Windows Server 2008 as a Workstation?

2008 Of Vista SP1? | Unexpected

2008 Of Vista SP1? | Unexpected — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 20:14:24 GMT

Pingback from 2008 Of Vista SP1? | Unexpected

Airline Travel » Windows Server 2008 as a Workstation?

Airline Travel » Windows Server 2008 as a Workstation? — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:30:13 GMT

Pingback from Airline Travel » Windows Server 2008 as a Workstation?

re: Windows Server 2008 as a Workstation?

Waethorn — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:31:18 GMT

"That was 1 second boot times WITH Active Directory "

I'll believe it when I see it....

re: Windows Server 2008 as a Workstation?

Cfischer83 — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 02:28:25 GMT

Paul: You are absolutely right. To clarify I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was just pointing out that I am one of them (well, was until I moved to another organization and became a full time PHP/Apache/OS X developer).... other than that, no one should be using a server OS as a desktop OS, and anyone who relies on Information Week for reliable info/stats/reviews on Windows needs to check their brain at the door...

@Waethorn and Lindy:

That was 1 second boot times WITH Active Directory ;)

re: Windows Server 2008 as a Workstation?

Lindy — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:56:23 GMT

Delmont,

I do support a server/domain production, test and development environment and have so since Windows NT 3.1 Advanced server….but so what.

You stated that you would be concerned that a user with Windows 2003/2008 as a desktop would “accidentally being promoted to a DC”. It’s not possible in a domain they belong to unless they have the proper rights to do so.

That said, I agree no one (joe user) where I work at now or have worked in the past 5-7 years can even physically see a server, or get with in 100 yards of them, let alone get console access physically or remotely. If they are surfing on a server it’s a RDP session on a terminal server behind a proxy so locked down they can’t get anywhere they are not allowed to….just like XP on their desk at work.

Like I stated, only IT people either doing server support, development, or sales support of IT products would do this. These articles posted on the internet are from technical IT people, and they are read for the most part by IT people. Paul acts as if this is hear say or blasphemy against Vista that will poison the masses.

In either case people that do this these days usually turn to running a server OS in a VM like VMware workstation, of less capable options like Virtual PC. This is how I run and Vista when I must.

re: Windows Server 2008 as a Workstation?

Waethorn — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:11:42 GMT

"And as for the 1-second boot, I plain as day do not believe you. I'm not calling you a liar. Or maybe I am, it's just that in 3-years of working with Windows Server 2003 at two companies, I've always found it takes A LOT longer to load than desktop Windows, generally because it has a lot more to load."

I can do the same thing with a much lower-end system than his quad-core. Active Directory will slow the system bootup time immensely, and other roles will also slow the system down (though not as dramatically as AD), but a clean XP will do the same thing also. Remember that this is Server 2003 we're talking about - NOT 2008. I doubt we'll see Server 2008 boot times anywhere under 10 seconds anytime soon.

I'd say that probably the most compelling reason for someone to run Server 2008 as a workstation is for Hyper-V support for testing IT deployment scenarios. I could really use that for my system builder business for testing preinstallation deployment methodologies. That's about it though.

Paul, is Hyper-V Server "standalone" supposed to be released at the same time as the full RTM add-on for Server 2008, or later on? How come Microsoft's own sites don't mention anything about the standalone officially? Everything so far in the "official channels" references "Server 2008 Virtualization via Hyper-V". I'm beginning to wonder if it's been dropped.

I also wonder if it will be made available for the new Essential Business Solutions ie. SBS & WEBS. Virtualizing at least the database store in the Premium versions would be somewhat desirable. The multi-server setup in WEBS would be best on separate hardware though, otherwise it would eliminate the hardware failover features that are included.

re: Windows Server 2008 as a Workstation?

sttevo — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:28:31 GMT

"Windows 2008 is 20 percent faster than Vista": I bet it is when running a clean install without any services running, compared with a machine running Vista loaded with 3rd party junk ;)

Running a server as a desktop OS? That's like buying a truck to take out on a track. VMware is made for this kind of thing.

re: Windows Server 2008 as a Workstation?

Delmont — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:22:18 GMT

Lindy,

Do you work/support a server/domain production environment? Just adding server clients into a domain adds a lot "what if" into the mix. You can say: well be more concerned about this or that. But that's the point. Just like I see people at other companies surfing the net on their servers. And I've had people say: "well it's not a DC, so what's the big deal". I never surf any web page from any of my servers, if they're a DC or not. Just no reason. My servers are not there to surf the net.

In a production environment you have to be very careful about everything. So just because Joe developer wants to run Win2003/2008 server on his desktop, doesn't mean he gets an automatic pass on doing this.

re: Windows Server 2008 as a Workstation?

pthurrott — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:10:13 GMT

It's easy to complain about Vista. The truth is, tens of millions of people use it every day and love it. You don't hear much from these people because it doesn't make for a lurid headline.

I'd add this: The baloney about "Windows 2008 is 20 percent faster than Vista" has been extrapolated from a single test done on a single machine, with unclear configurations of each system. Now it's a "fact." Guys, no offense. But this is all BS, and very typical for what passes as journalism on the Internet. Sorry. But you've been had.

As for the people who have legit reasons to do this, that was my point. You're out there. The numbers are small. But you're out there. If you need to do this, you know who you are. But the problem I have is that more typical users read these stupid stories about Windows 2008 being "faster" and they believe it. Information Week isn't doing a service, they're propagating a myth. And that's not just wrong, it's dangerous.

If you really believe that Windows Server 2008 would make a great workstation, again, let me draw your attention to the cheaper and more capable product, one that is based on exactly the same code base. It's called Windows Vista. And yes, Virginia, it works just fine.

re: Windows Server 2008 as a Workstation?

Lindy — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:29:40 GMT

"I'd be very concerned about it accidentally being promoted to a DC, or some other role in my domain and causing havoc"

If that is a concern, I think you should worry about account management more. You are going to need high level access to promote a server to a domain controller, in an existing domain.

re: Windows Server 2008 as a Workstation?

Delmont — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:32:37 GMT

Oh yes, being concerned that Yahoo Music Player and Zune Music software won't run on a server o/s is very important.

What in the world are you running that junk on a server to begin with?

Well I must be one of those 17 people that use Vista and like it. I've used Vista Enterprise since August. Zero problems, zero crashes.

Drylight: time to stop trolling. I think Appleinsider or Macrumors is calling you.

I can understand the need to run a server os on your desktop if you are a developer..but it's still kinda tough to justify it in a real world, in a company that has a domain running. If I would let someone in my company run Server 2003 or 2008 on their desktop, I'd be very concerned about it accidentally being promoted to a DC, or some other role in my domain and causing havoc.

You just have to be careful with making blanket statements about doing this or doing that, running this os in a domain environment, a production environment.

re: Windows Server 2008 as a Workstation?

rseiler — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:20:18 GMT

A short article with some key links for those interested:

www.informationweek.com/.../microsoft_relea.html

Some of which, of course, runs counter to what Paul is saying.

re: Windows Server 2008 as a Workstation?

Cfischer83 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 04:38:10 GMT

"And as for the 1-second boot, I plain as day do not believe you. I'm not calling you a liar. Or maybe I am"

Well, you don't have to believe me ;) .... although this was on an expensive new server bought a few months ago with Quad Cores etc, etc...

re: Windows Server 2008 as a Workstation?

Lindy — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:42:25 GMT

Paul are you one of the 17 people that run and like Vista?

Look, who is going to read about and actually do such a thing. IT people, that have to support Windows servers or develop with .NET code. Is it so hard to see that. There is not going to be some rush to do this, no matter how bad Vista is.

I have seen countless sales reps demo software tools for IT on their Windows 2003 notebooks.

Heck at a recent MS road show I saw a MS rep using Windows 2003 on his notebook with Virtual PC, demoing System Center 2007/Forefront! Yes a Microsoft employee that had to have multiple VM's running on his notebook to demo these products and he chose Windows 2003 and this was in late 2007. He was not running Vista because it sucks up to much resources to be effective. How sad it that??

re: Windows Server 2008 as a Workstation?

benjwah — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:35:48 GMT

I'm not a developer, but I reckon y'all are probably right when you say that's a decent reason for running Windows Server on your workstation. That said, that's about the ONLY reason I could possibly think of, and even then I'd be doing my best to dual-boot or run it in a virtual machine or something. I can think of 3 apps that I use daily that wouldn't hear of running on a Server version of Windows, but I'm a musician so that's kind of obvious. The point still stands though.

And as for the 1-second boot, I plain as day do not believe you. I'm not calling you a liar. Or maybe I am, it's just that in 3-years of working with Windows Server 2003 at two companies, I've always found it takes A LOT longer to load than desktop Windows, generally because it has a lot more to load.

Also, aren't boot-times kind of irrelevant for Server? Like, you're not supposed to be booting it up all the time, it's supposed to just keep running for the most part.