Let's discuss Server 2008 as a workstation

[S.SubZero]

So the rumor is, that Server 2008 is "better than" and/or "faster than" and/or "not" Vista. Running it as a workstation has become trendy, and sites like *this* seem to be encouraging the idea.

I am curious as to seeing opinions and most importantly, benchmarks, from people who have made this change or are considering it. In my personal experience, Server 2008 has not shown itself to be any faster or sleeker than Vista SP1 when configured the same way. Server 2008 and Vista SP1 are built on the same kernel, and a lot of the included software is identical between them.

I think some of the belief of 2008's superiority is based on Server 2003 and XP. These two *are* slightly different, and do use different kernels. The 2003 code is considered "more optimized" than XP's, even though the gains are very marginal at best. I ran 2003 and XP side by side a few years ago and I could never differentiate the two performance-wise.

To benchmark 2008 and Vista SP1, I broke out my gaming laptop which has Vista SP1 x64 Ultimate. I then ran 3DMark2006, PassMark, and 3DMark2001. I also copied some large files between both my networked Vista SP1 desktop and a USB hard drive. Afterwards, I changed the laptop's hard drive to my spare drive with similar specs. I installed Server 2008 Enterprise x64, installed the same drivers my Vista SP1 setup uses, and turned off the print server service (since I do not own a printer). I then ran the same tests.



Pretty much identical scores in 3DMark06. I ran the test a few times but the numbers didn't vary much. They always were within a few points. I know 3DMark is a synthetic benchmark and not to be taken seriously, but in this case, if 2008 was truly faster in some graphical way, it would show here. The other interesting fact is that in this test, 2008 was running in "Classic" theme (the 2008 default) while Vista SP1 was running with Aero. Further proof that Aero doesn't necessarily impact game performance.

I ran PassMark, which is boring to look at. It churned slightly different numbers. 2008 got a 927.2. Vista SP1 a 893.6. This 30 point difference *is* due to Aero. PassMark does some desktop tests, like moving windows around real fast, and doing windowed 3D.

I ran 3DMark2001 but the score is not important. What IS important is that Server 2008.. dun dun dun... won't run it. Despite the latest DXWEBINSTALLER and all, it insists DX8.1 isn't installed and it just stops. Even compatibility mode fails. Oh well.

For file copying I tried various small (few MB) and large (few GB) files. Moving them over the network, times were virtually identical. Over USB.. virtually identical.

Server 2008 ships:
- With Aero disabled
- Without ANY Aero pointers
- With audio disabled
- Without any fancy desktop apps installed (Media Player, Photo Gallery, etc)
- In a restrictive server mode (restricted IE, CTRL-ALT-DEL login, etc)
- with some home components not installed at all (game controllers)
- with potential app and driver problems

I'm wondering how people can justify having to spend time configuring their OS considerably just to *use* it, for gains which are only posted on websites by people who probably got 2008 for free.

[XJ.]

Dumb, Windows Server 2008 is a great server platform - it's not Windows Workstation 2008. I experimented with the RCs, and was might impressed. There are allot of free copies out there (I just missed signing up in time to get W2k8 Server, SQL Server 2008 and MS VS 2008 - all for free - argh!).

Anyway, I wouldn't use it for my workstation.

[WhiteEclipse]

good post. Thanks for the info - when it comes around the web, I will be better informed.

[JoeFrat]

Honestly I cannot see why anyone would want to run a server os as a workstation. It's not suited for that, and top that with the waste of the resources it's designed to be used for.

Really, it's all about my ____ is bigger/better/newer/whatever than your _____

No point IMO.