. Well, many consumers thunk it, but Microsoft's marketing demagogues didn't.
IMO, Vista is Microsoft's version of New Coke or the Arch Deluxe (if any of you are old enough to remember them). Although the same could have been said about Windows ME.
Maybe Windows is like Star Trek movies... only every other release is good.
Start a happiness pandemic
You can double the cost of your $700 PC.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
I have often wondered why we have not seen more of this.
The stability of MS' "Server" line of OS' is proof that they have no real excuse for the Vista poor performance (other than it was deliberately done).
If I were not such a PC gamer, I would probably still be using the Windows 2000 Advanced Server on my current 4-core CPU. (It supports up to 4 CPUs if memory serves). XP is still fine by me, but no where as stable as Win2kAS ever was.
I assume that 2008 server is made from the same stuff.
how much more is Win2k8 than vista... I mean unless of course you are ARRRGH! pirates...for god sakes Win2k8 is going to be cost prohibitive as a desktop os for the vast majority of people.
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
Just install the 64bit version of Vista with 8GB of memory and be done with it. That solution is cheaper than Server 2008.
Life is not for the lazy.
....you could just install XP?
Back in the Windows 98 days, my friend introduced me to Windows 2000. It was a "server" OS, but was far more stable than 98, and, for the most part, did or could be made to do everything 98 did (in other words, you could easily play games on it). Sure enough, the Windows XP wound up using the same basic core as Windows 2000. Will history repeat itself with Windows 7...? If it does, they may yet convert me. Until then, I'll stick with my XP setup, thanks.
The author of the article mentioned he was setting a a Visual Studio development environment, which probably means he is a MSDN subscriber, which gives him rights to pretty much all of Microsoft's software for development purposes. So to someone who has the full MSDN subscription, or even just the OS portion, this is a no additional cost option: they have already paid for it.
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
So you spent probably more than the cost of the hardware for an average PC on an operating system to replace vista? Why do that? Linux is free and performs great on new hardware and old hardware alike. Considering modern Linux distros have UIs which are easier to use and more productive than windows (give windows users a few days adjustment, of course), the only reasons left for running Windows are legacy apps that only run on Windows, difficulty with drivers and games.
So from what you're saying, one of the arguments for running windows is out the window. Driver installation sucks, and sounds about the same as installing most tricky things on Linux these days. (my recent experience with a newer DVICO TV tuner and broadcom wireless come to mind). That leaves legacy apps and games, but then a lot of legacy apps don't work on newer versions of windows, so it's a safer bet to keep the old OS in a VM image or running on an old box.
That really just leaves games.
Therefore windows is now just a toy.
Windows Server 2008 is an extremely expensive toy.
What is the point of this article?
I don't therefore I'm not.
Vista SP1 == Windows Server 2008 + Active Directory + some other extra toys (depending on version) and minus others (Media Center for instance).
I mean really, I love how the image of one is completely tarnished but the image of the other is "not bad for a MS OS"....it's like comparing Windows 2000 Server & Pro.
The only other difference is what's enabled by default, which in Win2008 is rather less. It only takes a few minutes to shutdown the same services in Vista.
throw new NoSignatureException();
It is easier to slim Vista into a real workstation than it is to tweak 2008 into a real workstation and a lot cheaper. Try adding $100 worth of RAM. If you can't afford $100 worth of RAM then you don't need a real workstation (or you're broke from buying an iPhone). Post suggests "rarely needs to reboot" so I call BULLSHIT. I run 20+ Vista systems and none, if you don't install unsigned drivers or crappy software; ever need a reboot or get sluggish. One user thought there was a problem when WSUS installed SP1 and rebooted; they had to logon rather than unlock the workstation. They thought there was a power failure. I'm sick of reading about users who have ONE computer that they upgraded from {some OS} to Vista then complained about driver problems. Puh-leez. Stop installing Vista on VIA chipsets with AMD 3D NOW processors.
Because it's mostly the same stuff as Vista SP1? Just set the classic theme and you're good to go.
For that you need about 1GB. Vista roughly doubles XP's RAM requirements in my book. For XP I listed it as 256MB/512MB/1GB meaning that 256MB was the absolute minimum for a usable system. If you had less, I said stick with 2k. 512MB was the minimum for reasonable performance if you wanted to load only a couple apps and such. 1GB was the recommended amount for good performance for normal use.
For Vista I say it's 512MB/1GB/2GB. Vista on 512MB is pretty painful. Vista on 2GB runs great.
There's really no room to bitch, either. 2GB of RAM now is cheaper than 128MB was when XP came out. Right now on Newegg you can get 2GB of DDR2 for $20 shipped after rebate. That's $10/gig. If you can't afford that, well then you probably can't afford the upgrade price to Vista and shouldn't. Even if you want high performance RAM it's cheap. High performance DDR2 800 4GB sets (2x2GB) are $100 with no rebate. So for $200 you can max out a motherboard.
The whining about Vista needing lots of RAM is silly, since RAM is just dirt cheap. Also bitching that old hardware can't take a new OS is silly. XP has not stopped working. It will continue to work, and continue to be supported, for many more years. If you have an old system that can't handle Vista, just don't get it.
Is "disable internet explorer security"
I think that speaks for itself in both irony and otherwise. I think I'll stick with ubuntu.
"Lean", "mean", "power user", "guerilla OS", damn. There is something rather sad is the attempt to make Windows sound like something interesting, something "rad".
I guess it's a form of self-justification. Some people can't take the hit of using Linux on their daily lives, and that is perfectly understandable all things considered, but trying to make it "it is just as elite!" is depressing to watch, like the guy who bought the mini-van because of the space but feels the need to justify to others that the mini-van is truly a racing vehicle.
I haven't had an anti-virus package installed on my Windows machine since DOS, and have yet to get a virus.
I love comments like this. If you don't use any sort of AV software, how do you know you haven't gotten a virus? There are quite a few that you can get where you would never know about them unless you checked for them.
Anything by Adobe. The GIMP is not a valid Photoshop equivalent. Inkscape is not a valid Illustrator equivalent. Scribus is not a valid PageMaker equivalent.
On the other hand, how many people have an actual need for full fledged professional suites ?
If you are a professional photograph, a publisher, etc. I understand that you live and die by Photoshop & Illustrator.
But a big majority of the windows users who are complaining about the lack of adobe software on linux, mainly use it to quickly crop and remove red eyes from the pictures they took during their vacation.
Adobe's product are a huge overkill and too much expensive for what the average Joe is doing with them.
Of course the average Joe got them (illegaly) for free on some peer-2-peer system, so the price isn't really an issue for them.
What the average user mostly does with a computer is pretty much covered under linux (and some times even better, see Firefox).
That's why you start to see success with Linux on sub note-books like the Asus eeePC, etc.
Not everyone has tons of disposable money to throw on expensive toys. Thus pro-tools are an overkill, and similarly using Sever 2008 as a main OS on a workstation is just completely insane for anyone but the most hard-core gamers (who are also willing to spend several days tuning and "fiddle-farting" their OS around drivers and missing DLL problems to get their games working - making it as much easy to handle as the worst case scenario in Linux).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
The $1500 price tag for server 2008 is a bit of a hurdle...
Wow, I've seen trolls, but this takes the cake.
Somebody disagrees with you, so they're trolling? Interesting.
Internal Mail apps? And you think Exchange is EASY to administer?
I haven't seen a better mail/calendaring solution out there. Zimbra is unpleasant at best.
Plus, you don't pay anything for it past the cost of learning and setting it up.
"Free software is only free if your time has no value."
I've moved on from Microsoft software, maybe you should look at what you are bashing and give it a shot.
Right, because I don't write software that targets Linux all the time. 'Course not. None of it, ever.
(Hint: that would be sarcasm. I write a lot of software that targets Solaris/BSD/Linux. I've used it extensively both as a desktop and a server. I'd rather a Windows server any day for anything except, as I said, production use of a service or web app or the like.)
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."