Login    
   Windows Server to Workstation
   Convert Windows Server 2008/2008-R2/2012/2012-R2 & WS2016 to a Workstation !
    Register FAQ  •  Search    
It is currently 23 Nov 2017, 23:05

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Why Server 2008 [R2] over Windows Vista/7?
PostPosted: 03 Mar 2010, 06:28 
Offline
Win2008Workstation Member
Win2008Workstation Member

Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 06:11
Posts: 10
First off, I'd like to say this is a very impressive forum, great job. However, one question that I have is why? What are the reasons for using Windows Server 2008 [R2] over Windows Vista/7?

I'm currently trying out Windows Server 2008 R2 x64 (WS), and after booting with just video and network drivers installed, it consumes 1.30 GB of RAM. I don't know how much RAM Windows 7 (W7) consumes, but I'm assuming it's not quite as bad. I'm also aware of the features of both versions of Windows, for example W7 has System Restore, WS does not, W7 has a lot of services installed by default, WS is more of a menu, you install (via Roles & Features) what you want to use, and on and on.

Using WS is very similar to using W7, so why not just use W7 and turn off specific services, System Restore, etc. and speed it up slightly? Yes WS has Hyper-V, but VMWare is available for a price and Sun VirtualBox is free and works extremely well. Oracle and SQL Server install just fine on W7, as do all the development tools.

So far as I can see, after WS is modified to prioritize Processor Scheduling to Programs, Themes are turned on, CTRL+ALT+DEL is turned off, the Shutdown Tracker is turned off, what is the real difference between W7 and WS?

Thanks.


 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why Server 2008 [R2] over Windows Vista/7?
PostPosted: 03 Mar 2010, 09:10 
Offline
Win2008Workstation Super Member
Win2008Workstation Super Member

Joined: 21 Sep 2009, 03:01
Posts: 127
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head.

The differences are just the philosophies, for example server is minimal by default and allows for greater configuration, while 7 has ease of use as it's priority.

They share the same codebase, and technically there really is not any difference. You can set tone to be almost identical to the other except for missing features, and any difference in performance will be negligible.

It pretty much comes down to features....ifyou like hyper v, group policy and such, and the minimalistic approach then server is choice. If you play a lot of games or do graphic design then 7 is a much better choice.

Oh. Some chaps around here may try and tell you that anything that is 64bit is without a doubt superior and that server os is definitely better performing and superior to 7 in every way. You should ignore them at all costs.

Look at the facts, and decide what works best for you.


 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why Server 2008 [R2] over Windows Vista/7?
PostPosted: 03 Mar 2010, 13:09 
Offline
Win2008Workstation Super Member
Win2008Workstation Super Member

Joined: 18 Mar 2008, 11:57
Posts: 275
Server have less comps build-in to it
so its make it less heavy cos
there much less regs in hive system
less files
that may makes server better in performance

i dont really get why windows 7 needs all its stuff like dvd maker
media center and on ..

OS should be neat clean all the rest is just addon that user should have way to choose to install them or not


 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why Server 2008 [R2] over Windows Vista/7?
PostPosted: 03 Mar 2010, 18:02 
Offline
Win2008Workstation Member
Win2008Workstation Member

Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 06:11
Posts: 10
Thanks for the reply. From what I've read, I think Windows Server 2008 made more of a case than Server 2008 R2. The Server 2008 was much better than Vista in terms of performance, but Server 2008 R2 really isn't much of an improvement over Windows 7, as Windows 7 is already quite fast as-is.


 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why Server 2008 [R2] over Windows Vista/7?
PostPosted: 03 Mar 2010, 18:20 
Offline
Win2008Workstation Super Member
Win2008Workstation Super Member

Joined: 21 Sep 2009, 03:01
Posts: 127
Yep, right again.

Server 2008 R1 had a improved kernel and enhancements over Vista, similar to the case with 2003 and XP. R2 and 7 were develop in parallel from the same codebase, and have the same kernel.

The reasons to use R2 are not because of performance, but because you prefer the philosophy or like Hyper-V or such.


 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why Server 2008 [R2] over Windows Vista/7?
PostPosted: 03 Mar 2010, 19:02 
Offline
Win2008Workstation Super Member
Win2008Workstation Super Member
User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2009, 21:54
Posts: 141
Location: Estonia
aln688 wrote:
I'm currently trying out Windows Server 2008 R2 x64 (WS), and after booting with just video and network drivers installed, it consumes 1.30 GB of RAM. I don't know how much RAM Windows 7 (W7) consumes, but I'm assuming it's not quite as bad.

Well, Windows 7 has SuperFetch so it'll try and use as much RAM as it can, so in that sense it's indeed not quite as bad. There's an installer available here to port SuperFetch over to WS, but I don't think it does anything right now except populating the cache (ie. no actual performance benefits).

_________________
I can wire anything directly into anything!


 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why Server 2008 [R2] over Windows Vista/7?
PostPosted: 03 Mar 2010, 19:28 
Offline
Win2008Workstation Member
Win2008Workstation Member

Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 06:11
Posts: 10
Thanks for the information. My use for an OS is mainly development and graphic design, a little gaming (HL2, Crysis, etc.) as well as the more mundane tasks such as e-mail and web-browsing. I think you're right, there is a certain element of hype regarding 64-bit software.

For laughs I tried Windows Server 2003 R2 and while it was lightening fast, I couldn't get the latest ATI Catalyst drivers to install, it wouldn't detect the card. I had to go back to a driver version from last year before it would install, the latest 10.2 wouldn't.

I did read about the SuperFetch not working on Server 2008 R2, I'm not sure I'd miss it even if I stuck with Server 2008 R2. For myself, it's choice between Server 2003 R2 or Windows 7; XP Pro x64 would be a choice but MS for some strange reason decided not to let Office 2010 install on it, not even the 32-bit version!

Thanks all.


 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why Server 2008 [R2] over Windows Vista/7?
PostPosted: 03 Mar 2010, 20:30 
Offline

Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 19:44
Posts: 8
Convenience and minimalism for me.

Server 2008 R2 has less fluff I have to remove, doesn't force me to create any extra user accounts I don't need (I know I can change this), and requires me to disable less stuff to get my system the way I want it.

Superfetch, indeed prefetching in generall is overrated on a well maintained system. If anything I notice a small improvement in responsiveness with it disabled.


 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why Server 2008 [R2] over Windows Vista/7?
PostPosted: 03 Mar 2010, 21:31 
Offline
Win2008Workstation Super Member
Win2008Workstation Super Member

Joined: 21 Sep 2009, 03:01
Posts: 127
Indrek wrote:
Well, Windows 7 has SuperFetch so it'll try and use as much RAM as it can, so in that sense it's indeed not quite as bad. There's an installer available here to port SuperFetch over to WS, but I don't think it does anything right now except populating the cache (ie. no actual performance benefits).


Even on W7, superfetch is very easily disabled, and then R2 and 7 use almost identical amounts of ram.

And you're right, the superfecth addin for R2 won't do anything and it never will. Support for prefetching must be enabled in the kernel, and it is explicitly disabled in the R2 kernel.

The best thing to try would be to try replacing the r2 kernel with the 7 kernel, and since theya re based on the same codebase this should work. In that case though, why not just use 7 and tone it down?

aln688 wrote:
For myself, it's choice between Server 2003 R2 or Windows 7; XP Pro x64 would be a choice but MS for some strange reason decided not to let Office 2010 install on it, not even the 32-bit version!

Thanks all.


You mean 2008 R2 right?

If it's any guide, my habbits are similar to yours, with the addition of some development and virtual machines.

I tend to do all my heavy stuff under linux anyway. The reason I like R2 at the moment is the group policy, firewall, minimalism and hyper-v. Most of that stuff ahs an equivilant in 7, so there in't too much of a difference in running them.

Blameless wrote:
Server 2008 R2 has less fluff I have to remove, doesn't force me to create any extra user accounts I don't need (I know I can change this), and requires me to disable less stuff to get my system the way I want it.

Superfetch, indeed prefetching in generall is overrated on a well maintained system. If anything I notice a small improvement in responsiveness with it disabled.


Indeed, Supefetch is useful for most people who use computers the same way everyday. Open certain programs repeatedly and such. For anyone advanced enough to be interesting in running R2 as a worktation it isnt going to be missed.


Also, just a note, but you really shoudlnt be using the Administrator account as your everyday account.


 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Why Server 2008 [R2] over Windows Vista/7?
PostPosted: 03 Mar 2010, 22:57 
Offline
Win2008Workstation Member
Win2008Workstation Member

Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 06:11
Posts: 10
JingoFresh wrote:

Even on W7, superfetch is very easily disabled, and then R2 and 7 use almost identical amounts of ram.

And you're right, the superfecth addin for R2 won't do anything and it never will. Support for prefetching must be enabled in the kernel, and it is explicitly disabled in the R2 kernel.

The best thing to try would be to try replacing the r2 kernel with the 7 kernel, and since theya re based on the same codebase this should work. In that case though, why not just use 7 and tone it down?

Good point, but it's hardly worth it. I've "customized" Server 2008 R2 to the point I sit here wondering why on earth don't I use Windows 7?! In my mind, there's more tweaks to make to Server 2008 R2 to get it to act similar to Windows 7, than there are tweaks to make to Windows 7 to make it act like Server 2008 R2!

JingoFresh wrote:
You mean 2008 R2 right?

If it's any guide, my habbits are similar to yours, with the addition of some development and virtual machines.

I tend to do all my heavy stuff under linux anyway. The reason I like R2 at the moment is the group policy, firewall, minimalism and hyper-v. Most of that stuff ahs an equivilant in 7, so there in't too much of a difference in running them.

Actually, I really do mean Server 2003 R2. :) I'll admit, looking at that Server 2003 R2, blocky, digitized splash screen as it loads, looks like something from the last century, but once it's loaded, drivers installed (Chipset, Video and USB Wireless), the speed is incredible, and Office 2010 32-bit will install on it.

For what I do, all I need is Visual Studio 2008, Oracle 11g, some graphics tools and e-mail, Server 2003 R2, Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7 all fit the bill, but out of the three, Server 2003 R2 is the fastest, although maybe not optimized for my custom-built PC (Core i7-based).


 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
phpBB skin developed by: John Olson
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.126s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]