SuperSite Blog

Pingback from  Airline Travel » Using Windows Server 2008 as a SUPER workstation OS

The point of using Server 2008 is precisely to get rid of the multimedia desktop user stuff that hinder the stability/speed of an OS no ? So what's the point of re-patching that on top of Server  2008 if you can just use Vista out of the box with the same Kernel as Server 2008 ? I don't get it...

I've also been running a server OS on my desktop. It's been called by various names over the years, from SuSE to openSUSE etc. What I've always found curious, though, is that I've had to run a server OS to get a desktop that conforms to my accessibility needs.

I guess it's just one of those weird things of technology. The desktop champion, Microsoft, cannot deliver a desktop I can actually use with my poor eye sight. Oh well.

i think this will be a common thing for many users than want to use the new Hyper-V extensions on a workstation, until Hyper-V Server actually gets released (as a standalone, i mean).

Paul, didn't one of the Microsoft server guys already mention in one of your previous WW podcasts that he currently does this on his laptop?

Also, what's the real deal behind Hyper-V?  Does it support all "real" (ie. virtualized, as opposed to emulated) hardware, or are there limitations compared to running an OS "natively" on the same hardware?  Wouldn't it just be better to run Vista SP1 under a virtual machine on Server Core?  This would also give you the flexibility to run other OS's side-by-side.  

Aside from booting Server Core, and the hypervisor itself, and the fact that you'd need to launch the Vista VM from the server commandline, what kind of limitations would one expect running in that type of configuration?

How's about a comparison chart on WinSupersite detailing the difference between Vista running natively, compared to running in a Server Core Hyper-V VM?

(maybe even performance tests too?)