Windows Server 2008 std

I'm seeing academic pricing of Windows Server 2008 Std for 299.00 on eBay. Curious if anyone is going to 'upgrade' to this from Vista or XP? I'm considering it.

 

Windows Server, as the name suggests, is a server OS. It will have a lot of features that normal users will never use, and will not have a lot of the features Vista has. For home users, switching from Vista to Server 2k8 is not an upgrade. You will probably lose more than you gain.

 

Many believe that WS08 makes a better workstation than Vista re stability sans some eye candy. Stability is paramount to me as I use my machine for business as well as gaming. IMO it is indeed an upgrade for the home/small business/power user.

 

What makes you think that Vista isn't stable like Server 2008? Could you explain or let me know something that I don't know.

 

I'm using Vista 32, not stable as I'd like it. I'm talking about occasional blue screens. This is opinion is widely held view, even on this forum.

 

if you were truly going after stability, you would use XP Pro or 2000

 

No way....I've done that already, for like 7 years, time to move on....uggh... Besides, WS08 is supposed to better than 2000 or XP in every way.

 

Exactly, a Server OS would be a pain to use it as a single Home use Desktop OS.

 

Well, I don't know about the opinions around here. I have Vista on my machine, and I have yet to see a blue screen on Vista. I haven't really seen my Vista crash yet. I also deploy Vista in my organization, and I am talking about 1500+ machines. I have to say that I am very impress with Vista, but the machines must have horse power to run the OS.

I see less help desk called regarding the problem with the OS, but I see more call about how to use it. I set up and deploy everything acoording to MS recommendation through server 2003. I can tell you that the OS is very easy to deploy, maintain, and more secure than its predecessor.

It is true tha newbie would have problem with the OS, but I am talking from system administator stand point. I don't know how much more stable you want from the OS, but I think it is a solid one if you know how to deal with it.

 

Well, that rules me out as I'm not a newbie. My work machine is also a gaming machine. I have many processes running that a typical business machine wouldn't have. I used Vista 64 ultimate for 7 months, same stuff basically running, right after release on another laptop, and had zero blue screens. Maybe I'll go back to the 64 bit version. Others on this forum, as well as some tech bloggers had planted the seed of maybe switching to Server 08 to use as a workstation, and some are using it via the 6 month trial. Just looking for opinions on Server as I already have them on XP and Vista (solidly).

 

You imply that Vista is a stable OS? I thought you were saying that it wasn't stable as you would like it to be.

 

Whether Vista is stable enough or not is debatable. However, one thing is not debatable:

Windows Server 2008 uses the same kernel as Vista SP1!!!!!!

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=988
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_sp1_inside.asp
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc194386.aspx

And since it uses the same kernel, it will be compatible with the same set of drivers too.

Therefore, the stability will be exactly the same as Vista SP1. The only differences are in the default configuration and the bundled programs.

So just grab SP1 tomorrow and pretend it's Server.

 

Server opinions please

 

I know the Kernel will be the same. I've had SP1 for a couple of weeks I guess. Let me find my cheat sheet on why Server is nonetheless supposed to be more stable.

 

Well, WS08 will have better perceived stability because it hasn't received nearly as much bad press as Vista.
Also it has "Server" in the name, which sounds pretty sophisticated. And then there's the higher price....

 

Yeah, I sure wouldn't spend 'net' over a couple of hundred bux on it after dumping my copy of Vista. Maybe I'll try 64 bit again, didn't have any BSOD's for seven months with that, but that was another laptop with different brands CPU, Vid Card, Wireless card, sound card, etc. Frustrating to get a BSOD in the middle of a corporate tax return....ughh....

 

Yeah, I hear you. I'm frustrated with the stability of Vista on my machine, I've been getting about 1 or 2 BSODs a week, but (1) I don't have SP1 installed yet, and (2) I suspect it's most likely a problem with one of the drivers, since I've heard some other people on here say that Vista is stable for them.

In any case, I plan to download SP1 tomorrow.

 

Yep, I'm thinking drivers too....btw, I have SP1 uninstalled right now as I wasn't sure what I had was the final....anyway, a clean install would do me good, and if I do that I'm switching to 64 I think.

 

I guess I'm among the only people using Windows Server 08 as a desktop OS. The eye candy is still there, unaltered. You will lose the Windows Sidebar and Media Center application, but other than that you will not face any difficulty in using it.
From what I can see it works as supposed to, don't think it's lighter than Vista on anything than free space (because it doesn't install all the junk by default).
The Server 08 kernel is the same as the one in Vista SP1, but it's a tweaked version.

 

Of course, if you look at it from a pricing point of view, $300 for Server 2k8 is a nice deal if you're planning on starting a business or some sort. For home use, it's expensive as.
Furthermore, I would be slightly weary about buying software off eBay, unless the seller has had nothing but positive reviews from other buyers who purchased the same item.

I am unable to give an opinion on Windows Server 2k8, as the only most recent Windows Server OS I have used is 2k3, and I used that during my placement at an investment bank as a developer. I had to carry out some development work on two builds of Sharepoint (one of which running in a VM), and that really slowed my 4-core Xeon workstation with 4GB of RAM badly.
Of course, I do not believe you will be running IIS and SQL Server etc. in the background for home use, so you will probably not be bogged down too much.

 

Umm that would be Security, being that Servers aren't even meant to be shutdown on a regular basis.

 

It's more secure because you will have to enable/install most programs. But it should, at least in theory, be more secure.

 

You aren't the only only one who uses server 2008 as desktop, but it doesn't look practical tome to use server OS as a desktop replacement unless you work for Pentagon or something like that. Windoes 2k8 does offer stablility and functionality for infrastructure management. Vista is designed for different purpose.

I don't think you are going to run DC, DNS, DHCP, IIS, RODC, or GPO. RIP on your desktop right? I would like to know what Vista can't do for you that you have to look for server 2k8.

 

Vista installs all the stuff it wants by default, while with Server 2008 I can chose what to install or not. And I can manage getting it to work how I want it to.

 

What are those components? I know for a fact that you may not need tablet PC component, and that is pretty much it. Other things are vital to the OS. I don't really remove anything else from Windows XP either.

Can you explain more details in your previous post?

 

I'm not sure exactly how many things it doesn't install by default, but I have more free space .
Give me a few minutes to find out.
1. .NET Framework;
2. BitLocker;
3. Backup application;
These are a few things I found just by doing a quick look at the Server Manager.

 

.Net Framework is for a lot of application. You will need it sooner or later anyway. BitLocker is a security feature if you have TPM chip, and why would you want to get rid of Backup application anyway? Server 2k8 will install the same thing except BitLocker since it is more like a client appication.

 

I am not sure about the amount of applications it installs, because I have more free space now than I used to have before + I had the same configuration.

 

The free space that you gain is because of Vista backup for its System Restore. It fluctuates from time to time, and it is completely normal. The programs that you are talking about don’t take more than 200 MB max. Don’t forget that Vista System Restore is much better than Windows XP hence it uses more disk space. I am not going into the detail since it isn’t a classroom, but I can assure you that Vista is a step forward not backward when compares to Windows XP. There are lots more features inside the OS that many people don’t know. For example, IE7 on Vista isn’t the same as IE7 on Windows XP. Yes, it may look alike, but it is much more secure than IE7 on XP.

You are not gaining anything on server 2k8 unless to tend to use its features, which are for the network infrastucture anyway. I would stick with client OS because it is designed for everyday use.

 

understood

 

Thank you very much. Anymore questions about Vista. Please let me know.

 

Never had any about Vista

 

I've been running Server 2003 as my desktop OS for a couple of years now and haven't looked back. Sure it took a few tweaks to get multimedia stuff working but I've never had an issue with games, program compatability or driver problems. I gained performance over XP as well.

Should everyone run out and get a Server OS for their desktop OS? Probably not. I am fortunate enough to have access to it for dirt cheap. I say if you can buy it for the cost of a desktop OS why not go for it? We are all enthusiasts here, it's not like we don't know what we are doing. I definitely would not recommend it to grandma and whatnot.

As for Server 2008, I have access to it right now but I am hoping to install that on my new build this Christmas. I don't know what I am going to put on my laptop when it comes though.

 

Those were pretty much my thoughts on the subject. Server 2008 can be had new in the box on Ebay for 299.00 (academic pricing, need ID, etc)

 

I was contemplating on trying out server 2008 edition as well since I am allowed a copy for free(enterprise or std) until i graduate (in which I supposedly need to uninstall it... ). I read an article somewhere about someone actually installing server 2008 and claiming that it was much better than vista or xp.

I don't have tha actual article but I did a quick search through google for server 2008 + laptop and found a similar article ( http://www.echofox.com/?p=22), but that is enterprise, not standard so I don't know what the big differences would be. Basically, it gives you more control of what is to be installed and what isn't, and for me personally, I like the fact that I have that type of control over my system. I think its why I've also been exploring the linux distros.

Anyway, I'm probably going to try it out this summer when I clean up my hard drive from this semester's work load. Then I have a year of server 2008 before I have to uninstall it...

 

Why would you have to uninstall it? Doesn't MSDNAA allow us to keep using it even after we graduate? If that's not the case then I wasted 3 hours d/ling it

 

i haven't had a BSOD at all ever since i got this notebook with vista (except for the fake BSOD i used to scare my friends) and i do a lot of hacking/modding/school work on it

 

_Vista, as a package, is not, at this point in time, a significant improvement over XP. If you want proof, try browsing through some of the gamer-oriented fora, where XP consistently provides better performance than _Vista.

Undoubtedly there are some security improvements - at least inasmuch as MS probably fixed some flaws in rewriting the OS code for _Vista - however, any flaw that constitutes a serious security issue in XP that was fixed in _Vista would have also been patched in XP, so that point is largely moot.

Further, I've no doubt that what merlin_72032 says vis-a-vis _Vista being easier to administer, but that is an irrelevant point insofar as a single nonbusiness user is concerned - in fact, to me it counts as a slight negative, because the flip side of being easier to administer for someone like merlin_72032 is that _Vista is easier to control against the user's wishes, which is not a positive in my book.

Finally, I doubt if the issues with _Vista have anything to do primarily with the kernel, which as was pointed out, is shared by _Vista and Server '08. It's more likely that the issues come from the user-interface and API modifications. In point of fact, some of the issues with _Vista come precisely from those aspects that merlin_72032 likes - namely, the better security and administrability; specifically, the annoying series of popup message boxes asking permission to do a variety of things. The fact that this feature can be turned off if it annoys you is not an answer, in fact it demonstrates precisely the inadequacy of _Vista - an "improvement" is something that works better than before in its default configuration, not something that works worse than before in its default, and no better than before after being turned off - and what good is "improved security" if it's disabled?

At any rate, my understanding, based on this post by Gophn in the Sager/Clevo forum, is that SP3 will replace the current XP kernel with the _Vista 32-bit kernel, at which point we will essentially have two versions of _Vista, one with the XP user interface and one with the _Vista interface, which will give us the perfect testbed to determine to what extent, if any, the _Vista UI was an "improvement" or not (of course, if you're a jaded cynic like me , you have a nagging suspicion in the back of your mind that one of the ulterior purposes behind SP3 is to degrade the performance of XP so that MS no longer has to listen to complaints about _Vista being worse than XP).

 

I HIGHLY doubt that they will be replacing the XP kernel with the Vista kernel in XP SP3, because that would require changing all your drivers to the Vista drivers.

I could see them possibly bringing over certain improvements from the Vista kernel though... I have no knowledge about whether they're doing that or not.