Slashdot Mirror
Making the Switch To Windows "Workstation" 2008
snydeq writes "Disenchanted with Vista? Why not convert Windows Server 2008 into the lean, efficient, reliable 'power user' OS that Windows should be? InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy, who has been using a converted 'Workstation' 2008 as his primary OS since hitting a wall using Vista as a Visual Studio development platform four months ago, says the guerrilla OS has turned his Dell notebook into a well-oiled machine that never gets sluggish and rarely needs to reboot. Those interested in making the switch should check out win2008workstation.com, a clearinghouse for 'Workstation' 2008 tips and techniques. Kennedy also offers a link to a Windows 2008 Workstation Converter utility for those looking to quickly convert a fresh Server 2008 install without hacking the registry or manually installing/enabling lots of services and features."
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.
Start a happiness pandemic
You can double the cost of your $700 PC.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
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.
this is true, windows 2008 is awesome. i converted to it from vista and i never get the spinning circle anymore. its just snappier.
.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
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
-mr silver
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.
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
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.
http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
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.
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.
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.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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.
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
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
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
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.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
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.
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 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:
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.
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...
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
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
That's because, for all intents and purposes, it is server 2003.
Wikipedia
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 :).
My video compression blog
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.
So what you are saying is that the natural Windows updrade path is Vista -> Windows 2008 Server -> XP?
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.
throw new NoSignatureException();
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...
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
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.
Is "disable internet explorer security"
I think that speaks for itself in both irony and otherwise. I think I'll stick with ubuntu.