Making the Switch To Windows "Workstation" 2008 552
snydeq writes "Disenchanted with Vista? Why not convert Windows Server 2008 into the lean, efficient, reliable 'power user' OS that Windows should be? InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy, who has been using a converted 'Workstation' 2008 as his primary OS since hitting a wall using Vista as a Visual Studio development platform four months ago, says the guerrilla OS has turned his Dell notebook into a well-oiled machine that never gets sluggish and rarely needs to reboot. Those interested in making the switch should check out win2008workstation.com, a clearinghouse for 'Workstation' 2008 tips and techniques. Kennedy also offers a link to a Windows 2008 Workstation Converter utility for those looking to quickly convert a fresh Server 2008 install without hacking the registry or manually installing/enabling lots of services and features."
Vista... Microsoft's "New Coke" (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO, Vista is Microsoft's version of New Coke or the Arch Deluxe [wikipedia.org] (if any of you are old enough to remember them). Although the same could have been said about Windows ME.
Maybe Windows is like Star Trek movies... only every other release is good.
Plust best of all (Score:5, Insightful)
You can double the cost of your $700 PC.
Re:Plust best of all (Score:2, Insightful)
You can double the cost of your $700 PC.
Microsoft don't care whether you love or hate their flagship OS as long as you pay them money one way or another.
Why not more of this? (Score:5, Insightful)
The stability of MS' "Server" line of OS' is proof that they have no real excuse for the Vista poor performance (other than it was deliberately done).
If I were not such a PC gamer, I would probably still be using the Windows 2000 Advanced Server on my current 4-core CPU. (It supports up to 4 CPUs if memory serves). XP is still fine by me, but no where as stable as Win2kAS ever was.
I assume that 2008 server is made from the same stuff.
come on this is not remotely affordable for most (Score:5, Insightful)
how much more is Win2k8 than vista... I mean unless of course you are ARRRGH! pirates...for god sakes Win2k8 is going to be cost prohibitive as a desktop os for the vast majority of people.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Vista... Microsoft's "New Coke" (Score:3, Insightful)
It's nice, but why are these necessary to use it as a "workstation"?
2. New User, Auto Logon and Strong Passwords Enforcement: How to create a new user, how to configure a user to logon automatically and how to disable enforcement of a minimum complexity for passwords.
8. Internet Explorer Enhanced Security: Disable Enhanced Security in Internet Explorer.
Or..... (Score:1, Insightful)
....you could just install XP?
The new Windows 2000? (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in the Windows 98 days, my friend introduced me to Windows 2000. It was a "server" OS, but was far more stable than 98, and, for the most part, did or could be made to do everything 98 did (in other words, you could easily play games on it). Sure enough, the Windows XP wound up using the same basic core as Windows 2000. Will history repeat itself with Windows 7...? If it does, they may yet convert me. Until then, I'll stick with my XP setup, thanks.
Re:come on this is not remotely affordable for mos (Score:5, Insightful)
The author of the article mentioned he was setting a a Visual Studio development environment, which probably means he is a MSDN subscriber, which gives him rights to pretty much all of Microsoft's software for development purposes. So to someone who has the full MSDN subscription, or even just the OS portion, this is a no additional cost option: they have already paid for it.
Re:Why not more of this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have often wondered why we have not seen more of this.
Price? The reality that it doesn't matter? Both.
NT Server wasn't really any more stable than NT workstation. Server 2k wasn't really any more stable than 2k Pro. Server 2003 wasn't really any more stable than XP.
The stability of MS' "Server" line of OS' is proof that they have no real excuse for the Vista poor performance (other than it was deliberately done).
I find Vista to be very fast, and it hasn't crashed on me yet. I use it on multiple PCs. I don't deny its been something of a fiasco in general, but at the end of the day, if you put Vista on suitable hardware with good drivers there is really almost nothing seriously wrong with it.
A lot of the 'vista' problems were related to bad drivers, buggy bioses, and so on. Ultimately relatively few of the "Vista Issues" are related to Vista, and can be traced to some flakey 3rd party software.
On some level blaming Vista for running legacy windows stuff poorly is like blaming Linux for running legacy windows stuff poorly. The only difference is that Vista actually runs it well enough for people to expect it to work.
Re:Vista... Microsoft's "New Coke" (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows2000 Professional saved the world from Windows ME.
There, fixed that for you.
Something will save us from Vista.
Like Ubuntu, Kubuntu, or Xubuntu.
windows server is limp (Score:3, Insightful)
So you spent probably more than the cost of the hardware for an average PC on an operating system to replace vista? Why do that? Linux is free and performs great on new hardware and old hardware alike. Considering modern Linux distros have UIs which are easier to use and more productive than windows (give windows users a few days adjustment, of course), the only reasons left for running Windows are legacy apps that only run on Windows, difficulty with drivers and games.
So from what you're saying, one of the arguments for running windows is out the window. Driver installation sucks, and sounds about the same as installing most tricky things on Linux these days. (my recent experience with a newer DVICO TV tuner and broadcom wireless come to mind). That leaves legacy apps and games, but then a lot of legacy apps don't work on newer versions of windows, so it's a safer bet to keep the old OS in a VM image or running on an old box.
That really just leaves games.
Therefore windows is now just a toy.
Windows Server 2008 is an extremely expensive toy.
What is the point of this article?
It's the same! (Score:5, Insightful)
Vista SP1 == Windows Server 2008 + Active Directory + some other extra toys (depending on version) and minus others (Media Center for instance).
I mean really, I love how the image of one is completely tarnished but the image of the other is "not bad for a MS OS"....it's like comparing Windows 2000 Server & Pro.
The only other difference is what's enabled by default, which in Win2008 is rather less. It only takes a few minutes to shutdown the same services in Vista.
Re:Vista... Microsoft's "New Coke" (Score:4, Insightful)
No, Vista is definitely a Ford Edsel
That's why we're all here, right? To celebrate V Day, the date 2 years ago when Microsoft took one of the computer industry's most hilarious pratfalls. But why? It really wasn't that bad an operating system. True, the OS was kind of homely, resource hungry and too expensive, particularly at the outset of the late '00s recession. But what else? It was the first victim of Redmond hyper-hype. Microsoft's marketing mavens had led the public to expect some plutonium-powered, pancake-making wonderOS; what they got was a XP in drag. Cultural critics speculated that the software was a flop because the CEO behaved like a cunt.
Paraphrased from Time's 50 Worst Cars [time.com].
Summary (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Vista... Microsoft's "New Coke" (Score:4, Insightful)
---(non-executable stuff is always safe to download)
Hardly. I can think of quite a few examples of non-executable files that can house nasties. Essentially, one finds a buffer overflow in a parser. MP3 stacks and video codecs are favorites to find holes and stupid stuff in. Also, exe's can be put in WMV's and other MS codecs too.
Once the overflow is ran by the unsuspecting user/admin, code is then ran as permission of that program. Better hope it's not an admin
Re:Vista... Microsoft's "New Coke" (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it's mostly the same stuff as Vista SP1? Just set the classic theme and you're good to go.
Re:Why not more of this? (Score:3, Insightful)
What, exactly, is a step backwards in XP from 2000? I've never been able to get a good answer out of people on this. I mean, sure, you can get better performance out-of-the-box, but other than that I just don't see it. And I turn off most of the eyecandy and other bullshit as a matter of course.
To me at least, XP with themes off feels as snappy as Windows 2000, even on older machines. Some stuff's been moved around, but meh--that happens in every version of Windows and complaining about that is somewhat silly. It's all still there. I do wish there was a way to establish Windows settings in a slipstream, though.
On my machines, I turn themes off, put the Start Menu and Control Panel back to classic view, show hidden files, show file extensions, and default all folder views to Detail. From a user perspective, it's pretty hard to distinguish that from Windows 2000, and you get the advantages (yes, advantages) of a more modern OS.
And a side note: decrying upgrades because you're afraid of your Windows admin knowledge becoming "obsolete" indicates that it already has.
Re:windows server is limp (Score:2, Insightful)
Which one?
Any of them? I'm not the grandparent poster, but I work on Windows and Linux machines regularly and can say that GNOME, KDE, Fluxbox, e17, iceWM, and XFCE all suck massively in different and painful ways. None are pleasant to use and all get in the way. Of them all, KDE3 is the least painful, but hey! KDE4 sucks, so that one won't last long.
Re:windows server is limp (Score:4, Insightful)
Are there really any (non game) apps by anyone other than Microsoft that won't work on Linux or don't have any equivalent method in Linux?
Anything by Adobe. The GIMP is not a valid Photoshop equivalent. Inkscape is not a valid Illustrator equivalent. Scribus is not a valid PageMaker equivalent.
WINE is not an acceptable solution. You and the rest of your Linux advocates desperately want people to fiddle-fart with the computer in order to get to a place where they can do the work they originally came there to do. That's not going to fly.
I'd say "when you can point to a DE that's as good as Windows, then you're allowed to talk," but you've made it clear that in your little fantasy world, the Linux DEs that exist now meet that requirement. In the real world, they most certainly do not.
Re:Vista... Microsoft's "New Coke" (Score:5, Insightful)
Again, some of the security enhancements on Microsoft's servers are absurd. I can't remember all the details, but recent versions of their servers won't allow you to download anything from the Internet, won't let you install plugins or ActiveX controls (it won't even ask you, it just won't allow it), and even if you manage to download something, Windows won't run it.
Enhanced security mode -- you can turn it off from the server manager. But then again -- this is supposed to be a server OS so it makes sense to disallow such risky behavior (by default) on a server OS.
You can either jump through insane hoops to get things working, or you can disable their security.
Not true, but it's possible that most people will effectively do just that. The reason it isn't true: go to Tools > Internet Options > Security > Custom Level. IE's security options are actually extremely fine-grained -- it's pretty far from an all-or-nothing approach. Even with Enhanced security mode on, you can explicitly add sites to the various zones (intranet, trusted, etc.) so you end up with a white-list approach.
No (Score:3, Insightful)
For that you need about 1GB. Vista roughly doubles XP's RAM requirements in my book. For XP I listed it as 256MB/512MB/1GB meaning that 256MB was the absolute minimum for a usable system. If you had less, I said stick with 2k. 512MB was the minimum for reasonable performance if you wanted to load only a couple apps and such. 1GB was the recommended amount for good performance for normal use.
For Vista I say it's 512MB/1GB/2GB. Vista on 512MB is pretty painful. Vista on 2GB runs great.
There's really no room to bitch, either. 2GB of RAM now is cheaper than 128MB was when XP came out. Right now on Newegg you can get 2GB of DDR2 for $20 shipped after rebate. That's $10/gig. If you can't afford that, well then you probably can't afford the upgrade price to Vista and shouldn't. Even if you want high performance RAM it's cheap. High performance DDR2 800 4GB sets (2x2GB) are $100 with no rebate. So for $200 you can max out a motherboard.
The whining about Vista needing lots of RAM is silly, since RAM is just dirt cheap. Also bitching that old hardware can't take a new OS is silly. XP has not stopped working. It will continue to work, and continue to be supported, for many more years. If you have an old system that can't handle Vista, just don't get it.
One of the first things in this server 08 website (Score:5, Insightful)
Is "disable internet explorer security"
I think that speaks for itself in both irony and otherwise. I think I'll stick with ubuntu.
Re:Vista... Microsoft's "New Coke" (Score:5, Insightful)
Couple of things. You forgot Mac OS. That's a pretty good choice for the masses and the technically minded alike. Secondly, you're being dumb. So what if it isn't designed for home use? Cars can be modified. You could modify your wife's accord with monster truck suspension and tyres, bigger engine, whatever, to suit specific tasks. Who cares if it wasn't designed for that if, in the end, it works. If there is no way of getting DirectX working properly on this then it isn't suited for use by the masses, but otherwise I can see it being a perfectly usable workstation OS. I've used Windows NT Server, Windows 2000 and 2003 Server, and they do have some useful features.
'Server' just means it has more features built in for administrative tasks and doing stuff like DNS/DHCP/web hosting. Look at something like Ubuntu. The only difference between 'home' type and 'server' type installs is some extra server-y packages, and perhaps a lack of X for some server installs. That doesn't mean that X and games can't be installed on the server, or that apache can't be installed on your home machine.
If you don't like this idea, just forget about it, and stop trying to tell people what they can't do, just because they aren't "meant" to. Maybe try watching a bit of amateur rally driving too. Lo, I see front wheel drive family cars driving down dirt tracks that they weren't ever "meant" to drive on!
If you can't join them... (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess it's a form of self-justification. Some people can't take the hit of using Linux on their daily lives, and that is perfectly understandable all things considered, but trying to make it "it is just as elite!" is depressing to watch, like the guy who bought the mini-van because of the space but feels the need to justify to others that the mini-van is truly a racing vehicle.
Re:Vista... Microsoft's "New Coke" (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why not more of this? (Score:5, Insightful)
if you put Vista on suitable hardware with good drivers there is really almost nothing seriously wrong with it.
This "if" thing is what's seriously wrong with it.
Re:I've done this. I switched back to Vista. (Score:2, Insightful)
I love comments like this. If you don't use any sort of AV software, how do you know you haven't gotten a virus? There are quite a few that you can get where you would never know about them unless you checked for them.
But how many people really need them ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Anything by Adobe. The GIMP is not a valid Photoshop equivalent. Inkscape is not a valid Illustrator equivalent. Scribus is not a valid PageMaker equivalent.
On the other hand, how many people have an actual need for full fledged professional suites ?
If you are a professional photograph, a publisher, etc. I understand that you live and die by Photoshop & Illustrator.
But a big majority of the windows users who are complaining about the lack of adobe software on linux, mainly use it to quickly crop and remove red eyes from the pictures they took during their vacation.
Adobe's product are a huge overkill and too much expensive for what the average Joe is doing with them.
Of course the average Joe got them (illegaly) for free on some peer-2-peer system, so the price isn't really an issue for them.
What the average user mostly does with a computer is pretty much covered under linux (and some times even better, see Firefox).
That's why you start to see success with Linux on sub note-books like the Asus eeePC, etc.
Not everyone has tons of disposable money to throw on expensive toys. Thus pro-tools are an overkill, and similarly using Sever 2008 as a main OS on a workstation is just completely insane for anyone but the most hard-core gamers (who are also willing to spend several days tuning and "fiddle-farting" their OS around drivers and missing DLL problems to get their games working - making it as much easy to handle as the worst case scenario in Linux).
Re:Vista... Microsoft's "New Coke" (Score:3, Insightful)
Why wouldn't you download all that stuff on your desktop machine & have it ready on a thumb drive once your server was installed? A server generally implies the presence of other machines. Why not keep the server locked down tight & use less important machines for the "risky" stuff? Sure, if you're using the OS as a desktop you'll need to fiddle with those settings, but if not, why not keep it as locked down as possible? If I'm setting up a Linux server, I don't toss Firefox on there just so I can download things. I'm not saying I haven't popped into IE on a Windows server to grab something, but every time I do I think that it's not really a great idea.
just one problem (Score:3, Insightful)
The $1500 price tag for server 2008 is a bit of a hurdle...
Re:Vista... Microsoft's "New Coke" (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm with the previous poster, I think they make them with crack.
Re:Vista... Microsoft's "New Coke" (Score:3, Insightful)
Heck, even in Linux, if a attacker wanted to root a machine, they could seed the logs with bad queries. Those queries were ANSI control codes for telnet, which could branch sessions and run separate programs. It could also blank the screen and other nasties.
No system is secure when there's errors in the parser, whether it be text or movie. They can at least get your user's rights to the system. Then it's just an elevation away.
Re:I've done this. I switched back to Vista. (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, I've seen trolls, but this takes the cake.
Somebody disagrees with you, so they're trolling? Interesting.
Internal Mail apps? And you think Exchange is EASY to administer?
I haven't seen a better mail/calendaring solution out there. Zimbra is unpleasant at best.
Plus, you don't pay anything for it past the cost of learning and setting it up.
"Free software is only free if your time has no value."
I've moved on from Microsoft software, maybe you should look at what you are bashing and give it a shot.
Right, because I don't write software that targets Linux all the time. 'Course not. None of it, ever.
(Hint: that would be sarcasm. I write a lot of software that targets Solaris/BSD/Linux. I've used it extensively both as a desktop and a server. I'd rather a Windows server any day for anything except, as I said, production use of a service or web app or the like.)
Re:Why not more of this? (Score:3, Insightful)
You have outlined what the author of the site and people on Slashdot don't seem to understand no matter how many times it is explained to them or written about on Wikipedia.
Vista SP1 and Windows 2008 are identical OSes. The only differences is the features or components allowed to run and the default packages for applications installed.
If you turn on the same applications and services on both OSes (Vista SP1/Win2008) they function 100% the same.
They are the same code, just as NT has 'tried' to always be, with XP and 2003 Server being the exception (XP 64bit and 2003 were the same).
Going back to NT 4.0 people would claim that NT 4.0 Server was more stable or faster than NT 4.0 workstation, which back then was as insane as it is today.
For anyone here that doesn't get this... Go read any whitepaper on NT or Vista or Windows 2008 server.
If people are 'minimalists' and want Vista's features removed, it is easier to just TURN THEM OFF ON VISTA than to monkey with trying to get Windows 2008 to work as your desktop OS. You can turn off the Vista features in about 10-15 clicks, and BINGO, EXACTLY like Windows 2008 Server. Even though you are actually reducing overall performance by doing so.
This is like the people that turn off Aero when they first Boot Vista 'thinking' they are increasing performance, because if they had a clue they would realize that they just turned of 20% of the performance Vista brings to applications, and I'm not talking just what a Composer does, as Aero shoves GDI functions through the 3D GPU, as well as font drawing, and even bitmap decompression/compression that speeds up OLD applications drawing on the screen, and this isn't even touching the benefits of .NET 3.0/WPF and the Vector Composer relationship they lose by turning off Aero.
Microsoft is NOT stupid, their engineers are NOT stupid... Vista has features turned on that are not used on a Server and Windows 2008 has features turned on that a desktop won't use. That is the difference.
As consumers, turn as many of them on or off as you want, MS isn't stopping anybody.