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."

Comments

Vista... Microsoft's "New Coke"

[gbulmash]

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.

Re:Vista... Microsoft's "New Coke"

[MsGeek]

Windows2000 Professional saved the world from Windows ME.

There, fixed that for you.

Something will save us from Vista.

Like Ubuntu, Kubuntu, or Xubuntu.

Re:Vista... Microsoft's "New Coke"

[ozmanjusri]

Perhaps Windows ME was New Coke and Vista is just Pepsi.

No, Vista is definitely a Ford Edsel

That's why we're all here, right? To celebrate V Day, the date 2 years ago when Microsoft took one of the computer industry's most hilarious pratfalls. But why? It really wasn't that bad an operating system. True, the OS was kind of homely, resource hungry and too expensive, particularly at the outset of the late '00s recession. But what else? It was the first victim of Redmond hyper-hype. Microsoft's marketing mavens had led the public to expect some plutonium-powered, pancake-making wonderOS; what they got was a XP in drag. Cultural critics speculated that the software was a flop because the CEO behaved like a cunt.

Paraphrased from Time's 50 Worst Cars.

Re:Vista... Microsoft's "New Coke"

[Creepy Crawler]

---(non-executable stuff is always safe to download)

Hardly. I can think of quite a few examples of non-executable files that can house nasties. Essentially, one finds a buffer overflow in a parser. MP3 stacks and video codecs are favorites to find holes and stupid stuff in. Also, exe's can be put in WMV's and other MS codecs too.

Once the overflow is ran by the unsuspecting user/admin, code is then ran as permission of that program. Better hope it's not an admin

Re:Vista... Microsoft's "New Coke"

[dhavleak]

Again, some of the security enhancements on Microsoft's servers are absurd. I can't remember all the details, but recent versions of their servers won't allow you to download anything from the Internet, won't let you install plugins or ActiveX controls (it won't even ask you, it just won't allow it), and even if you manage to download something, Windows won't run it.

Enhanced security mode -- you can turn it off from the server manager. But then again -- this is supposed to be a server OS so it makes sense to disallow such risky behavior (by default) on a server OS.

You can either jump through insane hoops to get things working, or you can disable their security.

Not true, but it's possible that most people will effectively do just that. The reason it isn't true: go to Tools > Internet Options > Security > Custom Level. IE's security options are actually extremely fine-grained -- it's pretty far from an all-or-nothing approach. Even with Enhanced security mode on, you can explicitly add sites to the various zones (intranet, trusted, etc.) so you end up with a white-list approach.

Re:Vista... Microsoft's "New Coke"

[somersault]

Couple of things. You forgot Mac OS. That's a pretty good choice for the masses and the technically minded alike. Secondly, you're being dumb. So what if it isn't designed for home use? Cars can be modified. You could modify your wife's accord with monster truck suspension and tyres, bigger engine, whatever, to suit specific tasks. Who cares if it wasn't designed for that if, in the end, it works. If there is no way of getting DirectX working properly on this then it isn't suited for use by the masses, but otherwise I can see it being a perfectly usable workstation OS. I've used Windows NT Server, Windows 2000 and 2003 Server, and they do have some useful features.

'Server' just means it has more features built in for administrative tasks and doing stuff like DNS/DHCP/web hosting. Look at something like Ubuntu. The only difference between 'home' type and 'server' type installs is some extra server-y packages, and perhaps a lack of X for some server installs. That doesn't mean that X and games can't be installed on the server, or that apache can't be installed on your home machine.

If you don't like this idea, just forget about it, and stop trying to tell people what they can't do, just because they aren't "meant" to. Maybe try watching a bit of amateur rally driving too. Lo, I see front wheel drive family cars driving down dirt tracks that they weren't ever "meant" to drive on!

Plust best of all

[nizo]

You can double the cost of your $700 PC.

Why not more of this?

[Zymergy]

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.

Re:Why not more of this?

[vux984]

I have often wondered why we have not seen more of this.

Price? The reality that it doesn't matter? Both.

NT Server wasn't really any more stable than NT workstation. Server 2k wasn't really any more stable than 2k Pro. Server 2003 wasn't really any more stable than XP.

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).

I find Vista to be very fast, and it hasn't crashed on me yet. I use it on multiple PCs. I don't deny its been something of a fiasco in general, but at the end of the day, if you put Vista on suitable hardware with good drivers there is really almost nothing seriously wrong with it.

A lot of the 'vista' problems were related to bad drivers, buggy bioses, and so on. Ultimately relatively few of the "Vista Issues" are related to Vista, and can be traced to some flakey 3rd party software.

On some level blaming Vista for running legacy windows stuff poorly is like blaming Linux for running legacy windows stuff poorly. The only difference is that Vista actually runs it well enough for people to expect it to work.

Re:Why not more of this?

[Tweenk]

if you put Vista on suitable hardware with good drivers there is really almost nothing seriously wrong with it.

This "if" thing is what's seriously wrong with it.

come on this is not remotely affordable for most

[atarione]

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.

The new Windows 2000?

[snarfies]

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.

Re:come on this is not remotely affordable for mos

[Xibby]

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.

windows server is limp

[Max Littlemore]

i converted to it from vista and i never get the spinning circle anymore. its just snappier.

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.

one thing to note, its kind of a bitch to get drivers working. vista drivers work fine but you'll have to open those driver installers with an archive utility, pull out the .inf driver files and manually install through device manager. although if you're installing windows server you probably can do that stuff no sweat. i highly recommend windows 2008

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?

Re:windows server is limp

[FishWithAHammer]

Are there really any (non game) apps by anyone other than Microsoft that won't work on Linux or don't have any equivalent method in Linux?

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.

WINE is not an acceptable solution. You and the rest of your Linux advocates desperately want people to fiddle-fart with the computer in order to get to a place where they can do the work they originally came there to do. That's not going to fly.

I'd say "when you can point to a DE that's as good as Windows, then you're allowed to talk," but you've made it clear that in your little fantasy world, the Linux DEs that exist now meet that requirement. In the real world, they most certainly do not.

It's the same!

[Toreo asesino]

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.

One of the first things in this server 08 website

[poetmatt]

Is "disable internet explorer security"

I think that speaks for itself in both irony and otherwise. I think I'll stick with ubuntu.

If you can't join them...

[fsmunoz]

"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.

But how many people really need them ?

[DrYak]

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).