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."
Slashver-assver-tisement. I fail to understand why this is news, why it matters, or why the kdawson isn't embarrassed by posting that summary.
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.
And Microsoft Windows XP crashes all the time, at least by my standards.
I find Vista to be very fast, and it hasn't crashed on me yet.
Oh, God! I love the smell of astroturf in the morning!
irc.easynews.com [idge.net] to 6et involve3 in polite to bring
Linux is free and performs great on new hardware and old hardware alike.
For you, it very well might, but that certainly isn't the experience for everyone. Myself included.
Considering modern Linux distros have UIs which are easier to use and more productive than windows
Again, for YOU. I certainly haven't been impressed with the UI in Linux. Not only is it visually unappealing for me, but it just feels cheap and sluggish. I guess with most zealots reading their email in Pine and typing in Bash windows 95% of the time they never really take notice.
Must be fun working for a company small enough not to need enterprise-level services.
(Setting aside the fact that Linux servers are, for most small business tasks, more trouble than they're worth--Ubuntu Server? Are you fucking nuts? If you have to use a Linux server, why aren't you using a distro from people with an actual clue about servers?)
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Why not run a decent 'Workstation' OS like Solaris or Linux?
When those become a decent workstation OS, I might do that.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Haven't met a lot of windows admins, have you? That isn't to say that there aren't a lot of really good Windows Admins, but the lucrative market attracts all kinds of people. Lots of good people, and lots of really bad people.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I was thinking about the more basic stuff, though. Like...err...a mail server that's worth using. There's nothing that steps up to Exchange in the OSS world. There's also software like SharePoint whose functionality doesn't really even exist in the OSS world.
For, say, high-load web apps (not written in ASP.NET, of course, although Mono's ASP.NET implementation is getting good), Linux makes a lot of sense. But for internal apps? Why make life harder on yourself?
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."