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"

[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.

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.