Windows Server 2008 x64 = Vista x64 - Bloat + $200 in pocket

just thought i should share that bit of info.

dreamspark

 

Define "bloat"

 

bloat [ blōt ]

verb

Definition:

1. swell: to become swollen or inflated, or make something do this

2. excessively expand: to increase excessively, or make something do this

3. swell with pride: to become or cause to become unpleasantly proud or conceited

noun

Definition:

1. excessive increase: an excessive amount, or an excessive increase in something

• corporate bloat

2. veterinary medicine cattle disease: a disease affecting cattle and sheep, characterized by excessive gas in the main stomach compartment rumen

 

WoW...NBR even has a dictionary!

You go stewie.

 

How do we get rid of the cattle disease bloat?? Any guide out here regarding this??

 

Actually your a bit off

Windows Server 2008 x64 = Vista x64 + even more bloat - $412 out of pocket

Where Bloat = services not required by a normal user

Newegg:
$267.99 for ultimate
$679.99 for server 2008

Its worth noting that anyone willing to consider Server OS would be clever enough to buy OEM for the savings there.

 

You mind putting up some sources rather then running your mouth, like say links with prices and performance differences.

*edit* not the above poster, looks like we posted at the same time. This message is toward OP.

Windows Server 2008 OEM, $350
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116466

Windows Vista Ultimate Edition OEM, $180
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116493

I really do not see any advantage, personally if you wanna avoid bloat go with Business Edition.

Windows Vista Business Edition, $140
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116478

 

I've heard this a number of times and generally find by peoples responses, it to be a bit faster. HOWEVER, once you go adding all the missing stuff back to Server 2008 to make it usable as a workstation, you're just about back to the bloat of Vista. There is one benefit, however, Native VM support, which Vista doesnt have as of yet. Heres a decent site outlining the Server 2k8 process with benefits and cons. And yes, unless you have an MSDN subsription or the like, its definitely more expensive to go this route and I'm not mentioning the "other"ways.

http://www.win2008workstation.com/wordpress/

 

You know what, I think I know what this genius was referring to, the Dreamspark promo thingy. I don't know if its still going on, but they were giving away free copies of Server '08 to students.

https://downloads.channel8.msdn.com/Products.aspx

 

Ahh! Youre correct! Now it makes a bit more sense.

 

through dreamspark, students have free access to windows server 2008. i guess that the rule only applies to students. but i figure many people on here are students.

vista usable as a workstation really only requires two packages from server 2008: the desktop user experience and the wireless network package. i also had to change one registry key to give multimedia (sound) some processor priority as opposed to none (sound would be scratchy). and i also changed a setting to give programs priority over background services. after that and unlocking IE, its just normal stuff: installing drivers and the like.

the result? windows just has that immediate responsiveness that i've been looking for with vista and never found. i seriously think server 2008 is more secure and more stable than vista.

 

Hey, you know, I've learned a whole heck of a lot during my two years' attendance at the University of NBR - you think we can get NBR to rustle up some academic-type letterhead and a rubber-stamping board of trustees, and give us all student IDs so we can qualify?

 

masterchef341, you should look into some more Communication classes...telepathy is not your strong point.

I think some people were talking about getting copies using Hotmail accounts, don't know the details, but if did a search on google you might turn up some tricks how to get Server 08 from them.

 

My mom used to live on a ranch, and the official cure for it is...

Stick a knife in their side.

No, really... that's what it is. If it's less severe, you can stick a hose down their throat to relieve the pressure, but that's no fun

But back on topic... the server versions of Windows have often been that way. Windows 2000 was more aimed as a server and workstation version, but it was often used for desktops because it was so stable and didn't have the extra bloat. Same with Windows server 2003... a lot of people used that instead of XP.

 

I've been using Server 2008 for the last two months and I've been happy with it. Of course it wasn't on Dreamspark during that time, but I needed a few copies so I got a TechNet subscription. Some things will refuse to work, but most things work fine.

 

Some things like what atbnet? Just being curious!

 

i just put the info out there. i like windows server 2008 better than vista 64. it is *potentially* free and more stable and streamlined than windows vista, while getting some of its advantages: the higher security kernal and the use of 4 GB or more of ram. in fact, you can pick and choose just which advantages and you want, and which you feel account for bloat. since 2k8 has a package system, you just install the pieces that you want (I only needed two of them).

the point eventually got across. problem solved.

 

Yep, done those. Not too fun. Its better to just be careful about what they can eat.

 

I've only found the x86 version on their site?

Where's the x64 edition?

 

What exactly is the difference between Vista Ultimate x64 and Windows Server 2006 x64? Are there things that will work in the said vista that wont work in Windows Server? What are the advantages and disadvantages?

 

There is an advantage of using Windows Server 2003 (x86) over Windows XP (x86) and using Windows Server 2008 (x86) over Windows Vista (x86).

Namely, the server versions are 36 bit, which enables you to use all of your 4GB of RAM, without needing to switch to a 64 bit edition of the operating system.

 

I hate to point this out to you, but service pack 1 changed the Vista 'kernal' to the Server '08 'kernal', it was sorta one of the big deals of service pack 1 and is sorta the joke in the rumor mill now with SP2 changing the Vista 'kernal' to the 7 'kernal'. Server '08 does its job and does it well, keep a system running for long periods of time, but in the long run a user who is going to use Server '08 for more then just being a server are going to run into problems, just like alot of the people did with Windows 2000 or NT before that because they wanted the more reliable OS that was not intended to be just that (i.e. the sound issues), at the same time with some work Server '08 will make a fine Vista Home Basic with Areo enabled.

 

can't argue with that. it basically is vista home basic, except with aero, bitlocker, remote desktop, and features from windows enterprise, like the ability to run unix applications, and a virtual machine system (hypervisor). but yeah, its pretty much just home basic (how did you decide that was its rank? more random than usnews college rankings)

and there are no sound issues. dont misinform people.

UAC is one feature that did get "left out" of server 2k8

 

Wow, where do you go to school that you can learn telepathy? I might just need to transfer...

 

Show me how Server 2008 can run unix apps.

As for virtual machines, while Hyper-V is nice, it's not really designed for the tinkerer or casual user. It's also fairly limited to business-like functions, and lacks features found in other virtualization products. For the vast majority of people looking to try virtualization, I'd point them towards Virtualbox long before I even consider Hyper-V. Virtualbox's cross-platform nature not only means strong guest support (it can runs stuff Hyper-V can't) but also a uniform interface and function set among different platforms. A virtual machine created in Virtualbox for Windows will run on Virtualbox for Linux, or Mac, or Solaris. Hyper-V has no cross-platform functionality. Virtualbox also costs zero dollars.

No it didn't. UAC is in Server 2008 just as it is in Vista. In fact not only is UAC there, but Internet Explorer by default runs in a nearly useless enhanced security mode. I know, I know, firefox firefox firefox. The trick is, just to download Firefox from Mozilla, you need to disable IE's enhanced security.

 

I would call that an "issue"

For free I see nothing wrong with Server '08, but if you have to buy it then I would say go with Vista Home Basic or Business (not much if anything to disable there). On modern hardware I really don't see a point to disabling anything in any of the other versions either (especially now that we are talking about x64).

 

issue, maybe. in the past tense. its a server OS so its set up by default to put all its resources into services. however, changing one registry key is not the end of the world. if all it takes is changing one registry key to get a more streamlined and faster version of vista, i'll bite. and i did.

honestly, people who are really interested in optimizing their system will spend more time tweaking vista to get the bloat down than they will adding in features of the server OS. this is why people chose the old server 2003 in place of windows xp. the same applies to vista and 2k8. i had to literally check 3 boxes (priority to programs, desktop experience (aero), and wireless lan support) and change one key (audio priority to vista default) and it was set. and i feel like the end result is better with server. i have tried several versions of vista in both 32 bit and 64 bit varieties, and now 64 bit server.

the whole process took almost no work. and even if it did, it would be worth it. my computer is more responsive with a clean install of server than it was with vista. thats the only metric i really considered.

as far as the "worth" evaluation of it, i'm not going to argue with you. its up to the individual. but my opinion is that for free, its a steal. if it was slightly more expensive than vista home premium or vista business, i would still buy it. vista ultimate is way too expensive as is, and i would never buy that anyway. if server is going to cost like $600, obviously skip this.

 

I work with server 2008(x64) at work and IMO it is no faster than vista. I use vista business(x64) on my laptop and there is no discernible speed difference between how the server OS functions and how the client OS functions. And as previously stated windows server 2008 and windows vista (with SP1) have the same exact kernel (core), thus one isn't faster (or more stable IMO) than the other. As my boss once told me "hey it is windows it will crash eventually" doesn't matter if it is server or client. This is one of the main reasons why when we upgraded to server 2008 we didn't use hyper-v as we didn't trust the stability of windows but instead we went with citrix xenserver(linux) for our virtualization setup and we haven't had any problems with it.

Also windows server 2008 as subzero pointed out has one annoying quality and that is when it comes to internet explorer, the thing is locked down tighter than fort knox and it can be quite difficult to get out. The constant pop-ups can drive you nuts!

Then of course you run into problems with some anti viruses and other programs because once they scan your OS at install and realize you are running the server version (you are then seen as a commercial or corporate entity) they refuse to install and tell you you have to buy the corporate version of the software which is usually more expensive. This reason alone is enough to deter me from using a server OS on my home computer.

IMO if you are going to use vista then use the 64bit version and if you don't want the bloat that is media center then go for vista business and turn off aero and UAC and enjoy the experience, leave server 2008 for servers.

 

I recently installed server 2008, and applied all desktop tweaks. It is not much faster than vista x64. HOWEVER, it is SLIGHTLY faster and more responsive. Probably due to less bloat being installed. You can probably disable everything in vista, to get the same performance... some of the services/applications are quite non-trivial to disable.

In another thread i posted this but:
Boot times after Full install

Vista x64: 44s
Server 2008: 41s

Functionality of both my current server 2008 and vista x64 is currently exactly the same.

 

Server 2008 is a great OS and there isn't too much to knock on. At the same time, I see no speed differences when running Vista. According to Perfmon, my Vista machine is actually faster than my server 2008 machine. In the end, Vista has yet to seriously let me down. Then again neither has XP.

 

I still don't understand why anyone would trust windows with a server.

 

It's easy to understand, employ someone who knows how to set up install and maintain it, our servers never crash. The software on them (much of it non MS) can do, but in the year and a half i've been there they haven't gone down once. Ironically the 2 Linux servers we have are more trouble than theyre worth.

 

The servers are virtual machines which means that if windows crashes on any of the virtual machines all we have to do is reinstall that one server 2008 virtual machine that crashed which takes about 15-20mins, the core OS which is running the whole setup(i.e the actual physical server itself) is linux. In my environment it is just easier to run windows server.

Also if you have ever used citrix xenserver you would realize how easy it is to recover from a virtual machine crash. Before we actually went over to a fully virtual setup we did extensive testing for weeks where we essentially threw everything at the virtual setup to see what would happen and how quickly we could get functioning again.

 

Why wouldn't they? Windows Server is a perfectly capable server OS. If you are an incompetent server admin then it really doesn't matter what OS you run, your server is going to suck regardless.

 

Wait, you are saying that the way products from Microsoft are used matters? You can't just expect them to be perfect in any situation with any crap running on them? Thats ludacris!

 

Seriously, you need more competent people if your servers are crashing consistently. Last week I spent more time setting up projectors and sound equipment than I did the server room.

The problem I'm running into with Linux servers is finding well rounded people for management. The Linux experts are far and few. When I do find a Linux ninja, it has been he's a great software engineer but a terrible manager. With a Windows setup, there is a bigger talent pool to draw from.

 

Seriously, you need more competent people if your servers are crashing consistently. Last week I spent more time setting up projectors and sound equipment than I did the server room.

 

Can you give some input on the some "things" that refuses to work?

 

Most of them come on the Server 2008 x64 version rather than Server 2008 x86, but I know this one Windows Media Player plugin I was trying to install for Firefox this morning refused because I was using a server OS. Anti-virus are another one that won't work on server versions unless you buy the corporate version. I've only run into a handful a programs that refuse to work.

 

Okay, got you...tks for the reply!