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"

[Baricom]

IMO, Vista is Microsoft's version of New Coke...Although the same could have been said about Windows ME.

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

Maybe Windows is like Star Trek movies... only every other release is good.

Would it be more accurate to say, "every other release is less bad?"

Arch Deluxe

Now you've crossed the line. The Arch Deluxe was the best McDonald's sandwich ever. It made Big Macs look like they came out of a vending machine.

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

[Jurily]

It's nice, but why are these necessary to use it as a "workstation"?

2. New User, Auto Logon and Strong Passwords Enforcement: How to create a new user, how to configure a user to logon automatically and how to disable enforcement of a minimum complexity for passwords.

8. Internet Explorer Enhanced Security: Disable Enhanced Security in Internet Explorer.

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

[nine-times]

It's nice, but why are these necessary to use it as a "workstation"?

2. New User, Auto Logon and Strong Passwords Enforcement: How to create a new user, how to configure a user to logon automatically and how to disable enforcement of a minimum complexity for passwords.

8. Internet Explorer Enhanced Security: Disable Enhanced Security in Internet Explorer.

2. Not sure about the auto logon. New user makes sense, right? Microsoft has gone crazy with some of the password requirements-- I'm fine with complexity, but IIRC the default domain settings on 2003 are something like, "Force users to change their password every 30 days, and don't let them re-use any of their last 14 passwords." And that's stupid.

8. 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.

Some of my details may be off, but the general idea is there. You can either jump through insane hoops to get things working, or you can disable their security.

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

[Weaselmancer]

WFW 3.11 fixed Windows 3.1.
Windows 98 SE fixed Windows 95.
Windows XP saved the world from Windows ME.
Something will save us from Vista.

If you number Windows 3.1 as the first release, Microsoft releases follow the same pattern that Star Trek movies do. The odd ones suck, and the even ones are ok.

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

[maglor_83]

The Arch Deluxe was the best McDonald's sandwich ever.

Is that meant to sound impressive?

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"

[MrCreosote]

"The Arch Deluxe was the best McDonald's sandwich ever" - baricom

"You're the most beautiful woman I've ever seen, and that's not saying much for you" - groucho marx

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"

[ScreamingCactus]

It made Big Macs look like they came out of a vending machine.

They don't?!?

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

[bandersnatch]

Windows2000 Professional saved the world from Windows ME.

There, fixed that for you.

Something will save us from Vista.

Like Ubuntu, Kubuntu, or Xubuntu.

Cthulhu?

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

[Tim C]

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.

Not true. I'm currently running Windows Server 2008 on my desktop, and while by default IE makes downloading stuff a little trickier than say XP, it most certainly will let you do it. It just throws up a warning or two, forcing you to click to say that yes, you really do mean to download it (and thus no, you're not being hit by a drive-by download). It's a nuisance (but certainly not "insane"), but then so are most security measures and this is a *server* OS, in the vast majority of deployments once you've set it up and installed the app(s), you shouldn't be surfing on it at all...

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

[KGIII]

Or you just don't run them on an OS that isn't designed for that. Man! I love car analogies tonight. I can take my wife's (really, she won't let me replace it) 1988 Honda Accord off the road and go into the woods of Maine with it. Or, instead, I can take my SUV out and actually enjoy myself and do so safely. (Sorry but, well, it seemed fitting.) The idea is that you don't use a server or workstation platform as a general home OS. Err, I do tend to like Microsoft products but I'm afraid your alternative is Ubuntu or sticking with XP if you can't stomach Vista. Those rules? As a retired (sort of) admin? I likes 'em. Not allowing people to install random stuff they found online and "needed?" I like that too.

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

[kiddygrinder]

I think you mean Debian Ubuntu, Xandros Ubuntu, Mandriva Ubuntu etc...

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

[Dersaidin]

Cthulhuntu*

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

[FishWithAHammer]

Err...Windows 2008 is entirely capable as a home OS. Just because it has "Server" in the name doesn't mean that it isn't. Windows 2000 was a "server" OS for a long time. Windows 2003 was too. (And 2003 was way nicer as a desktop than XP ever was, if not for its embarrassing failures with DirectX.)

My other machine is running 2008 now, with a local work-copy of IIS 7 running. Occasionally I use it for playing old emulated games (because that way I don't have to mess with plugging in controllers to my main machine), and my brother uses it for surfing the web.

Saying that your "only alternatives" to Vista are Ubuntu and XP is completely idiotic. 2008 is Vista without the suck, and it takes about half an hour to twiddle the settings for desktop use.

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

[BrainInAJar]

Cthulubuntu , linux for planet eating beings

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!

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

[X3J11]

No, you mean slackware. My 386/33MHz still has just 4MiB of RAM and a Hercules card for video, not VGA, you insensitive clod! I hope I get the 387 chip for Christmas this year, though.

As entertaining as that is, I actually prefer Slackware over any other distribution. It was the first I ever tried over a decade ago (!), and in my occasionally humble opinion believe it beats the tar out of all the buntus and everything else.

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

[peragrin]

since I lack mod points I have to agree with you. The dejon mustard sauce was great.

I actually got in trouble at MCD while working there for making an arch but using the grilled chicken instead of meat. now that was a tasty sandwich.

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

[k_187]

using the grilled chicken instead of meat

That says something about the chicken at McDonalds I think.

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

[Zashi]

Unless you're using windows server 2008 as a workstation. But who the hell would do that, right?

right?

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

[redxxx]

Bah, it's terrible. The non-euclidean window manager gives me the worst headaches.

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

[Koda]

"Looking round room,
I can tell that you
Are the most beautiful girl in the...room.
In the whole wide room
Oooh.

And when you're on the street
Depending on the street
I bet you are definitely in the top three
Good looking girls on the street
Depending on the street..."

-Flight of the Conchords

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

[LuNa7ic]

Cthulhuntu*

Don't you mean GNU/Cthulhuntu?

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

[nine-times]

Except (again, IIRC), Microsoft's own update service, for example, uses an ActiveX control. So if, for some reason, you want to visit Windows Update to update your OS, or install drivers, etc. you're in trouble.

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

[b0bby]

Why wouldn't you download all that stuff on your desktop machine & have it ready on a thumb drive once your server was installed? A server generally implies the presence of other machines. Why not keep the server locked down tight & use less important machines for the "risky" stuff? Sure, if you're using the OS as a desktop you'll need to fiddle with those settings, but if not, why not keep it as locked down as possible? If I'm setting up a Linux server, I don't toss Firefox on there just so I can download things. I'm not saying I haven't popped into IE on a Windows server to grab something, but every time I do I think that it's not really a great idea.

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

[JoeZeppy]

I don't think you can call a Big Mac a "hamburger" - it's more like a meat-filled savory-flavored Krispy Kreme donut.

I'm with the previous poster, I think they make them with crack.

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

[FreonTrip]

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

So, which OS is Diet Cherry Vanilla Dr. Pepper?

Plan 9. Duh. :P

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

[Creepy Crawler]

Heck, even in Linux, if a attacker wanted to root a machine, they could seed the logs with bad queries. Those queries were ANSI control codes for telnet, which could branch sessions and run separate programs. It could also blank the screen and other nasties.

No system is secure when there's errors in the parser, whether it be text or movie. They can at least get your user's rights to the system. Then it's just an elevation away.

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

[Curate]

Windows Update doesn't use an ActiveX control anymore, starting in Vista / Server 2008. The UI is now through a control panel applet. This makes it completely browser-independent.

Plust best of all

[nizo]

You can double the cost of your $700 PC.

Re:Plust best of all

[mrbluze]

You can double the cost of your $700 PC.

Microsoft don't care whether you love or hate their flagship OS as long as you pay them money one way or another.

Re:Plust best of all

[voltheir]

And this is why, as a developer or a card-carrying geek club member, you get an MSDN account. I've been running Server 08 as my core OS since its beta versions and have been nothing but thrilled with it. I still prefer the linux command line and power, but with the add-ons and virtualization at my fingertips I can get my BASH fix whenever I please (and no more).

Re:Plust best of all

[syousef]

You can double the cost of your $700 PC.

Downloads on the pirate bay cost $700? *smirk*

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?

[FishWithAHammer]

What, exactly, is a step backwards in XP from 2000? I've never been able to get a good answer out of people on this. I mean, sure, you can get better performance out-of-the-box, but other than that I just don't see it. And I turn off most of the eyecandy and other bullshit as a matter of course.

To me at least, XP with themes off feels as snappy as Windows 2000, even on older machines. Some stuff's been moved around, but meh--that happens in every version of Windows and complaining about that is somewhat silly. It's all still there. I do wish there was a way to establish Windows settings in a slipstream, though.

On my machines, I turn themes off, put the Start Menu and Control Panel back to classic view, show hidden files, show file extensions, and default all folder views to Detail. From a user perspective, it's pretty hard to distinguish that from Windows 2000, and you get the advantages (yes, advantages) of a more modern OS.

And a side note: decrying upgrades because you're afraid of your Windows admin knowledge becoming "obsolete" indicates that it already has.

Re:Why not more of this?

[lgw]

I run server 2003 64-bit as my destop OS. I ran all my games on it for years - only games that explicitly checked for the Windows version had any problems. Everything form Steam *64-bit Source engine) worked fine. Outside of drivers, 32-bit apps just worked.

Be warned though that there are some driver issues - my oddball HP printer, for example, never had a driver that worked on a 64-bit OS.

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.

Re:Why not more of this?

[TheNetAvenger]

You have outlined what the author of the site and people on Slashdot don't seem to understand no matter how many times it is explained to them or written about on Wikipedia.

Vista SP1 and Windows 2008 are identical OSes. The only differences is the features or components allowed to run and the default packages for applications installed.

If you turn on the same applications and services on both OSes (Vista SP1/Win2008) they function 100% the same.

They are the same code, just as NT has 'tried' to always be, with XP and 2003 Server being the exception (XP 64bit and 2003 were the same).

Going back to NT 4.0 people would claim that NT 4.0 Server was more stable or faster than NT 4.0 workstation, which back then was as insane as it is today.

For anyone here that doesn't get this... Go read any whitepaper on NT or Vista or Windows 2008 server.

If people are 'minimalists' and want Vista's features removed, it is easier to just TURN THEM OFF ON VISTA than to monkey with trying to get Windows 2008 to work as your desktop OS. You can turn off the Vista features in about 10-15 clicks, and BINGO, EXACTLY like Windows 2008 Server. Even though you are actually reducing overall performance by doing so.

This is like the people that turn off Aero when they first Boot Vista 'thinking' they are increasing performance, because if they had a clue they would realize that they just turned of 20% of the performance Vista brings to applications, and I'm not talking just what a Composer does, as Aero shoves GDI functions through the 3D GPU, as well as font drawing, and even bitmap decompression/compression that speeds up OLD applications drawing on the screen, and this isn't even touching the benefits of .NET 3.0/WPF and the Vector Composer relationship they lose by turning off Aero.

Microsoft is NOT stupid, their engineers are NOT stupid... Vista has features turned on that are not used on a Server and Windows 2008 has features turned on that a desktop won't use. That is the difference.

As consumers, turn as many of them on or off as you want, MS isn't stopping anybody.

Server core...

[genican1]

sounds nice, but what I usually do is just regedit my shell from explorer.exe to cmd. Saves time and resources. Turn off the unecessary services, and you've got a stable little (figuratively) os.

windows server is pimp

[mrterrysilver]

this is true, windows 2008 is awesome. i converted to it from vista and i never get the spinning circle anymore. its just snappier.

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

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.

Install RAM

[DigiShaman]

Just install the 64bit version of Vista with 8GB of memory and be done with it. That solution is cheaper than Server 2008.

Re:Install RAM

[scsirob]

All that, just to be able to do exactly what you could do with XP on a 32-bit machine with 512MB RAM three years ago?
Now that's absurd...

Incorrect use of the term 'Workstation'

[jaxtherat]

OEM Vista Home Basic $105
OEM Vista Home Premium $136
OEM Vista Business $166
OEM Vista Ultimate $229
OEM Vista Workstation (AKA 2008 server) $1090

Wow, that's quite a markup for a workstation OS!

(All prices in AU$)

Why not run a decent 'Workstation' OS like Solaris or Linux? If you want a 'home PC', Vista is fine, but Windows is not a 'Workstation' OS, and it never was.

Meh.

Re:Incorrect use of the term 'Workstation'

[drspliff]

I'm currently developing Windows apps without actually having to "use" windows to get my work done. Yup the beauty of cross compiling with MinGW and testing on the Windows XP machine I have hidden in the corner.

I think I've actually gotten better at writing code, because I have to read/check more and make sure that I think it works before testing.

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:The new Windows 2000?

[jonnythan]

Windows 2000 wasn't the "server" OS.

Windows 2000 was the business OS. It came in Professional desktop versions and various Server versions.

You can try it for free

[PercentSevenC]

It's a free download on Microsoft's website, good for a 60-day trial, extendable to 240 days. I'm a diehard Linux user, but I actually was pleasantly surprised when I tried it (not enough to keep it around, but it's probably my favorite Windows). Relatively snappy, PowerShell is built in, and no DRM crap. It's what should've been released as Windows Vista, IMO.

Re:You can try it for free

[the JoshMeister]

I'll provide links since you didn't. =)

Download Windows Web Server 2008 trial (or if you prefer, you can get a trial of a different version of Windows Server)

Buy Windows Web Server 2008 - apparently U.S. $140.91 ($157.76 after shipping according to shopzilla.com) from pcRUSH.com (I'd never heard of this company, but here's their Shopzilla customer rating page); this is the best price I could find, but it seems rather low so I'm somewhat skeptical.

Buy Windows Web Server 2008 - U.S. $362.49 with free shipping on Amazon.com; this is the second best price I could find, and looks a bit less fishy considering the price is closer to retail and the seller (Amazon) is well-known.

Feel free to search for better prices. I tried shopzilla.com and pricegrabber.com and the prices above were the best that came up.

In case you're wondering, the reason why I singled out Windows Web Server (as opposed to another edition of Windows Server) is that if you're not going to actually use the OS for the server features, it doesn't make sense to buy a more expensive edition. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:You can try it for free

[PercentSevenC]

After checking, I see that you are right. I was under the impression that PMP was not part of WS2K8. However, I never said I hated Vista. Quite the contrary, actually; Vista is a step up from XP in my (not very popular) opinion. But of course I prefer 2K8 over Vista, since it's noticeably faster (even with indexing, the Desktop Experience package, Aero, etc. enabled) and doesn't treat you like quite as much of an idiot. It also includes some nice power-user features that Vista doesn't, like Hyper-V and the System Resource Manager.

Re:Why not...

[OrangeTide]

XP 64 is better than win2k in many ways. (not to be confused with standard XP). it's more like server 2003.

I wouldn't mind going the Win2008 route (even though I'm a Unix&Linux die hard). But the price for Win2008 doesn't really make it a viable option as a Vista substitute:
Windows Server 2008 Standard $999
Windows Web Server 2008 $469

the webserver edition doesn't have any client access licenses, but I think you don't need any if you want to turn it into a workstation OS. Could be the cheapest route, but not certain if that would work.

how about Windows Server 2003?

[mako1138]

All I ever wanted was a stable (Windows) OS, without the eyecandy crap. So I ran Windows 2000 for a long time. Then I decided to try Windows Server 2003, and ran it for a few years. All the drivers from 2000/XP worked fine, and after some tweaking, everything was great.

So why don't I run it anymore? First, I got the software free through my school, and there was a legal agreement attached to it that I don't want to have to worry about now. Second, I'm not shelling out a kilobuck for a server OS so I can use it on a desktop. Third, there is a lack of decent firewall software for 2003, particularly free firewalls. Fourth, I don't want to deal with activation. (Also, the EULA apparently prohibits non-server use, but who cares about that.)

2008 has some nice features, but I'm not interested in adopting a Vista platform. I'm currently on XP, but only because of applocale, really.

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.

How much did you pay?

[clarkn0va]

I downloaded the free trial from microsoft and am using it occasionally for when I want to run cpu-z or the odd game (NWN2 refused to install).

Having run a bit of vista and Ubuntu on the same machine, I have to say 2008 runs a lot better than the one and not as well as the other ;)

db

Pft

[inKubus]

You can add Powershell to vista pretty easily, and strip off most of the junk. But what you really want is to move to 64 bit and Vista 64 is pretty dicey even in SP1. They tend to test the server products more completely before release. So they might have something there. But really, people should be complaining about why Vista isn't good, not moving to the next OS already..

The bottom line is they are basically the same, with different modules. So if you configure 08 with the exact same configuration as Vista, it will run just as crappy.

Personally, I have been forced into using Leopard (Mac OSX) at work for the past two months and I have been very pleased. UNIX is just great. Powershell is a step in the right direction but I'm not too impressed with it. You have to be very very knowledgable about all of the classes to use it effectively. For most tasks I am only needing text anyway, so why add the extra bloat of object piping? The only problem with Mac OSX is the GUI but I can run X and do most of what I want. I mean, I like the Mac GUI, but some of the stuff is frustrating to a power user. And all the addons cost money! It works pretty well for a dev box, with linux test and production servers to back it up. The best part is the huge, beautiful monitor and really really great fonts and typesetting. Nothing on windows comes close.

I have a beta of 2008 rolling around here somewhere that I picked up at the launch event. I also have VS 2008 which I believe is the finest IDE available. Although Eclipse could trump that if they could just move faster. So maybe I'll try this. Most places want you to use windows and I'm getting rusty already.

Re:Pft

[oPless]

> Personally, I have been forced into using Leopard (Mac OSX) at work for the past two months
> and I have been very pleased. UNIX is just great.

I switched to using a mac as my main box a few years ago, back in the days of Panther (10.3) Was using it until a couple of weeks ago when the hardware on the ibook started failing badly. Now I'm on Leopard, and a shiny new Leopard-based macbook, and apart from some OpenGL glitches that prevents Unity3d using shaders I'm more than happy with it.

> The only problem with Mac OSX is the GUI but I can run X and do most of what I want.
> I mean, I like the Mac GUI, but some of the stuff is frustrating to a power user.

What's wrong with the UI exactly? You have to spend at least 3 months to unlearn all your windowisms (yes that includes many linux window managers)

I'm a serious poweruser, and there's nothing that I can't do on OSX I can't do on linux/windows (other than visual studio, which is the only reason I have a windows VM) I suppose I could make do with monodevelop, but I'd rather not.

What can't you do?

I've bought a couple of tools ... transmit being the most significant (still I could get around that by using fuse...) Apple apps tend to be more polished than their windows counterparts, and I don't feel any resentment from paying for the apps either.

Windows Server 2008 has a better kernel..but

[tjstork]

Vista is the Windows Server 2003 kernel with some junk thrown in on it, and Windows Server 2008 is just the next generation of Windows Server 2003. So, right off the wheel, you are getting a better kernel in Windows Server 2008.

The thing is, though, if you are doing client development on Windows, you are probably going to want to be developing on Vista and on XP just so you can be using an OS that is tested.

Re:Windows Server 2008 has a better kernel..but

[tjstork]

No, I just missed this article:

Vista SP1 gets kernel upgrade

So Vista pre-SP1 got the Win2003 kernel, and Vista SP1 got 2008.

You don't need to be an accusatory jackass. Dick.

Upgrading the downgrade?

[Rui del-Negro]

So Server 2008 is better than Vista. What isn't?

The real question is what does it offer over Server 2003 x64 (or XP Pro 32) that offsets the less mature (sometimes non-existent) drivers and compatibility problems.

Re:Upgrading the downgrade?

[gbobeck]

So Server 2008 is better than Vista. What isn't?

Windows ME. Arguably...

drivers may be a problem

[Eil]

A few years back, the company I worked for tried pushing Windows 2003 terminal servers (using Linux as thin clients) for its clients. It actually worked rather well, but there was one major drawback: since Windows 2003 was a "server" OS, a lot of desktop applications and workstation hardware flat out refused to support it.

Our biggest challenge was printer drivers. Practically no printer manufacturers released Win2k3 drivers, because it was the only major MS operating system at the time that didn't have some sort of workstation edition. Even though there was no technical hurdles to providing the drivers, the installation packages would refuse to run, saying that they didn't support the OS. I was usually the one stuck having to hack in the manufacturer's Windows 2000 drivers just so our customers could print their stuff. In one case, we ended up deploying a Linux CUPS server just to forward the print jobs through because the Windows drivers were so terrible.

I've done this. I switched back to Vista.

[PhrostyMcByte]

I got Windows Server 2008 free at the LA launch, so I figured I'd give it a go. I installed it and quickly changed everything to function as a desktop. Then I switched back. Here's why:

• Many applications have real dumb incompatibilities. Usually it's just because they check the version, assume Server has everything that Vista has, and attempt to load some DLLs that don't exist on the Server version. This is fixable most of the time.
• Some applications have installer issues. Their Windows Live stuff will refuse to install on a Server OS. Unreal Tournament 3 seems to be hardcoded to only install on Vista and below - it should be a laugh when Windows 7 comes out and nobody can install the game on it. The workaround is to dump the DVD to your hard drive, remove the check in the .msi, and install from there.
• The sound system is screwy. Priorities are setup for different workloads, resulting in pops and hisses when you play music. This is fixable, but took me a while to figure out how and I still never seemed to get it perfect.
• The bluetooth stack is absent. It's not an optional component in the installer, it's just not there. So you don't have the nice integrated solution anymore, and have to install crappy vendor-specific stacks that don't seem to work for everything.

The experience is definitely not a simple "setup windows, modify windows, use as normal" one. Most of the random things that screw up are fixable, but just too much of a pain in the ass and ultimately a waste of time.

Server *can* run faster than Vista, but only because various artificial limits are raised or removed. Most developers work around these limits and most are very good at it, so I doubt any non-developers would ever notice any performance difference. If you're looking to speed up Vista, find one of the various sites that list descriptions of services and which are safe to turn off. Most of the "bloat" of Vista can be turned off through that.

I tried this...Antivirus Issues

[Stonent1]

Many off the shelf antivirus programs will not install on any of the Server series of OSes. They flat out refuse because they want you to buy their more expensive server version...

Re:I tried this...Antivirus Issues

[DigiShaman]

Duh! Server software is always more expensive than workstation side. They figure if you own a server, then it has a home to a company with deeper pockets than a single user.

My latest run-in with this was Adobe. Regardless of how many Acrobat 8 licenses you own, you can *not* install it on a Windows Terminal Server without it going into "cripple ware" mode. I've contacted Adobe about this as a technical issue, and I was informed the licenese keys need to Terminal Server aware. Oh, and that will cost you $$$$ above and beyond any ol standard workstation licenese.

LastXP, et al.

[wizzahd]

There are a bunch of different homebrew "versions" of XP and Vista around, most notably LastXP and LastVista. AppzPoint.net (unfortunately that site is broken now) used to host a whole bunch of them including one called TinyXP that was supposed to be completely bare bones (never tried it). You can find torrents to this stuff on the 'Bay and other sites, and while they come with a pirate key, you're free to change the key to a legit one. I've used LastXP for a couple of years now and I completely love it. It's very stable and comes with drivers for every device I've had. I'm sure some other /. users can recommend some other modded versions of XP, too.

How to download freely in Server 2008

[clarkn0va]

1. Visit www.getfirefox.com

2. Download FF3

3. Install FF3

4. Click a dozen or so security warnings in the process.

5. Never look back.

db

Re:How to download freely in Server 2008

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Visit www.getfirefox.com

2. Download FF3

3. Install FF3

4. Click a dozen or so security warnings in the process.

5. Never look back.

6. Profit!

Re:How to download freely in Server 2008

[EvanED]

There's the occasional program that uses IE (technically: the MSHTML component) to render HTML, and you can still face this problem. For instance, if you don't install the MSDN docs locally, help in Visual Studio goes out to MSDN's site, and the security settings in IE apply to this connection. I've hit it a couple other places too, but more esoteric.

Re:How to download freely in Server 2008

[VGPowerlord]

If you're a PC Gamer, Valve's Steam uses MSHTML.

Re:How to download freely in Server 2008

[jonbryce]

Problem is that it doesn't let you download executables or installer packages. You need to either do it on another computer, or disable the enhanced security to enable you to do it on your win2k3/2k8 system.

Re:How to download freely in Server 2008

[HAKdragon]

Evan, IE isn't a food.

Re:How to download freely in Server 2008

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever actually used IE with the enhanced security configuration? It practically disables the internet. You can't go to a site without whitelisting it first. It's like their answer to IE being insecure is just to not allow you to use it.

Re:How to download freely in Server 2008

[George Beech]

or you could have dropped to a command line

C:\>ftp ftp.mozilla.org
ftp>get "/pub/firefox/releases/3.0/win32/en-US/Firefox Setup 3.0.exe"
Then you don't have to be bothered to go to another computer.

Re:How to download freely in Server 2008

[awehttam]

It's more like syrup of ipecac.

Re:How to download freely in Server 2008

[Feanturi]

And yet it still leaves me feeling all bloated and gassy.

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.

Re:windows server is limp

[Kokuyo]

I really don't think anyone assumes that people actually pay for a windows OS with this article. It just doesn't seem plausible.

Re:Why not...

[RLiegh]

XP 64 is better than win2k in many ways. (not to be confused with standard XP). it's more like server 2003.

That's because, for all intents and purposes, it is server 2003.

Windows XP Professional x64 Edition uses version 5.2.3790.1830 of core files, the same version used by Windows XP 64-bit Edition 2003 and Windows Server 2003 SP1 as they were the latest versions during the operating system's development.

Wikipedia

Vista SP1 == Server 2008

[benwaggoner]

Of course, Win 98 and Win 2K were radically different kernels.

Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008 are the *SAME* kernel

As was said upthread, if want you want is a workstation that doesn't use all the Vista services, it's easier and cheaper to just turn off the services you don't want :).

Re:I've done this. I switched back to Vista.

[EvanED]

The sound system is screwy. Priorities are setup for different workloads, resulting in pops and hisses when you play music. This is fixable, but took me a while to figure out how and I still never seemed to get it perfect.

I'm running Server 2008 as my main box, and I haven't seen this problem.

I did see the first one though (the incompatibilities) with both AVG and Avast! anti-virus; both seem to assume that since I'm installing it on the server OS it's not being used on a home, non-commercial desktop and tell you to buy the full version.

Re:I've done this. I switched back to Vista.

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you are saying is that the natural Windows updrade path is Vista -> Windows 2008 Server -> XP?

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.

Re:come on this is not remotely affordable for mos

[the JoshMeister]

Win2k8 is going to be cost prohibitive as a desktop os for the vast majority of people.

Is that so?

(Note: I posted this in another thread, but I'm reposting it here because it's relevant.)

You can apparently buy an HP OEM copy of Windows Web Server 2008 for U.S. $140.91, supposedly $157.76 after shipping (to California). I'd never heard of the seller, pcRUSH.com, but it looks pretty legit based on the Shopzilla customer rating page); this is the best price I could find, but it seems rather low so I'm somewhat skeptical.

Or you can buy Buy Windows Web Server 2008 for U.S. $362.49 with free shipping on Amazon.com; this is the second best price I could find, and looks a bit less fishy considering the price is closer to retail and the seller (Amazon) is well-known.

I searched shopzilla.com and pricegrabber.com and the prices above were the best that came up.

Anyway, these prices are not really that much higher than what Vista costs. Amazon lists Vista Home Premium for $94.99 and Ultimate for $277.49 (note that the latter is just $85 more than Amazon's price for Windows Web Server 2008). Assuming pcRUSH's price for Windows Web Server 2008 is accurate, you can actually get it cheaper than Vista Ultimate!

Summary

[networkzombie]

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.

One problem with "server" class "workstations"

[NotQuiteReal]

When you run a "Server" OS, many software vendors don't believe you are still on a "Workstation" budget.

For example, try getting a reasonable price for something like Acronis for personal "workstation" use if you are running a flavor of Windows "Server", whatever...

There are reasons to run a "server" OS, even if it is just for development and testing work, if not legitimate personal use.

Re:Mods on crack?

[sneezinglion]

read your grandparent post.(my great-gp) and see that he mentions removing the check in the msi file. That is why it was redundant.

Re:Mods on crack?

[hdparm]

It is redundant because its parent explained already how was this accomplished.

Why not...

[DimGeo]

Why not convert Windows Server 2008 into the lean, efficient, reliable 'power user' OS that Windows should be?

Because it's mostly the same stuff as Vista SP1? Just set the classic theme and you're good to go.

The real difference

[bertok]

While it is true that Windows Server 2008 is almost exactly the same as Vista SP1, down to the hotfixes and drivers, the tangible difference is really a bunch of compiler macros and flags that Microsoft charges hundreds of dollars for.

I run Server 2008 with the "Desktop Experience" pack as a substitute for Vista on my work laptop because of a bad experience I once had while doing a demo for a customer on an XP laptop - I had developed a simple ASP.NET website and was making a demonstration when one of the users had managed to produce a "HTTP/500" error. It was incredibly embarrassing to have my supposedly "highly reliable" system lock up after just a few clicks. It took me days to figure out that the "crash" was caused by a completely artificial limitation introduced by Microsoft into XP to differentiate it from their Server line - one of the TCP/IP connection limits was the culprit. I had never noticed it while developing, because loopback connections are not affected.

So now I run an MSDN licensed Windows 2008 as a "workstation" OS so that I can avoid the Microsoft Marketing Department's deliberately introduced bugs, leaving only the plain old technical bugs, of which there are thankfully fewer than some previous MS operating system releases.

No

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

of course it is

[BBird]

(c) limits the licensee right to make copies (you can't except fair use or if the license says otherwise as in GPL). Does not oblige the author to make or sell any copies if he doesn't want to.

Yes

[Sycraft-fu]

You'll find that there's an awful lot of shit about Vista that some random person just made up. Then the echo chamber effect takes over and people who don't like Vista will repeat it over and over since they don't like Vista and what to make it look bad, without any consideration to it's veracity. They are interested in information that supports their world view, not what is correct.

Re:XP?

[DavidRawling]

Oh for goodness sake, stop being sensible will you - this is Slashdot!

Actually UAC becomes a lot more usable if you install the Elevation PowerToys:

• The Originals
• The New Set

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.

Don't go too fast

[peppepz]

Windows Server may be nice, but still, it's missing parts of the multimedia system (BDA) so you'll have a hard time trying to use your tv tuner card with it. And some applications just won't install on Windows Server (windows live, for instance).

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.

Re:I've done this. I switched back to Vista.

[cloakable]

Enterprise? Like the ability to act as a domain controller? Or the ability to act as a head to a SAN?

How about the fact Linux can handle 32PB partitions on said SAN, and can easily generate them using LVM? Mirroring disks with LVM? Can do. Snapshots? Also easy.

Just because you don't know how to provide enterprise-level services on Linux doesn't mean it's not possible.

Oh, and the server box I have running at home is providing SSI using LDAP and Kerberos, and is also providing file storage to my hosts - for hardware costs only. The only thing I really need to do is SSH in once a day, and run 'apt-get update && apt-get upgrade'. Usually results in no updates, but better safe than sorry :)

Re:I've done this. I switched back to Vista.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Someone, somewhere, will screw this up...

[zerofoo]

and put a rogue DHCP server on some poor bastard's network.

-ted

Re:Mods on crack?

[Just Some Guy]

And also a repeat of what was already said.

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).

Amusing...

[JerkBoB]

I understand why some people might stick to XP or Vista for their desktop OS (games, really) instead of something like Ubuntu. I am totally baffled by these people who are so insistent on using the Windows hammer that they'd waste time and effort on forcing a server OS to (badly) resemble a desktop OS.

Even the title (... "workstation" ...) alludes to the fact that the end result isn't really suitable for home users. OK, so it's Windows for Power Users? What's the point? I'm really not trying to be inflammatory... I'm just perplexed. What does a windows Power User do/need that a normal user doesn't?

I'm honestly trying to understand why anyone would go through all the time and trouble to lobotomize Windows Server just to avoid using Vista, other than refusing to learn/use Linux. If you're savvy enough to jump through all of those hoops, why not use a real Power User OS? It's not even much of a learning curve anymore.

Meh. Get off my lawn, etc.

So true! I used Windows 2k8 beta and Vista.

[Doug52392]

I had Windows Server 2008 betas installed on my PC alongside Linux and Windows Vista. One thing that always amazed me is that Server 2008, even though it was still a beta at the time, ran much better than Windows Vista, had no annoying popups, consistently was stable, etc.

Even with Active Directory Domain Services and all the Web services enabled, turning Windows 2008 into a domain controller, I STILL saw better performance.

I believe people did this for Windows Server 2003 as well, I remember seeing forum posts about Windows 2003 being the BEST gaming OS a few years back.

This is true about switching to 2003

[nbucking]

I work with Win Serv 2003 on a daily basis as well as XP on my work machine. Let me tell you Server 2003 is much better than XP. This fact has probably been true since NT was first created. Why do you think MS switched from using the DOS (win 95, win 98, and ME) to NT kernel? They figured out that what is being used for the server side is best. They probably put several times more testing time into their server software. Nothing on the server software should even remotely close to a beta version. It will be tried and true. On the other hand we have the commercial side users. They know the normal user is a good test bed for flaws in the system. They take this research and place it in the Server architecture. Also, they know normal users are attracted to shiny things and love advertisements. Some power users (linux geeks) will take the commercial software and make it a model hate Microsoft. This is alright and it is a show of how open source is different from closed source. Open source is much quicker to evolve due to the direct communication with average user. Closed source relies on limited but still effective communication. They are both the same but open is faster to change than closed. But because of the lack of active advertising and 'shiny stuff' linux may never build a large average user group. In conclusion, yes Microsoft is going to use only the best code for their Server software and perhaps the untested software is for us mice.

just one problem

[Deadplant]

The $1500 price tag for server 2008 is a bit of a hurdle...

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

[Locutus]

This is great, a thread about McDonalds food within a topic on Microsoft Windows. Mediocrity abounds, how appropriate is that. LoL.

LoB

Re:I've done this. I switched back to Vista.

[FishWithAHammer]

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.)