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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[LuNa7ic]

Cthulhuntu*

Don't you mean GNU/Cthulhuntu?

Plust best of all

[nizo]

You can double the cost of your $700 PC.

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?

[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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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

[VGPowerlord]

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

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.

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: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!

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?

[hdparm]

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

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...

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.

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.

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 :)

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).

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.

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.