Evaluate Server 2008 Enterprise for 240 days

[Eóin]

There is a lot of debate around about the pros and cons of using Windows Server 2008 as a workstation. Some people swear by it performance wise while other insist it's just an imagined effect, after all at the core Vista SP1 and Server 08 are the same kernel.

Well you can download a 60 day trial from MS which can be extended to 240days.

[attachimg=#]

Combine that with this Server 2008 to a workstation guide and you're set to go. I can't remember the last time I left a windows install alone for that long.

I'm actually going to hold off for a bit, I want to upgrade my machine soon-ish so no point doing anything before that and of course there is still the issue that my XP x64 is running perfectly but I just want a change

Has anyone else here given it a spin yet?

[Eóin]

The plot thickens- Windows "Workstation" 2008 - Vista Done Right?

Given all the press surrounding Vista Service Pack 1 and the supposed parity of the SP1 and Server 2008 kernels, we were expecting to find little or no performance delta between the two platforms. So we were understandably surprised when repeated test runs showed Windows Server 2008 outperforming Windows Vista w/SP1 by a margin of 11-17%.

[attachimg=#]

From Windows "Workstation" 2008 Clobbers Vista in Benchmark Testing.

[f0dder]

3D bargraphs suck, they're so easy to misread

But interesting nonetheless, between 10-16% performance difference? I wonder what exactly those benchmarks stress, though, and why 2008 might be faster... I see the DRM mention as a blanket statement.

[justice]

even better it got directx10 support so even games should work, definately wil try it out. can i install it on my 3rd harddrive or does it have to be on my primary one where i got installed xp?

[f0dder]

Can't see why it shouldn't work on a 3rd harddrive, although things DO tend to get fancy if you mix IDE and SATA drives, and there might be issues wrt. master bootsector (but if your BIOS has "F8 for boot menu" option, then that shouldn't be too much of a problem either).

[justice]

guides

[f0dder]

I still wonder if it's so much metter in reality... people did the same with Win2003 vs. XP, where it did matter somewhat in the 32bit editions, since the kernels are different. 64-bit XP is same kernel as win2k3 64bit though. And still... with nlite and vlite, ho humm.

[Cuffy]

WUXTRA! WUXTRA!
Get the new .pdf on using Windows Server 2008 as a workstation.
http://www.winxpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=48043#post48043

[f0dder]

I still wonder if there's much use in doing the server->workstation thing, though.

Also keep in mind that some products require more expensive licenses if you want to run them on a server OS, and some of the free antivirus products will refuse to install.

[Cuffy]

I'm up and running with the workstation per the instructions in the .pdf guide. No problems, the instructions are great, (and voluminous) and so far it all looks good.
I've never seen Vista but sure got to see it with this project. I installed the Vista Sidebar in the course of following the guide. I'm still postulating but I don't think me and that sidebar are gonna be able to co-habitate? I haven't really played with it yet but that sidebar uses a lot of real estate and reminds me of something provided by a government subsidy program.
Hindsight being what it is, I now realize that I could as easily have downloaded the 64bit version since that machine is running a Celeron with EM64T and that does a great job with this copy of XPPro64. Maybe later, different machine, another 240 days, who knows?


UPDATE:
TrueImage 7 nor 11 will not install because the workstation is still a server per the Acronis "detection"???

[Stoic Joker]

I still wonder if there's much use in doing the server->workstation thing, though.

I quit wondering about that after I decided it was a completely retarded excuse to pirate an OS that no one in their right mind would pay $700 for just to run it as a "Workstation".

Also keep in mind that some products require more expensive licenses if you want to run them on a server OS, and some of the free antivirus products will refuse to install.

Complexity for the sake of itself spinning out of control, etc, etc, etc.

...I honestly cringe every time I see this brought up.

[Armando]

(Installing a server OS as a workstation is not for me, but... aren't people aloud to experiment? Didn't you, ahem, install slackware recently... Complexity for the sake of itself spinning out of control? And, well if the 240 days are too long of a trial, well it's not anybody's fault, it's MS's. It's not piracy AFAIC. Or is it? Sheesh.)

[Cuffy]

http://www.winxpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=48036#post48036

And here's another opinion!

[Stoic Joker]

(Installing a server OS as a workstation is not for me, but... aren't people aloud to experiment? Didn't you, ahem, install Slackware recently... Complexity for the sake of itself spinning out of control? And, well if the 240 days are too long of a trial, well it's not any body's fault, it's MS's. It's not piracy AFAIC. Or is it? Sheesh.)

Am I experimenting with Slackware? Yes, it's a workstation OS and I'm exploring it as such. I've also connected it to my Server 208 Server ... Which is a server OS that is running as a server. If people want to experiment with a server OS then they should try to figure out how to use it properly in the function it was designed for.  Instead of trying to Monster Garage it into something it was never intended to be.

Slackware only appears complex because it's unfamiliar, however it is being used for its intended purpose. I was merely agreeing with f0dder that licensing for server apps pointlessly over complicates their usage as a workstation.