Making the Switch To Windows "Workstation" 2008

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"

A Windows install without all the needless bells and whistles runs nicely. Who'd have thunk it. Well, many consumers thunk it, but Microsoft's marketing demagogues didn't.

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.

Re:Vista... Microsoft's "New Coke"

IMO, Vista is Microsoft's version of New Coke...Although the same could have been said about Windows ME.

Perhaps Windows ME was New Coke and Vista is just Pepsi.

Maybe Windows is like Star Trek movies... only every other release is good.

Would it be more accurate to say, "every other release is less bad?"

Arch Deluxe

Now you've crossed the line. The Arch Deluxe was the best McDonald's sandwich ever. It made Big Macs look like they came out of a vending machine.

Re:Vista... Microsoft's "New Coke"

The Arch Deluxe was the best McDonald's sandwich ever.

Is that meant to sound impressive?

Re:Vista... Microsoft's "New Coke"

Windows2000 Professional saved the world from Windows ME.

There, fixed that for you.

Something will save us from Vista.

Like Ubuntu, Kubuntu, or Xubuntu.

How to download freely in Server 2008

1. Visit www.getfirefox.com

2. Download FF3

3. Install FF3

4. Click a dozen or so security warnings in the process.

5. Never look back.

db

Re:How to download freely in Server 2008

1. Visit www.getfirefox.com

2. Download FF3

3. Install FF3

4. Click a dozen or so security warnings in the process.

5. Never look back.

6. Profit!

Plust best of all

You can double the cost of your $700 PC.

I've done this. I switched back to Vista.

I got Windows Server 2008 free at the LA launch, so I figured I'd give it a go. I installed it and quickly changed everything to function as a desktop. Then I switched back. Here's why:

• Many applications have real dumb incompatibilities. Usually it's just because they check the version, assume Server has everything that Vista has, and attempt to load some DLLs that don't exist on the Server version. This is fixable most of the time.
• Some applications have installer issues. Their Windows Live stuff will refuse to install on a Server OS. Unreal Tournament 3 seems to be hardcoded to only install on Vista and below - it should be a laugh when Windows 7 comes out and nobody can install the game on it. The workaround is to dump the DVD to your hard drive, remove the check in the .msi, and install from there.
• The sound system is screwy. Priorities are setup for different workloads, resulting in pops and hisses when you play music. This is fixable, but took me a while to figure out how and I still never seemed to get it perfect.
• The bluetooth stack is absent. It's not an optional component in the installer, it's just not there. So you don't have the nice integrated solution anymore, and have to install crappy vendor-specific stacks that don't seem to work for everything.

The experience is definitely not a simple "setup windows, modify windows, use as normal" one. Most of the random things that screw up are fixable, but just too much of a pain in the ass and ultimately a waste of time.

Server *can* run faster than Vista, but only because various artificial limits are raised or removed. Most developers work around these limits and most are very good at it, so I doubt any non-developers would ever notice any performance difference. If you're looking to speed up Vista, find one of the various sites that list descriptions of services and which are safe to turn off. Most of the "bloat" of Vista can be turned off through that.

Re:Plust best of all

And this is why, as a developer or a card-carrying geek club member, you get an MSDN account. I've been running Server 08 as my core OS since its beta versions and have been nothing but thrilled with it. I still prefer the linux command line and power, but with the add-ons and virtualization at my fingertips I can get my BASH fix whenever I please (and no more).

Why not more of this?

I have often wondered why we have not seen more of this.
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.

Re:Why not more of this?

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.

windows server is pimp

this is true, windows 2008 is awesome. i converted to it from vista and i never get the spinning circle anymore. its just snappier.

one thing to note, its kind of a bitch to get drivers working. vista drivers work fine but you'll have to open those driver installers with an archive utility, pull out the .inf driver files and manually install through device manager. although if you're installing windows server you probably can do that stuff no sweat. i highly recommend windows 2008

come on this is not remotely affordable for most

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.

Re:come on this is not remotely affordable for mos

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.

How much did you pay?

I downloaded the free trial from microsoft and am using it occasionally for when I want to run cpu-z or the odd game (NWN2 refused to install).

Having run a bit of vista and Ubuntu on the same machine, I have to say 2008 runs a lot better than the one and not as well as the other ;)

db

Incorrect use of the term 'Workstation'

OEM Vista Home Basic $105
OEM Vista Home Premium $136
OEM Vista Business $166
OEM Vista Ultimate $229
OEM Vista Workstation (AKA 2008 server) $1090

Wow, that's quite a markup for a workstation OS!

(All prices in AU$)

Why not run a decent 'Workstation' OS like Solaris or Linux? If you want a 'home PC', Vista is fine, but Windows is not a 'Workstation' OS, and it never was.

Meh.

Re:Incorrect use of the term 'Workstation'

I'm currently developing Windows apps without actually having to "use" windows to get my work done. Yup the beauty of cross compiling with MinGW and testing on the Windows XP machine I have hidden in the corner.

I think I've actually gotten better at writing code, because I have to read/check more and make sure that I think it works before testing.

The new Windows 2000?

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:The new Windows 2000?

Windows 2000 wasn't the "server" OS.

Windows 2000 was the business OS. It came in Professional desktop versions and various Server versions.

You can try it for free

It's a free download on Microsoft's website, good for a 60-day trial, extendable to 240 days. I'm a diehard Linux user, but I actually was pleasantly surprised when I tried it (not enough to keep it around, but it's probably my favorite Windows). Relatively snappy, PowerShell is built in, and no DRM crap. It's what should've been released as Windows Vista, IMO.

Pft

You can add Powershell to vista pretty easily, and strip off most of the junk. But what you really want is to move to 64 bit and Vista 64 is pretty dicey even in SP1. They tend to test the server products more completely before release. So they might have something there. But really, people should be complaining about why Vista isn't good, not moving to the next OS already..

The bottom line is they are basically the same, with different modules. So if you configure 08 with the exact same configuration as Vista, it will run just as crappy.

Personally, I have been forced into using Leopard (Mac OSX) at work for the past two months and I have been very pleased. UNIX is just great. Powershell is a step in the right direction but I'm not too impressed with it. You have to be very very knowledgable about all of the classes to use it effectively. For most tasks I am only needing text anyway, so why add the extra bloat of object piping? The only problem with Mac OSX is the GUI but I can run X and do most of what I want. I mean, I like the Mac GUI, but some of the stuff is frustrating to a power user. And all the addons cost money! It works pretty well for a dev box, with linux test and production servers to back it up. The best part is the huge, beautiful monitor and really really great fonts and typesetting. Nothing on windows comes close.

I have a beta of 2008 rolling around here somewhere that I picked up at the launch event. I also have VS 2008 which I believe is the finest IDE available. Although Eclipse could trump that if they could just move faster. So maybe I'll try this. Most places want you to use windows and I'm getting rusty already.

Upgrading the downgrade?

So Server 2008 is better than Vista. What isn't?

The real question is what does it offer over Server 2003 x64 (or XP Pro 32) that offsets the less mature (sometimes non-existent) drivers and compatibility problems.

drivers may be a problem

A few years back, the company I worked for tried pushing Windows 2003 terminal servers (using Linux as thin clients) for its clients. It actually worked rather well, but there was one major drawback: since Windows 2003 was a "server" OS, a lot of desktop applications and workstation hardware flat out refused to support it.

Our biggest challenge was printer drivers. Practically no printer manufacturers released Win2k3 drivers, because it was the only major MS operating system at the time that didn't have some sort of workstation edition. Even though there was no technical hurdles to providing the drivers, the installation packages would refuse to run, saying that they didn't support the OS. I was usually the one stuck having to hack in the manufacturer's Windows 2000 drivers just so our customers could print their stuff. In one case, we ended up deploying a Linux CUPS server just to forward the print jobs through because the Windows drivers were so terrible.

I tried this...Antivirus Issues

Many off the shelf antivirus programs will not install on any of the Server series of OSes. They flat out refuse because they want you to buy their more expensive server version...

Re:Why not...

XP 64 is better than win2k in many ways. (not to be confused with standard XP). it's more like server 2003.

I wouldn't mind going the Win2008 route (even though I'm a Unix&Linux die hard). But the price for Win2008 doesn't really make it a viable option as a Vista substitute:
Windows Server 2008 Standard $999
Windows Web Server 2008 $469

the webserver edition doesn't have any client access licenses, but I think you don't need any if you want to turn it into a workstation OS. Could be the cheapest route, but not certain if that would work.