Win 8 may run on Win 7/Server 2008 R2 Enhanced Core

BetaNews

 

This comes as no surprise to users of Server 2008.

This will be interesting from an enthusiast point of view. Imagine the possibilities.

 

Does Windows Server 2008 R2 look like Windows 7? I have a license and I want to install the Server 2008 R2 in one of my laptops, but I just wanted to make sure that it was...Windows 7 (UI, functionality, etc). Also, would there be anything keeping me from using Server 2008 R2 as a regular OS (i.e. office work, games, web surfing, etc)?

Thanks!

 

It does look like Windows 7, but it lacks a number of features. It would be pointless to use it for everyday computing.

 

Most applications will work with it AFAIK. I haven't tried any games though. The main thing you'll miss is driver compatibility. Some Windows Vista/7 drivers do not particularly like being installed on 2008. Others refuse to install and you gotta fool them.

 

windows live messenger won't work. it refuses to install on server os'.

quite some drivers refuse it, too.

all in all, it's not worth the effort. the os is ment to be used for a server, that's how it's configured. can't wait for it to be the basics of homeserver2


in other news, all of this has nothing to do with win8 using the win7 codebase. obviously, it will use an enhanced evolved version of it. and minwin is step by step more and more integrated + the guideline on how the os should be designed. this is an evolutionary thing going on there. everytime something a bit new.

 

Microsoft is working hard to completely separate the kernel/core/services from the GUI and programming APIs.

It will take them a while. MSFT by their own admission don't have complete documentation on how things work even in Server 2008 and Win7.

Until the kernel/core/services gets separated again (back to ring0/1 layouts like NT 3.51 had and XP/Server 2000 broke) being able to layer a notional 'win8' onto Server 2008 R2e is a moving target.

 

Yes. The fact that it has "server" in its name.

It's a server operating system. It's never a good idea to take an operating system that was designed to be used for a specific task and use it on general purpose machines. It might not work the way you expect it to, because it isn't meant to be used that way. Honestly, I can't really see what could be a reason for you to do this.

If you just want to try it out, consider using a virtualization solution instead, such as VMWare Player or Sun Virtualbox.

 

Uhmm, why? What possibilities are we supposed to imagine based on that information?

 

Many would argue otherwise. There's a large community of enthusiasts who install and 'convert' Windows Server 2003 / 2008 / 2008 R2 for everyday, workstation use on a home PC, including myself, and not excluding some within MSDN.

Conversion is simple if you follow the workstation conversion guides available online. Afterwards, you'll have a fully functioning workstation OS, just like the consumer variant - including all the GUI features like Aero and Themes. For a long while, I used Windows Server 2003 configured for workstation use, before moving to Windows Server 2008 and then to the latest Windows Server 2008 R2. I have it installed on my Macbook in a dual boot configuration, and my Acer revo nettop as the primary OS. One of the reasons for this is because, for students, Windows Server 2003, 2008 and 2008 R2 can be obtained for free through the Microsoft Dreamspark program.

It performs well. I can surf the Internet, watch movies, play games, you name it. There is one issue, however. Some programs (notably consumer variants of anti-virus programs) will refuse to install on Windows Server operating systems, even in compatibility mode. There are workarounds however, as documented in forums. Still, all the programs I've ever installed work fine, and the only program I've had to use a workaround in order for it to install successfully is the anti-virus program. Also, you won't find SuperFetch in Windows Server 2008 / 2008 R2.

It's argued that performance is better in Windows Server operating systems, compared to the consumer variants.

Resources:

http://blogs.msdn.com/vijaysk/archi...indows-server-2008-as-a-super-desktop-os.aspx
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1218
http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...ver_2008_on_a_PC_?taxonomyId=156&pageNumber=2
http://win2k3.msfn.org/
http://www.win2008workstation.com/
http://www.win2008r2workstation.com/

 

Back when I was in college (feel old saying that), I used to be doing all sorts of demonstration and proof-of-concept type of stuff with servers, virtually. I had my laptop running Server 2008 w/ hyper-v for a while and went through the "conversion" process. Worked fine but I ended up moving back to windows XP and then to win7

 

there's only one reason to do that except for the proudness of being able to do it, and the placebo effect of having a faster/more stable system: because you got a free license.

otherwise, there's no difference. it's just additional hazzle to work around quirks of trying to force a server os into a workstation environment.