A number of resources for converting Windows Server 2008 into a workstation OS are popping up here and there on the Internet. These guides server exactly two audiences as far as I can tell:
1. Fools/dreamers/people with too much time on their hands.
2. The 17 people who actually need to run a server OS on a day-to-day basis.
Sorry, but you're only one of the two. If you're the latter, please enjoy yourself. But if you're not the latter and you're convinced you're not the former either, read on. Because you're just fooling yourself.
Here's why: Windows Server 2008 is much, much more expensive than Windows Vista. A cursory search of Windows Server 2008 at Newegg.com reveals that Microsoft's latest server OS doesn't come cheap: The mainstream Standard Edition is $699.99, while the very cheapest version, Web Server, is $389.99. (Would Windows Web Server 2008 even work as a workstation? I'd have to check, but then I'm not an idiot. At least not in this way.)
But what about Windows Vista? Do a search for Vista at NewEgg and the results are easier to live with (this despite all the complaints about how expensive it supposedly is). The retail packaging for the most expensive Vista edition, Ultimate, is just $289.99, $100 cheaper than the very cheapest Windows Server 2008 edition. But you can get Vista Ultimate for just $189.99 if you get the System Builder packaging, which, let's face it, is what people are buying on NewEgg. That's HALF the price of the cheapest version of Windows Server 2008.
But maybe you don't have to pay for Windows for some reason. You get MSDN through work or something. In such a case, you're living in a fantasy world anyway, but let's work with it. Why would you go through all the work to configure Windows Server 2008 so that it looks and behaves almost exactly like Vista, but not quite exactly? Because you're convinced that Windows Server 2008 somehow performs better than Vista. But that's a lie: Windows Server 2008 and Vista are based on exactly the same source code. If you turned off all the visual features in Vista, it would fly just as fast as Windows Server 2008, especially if you turned on every single interactive feature that's been disabled in Windows Server. They're the same OS.
Compatibility is, to me, a bigger problem. There are just too many applications that will check specifically for certain Windows versions for this to be viable. All it takes is that one application. Just ask anyone who's tried an x64 version of Vista to know the folly of doing the wrong thing for what you think are the right reasons.
Using Windows Server 2008 as a workstation OS may sound like a good idea. But it's just an exercise in expense, wasted time, and, ultimately, folly. Microsoft makes a great workstation OS. It's called Windows Vista with SP1. And I'm a big fan.
Advertisement
Discuss this Article 16
Will you be commenting on the IE team's shameless copying of Firebug?
"We finally have a heavily-Firebug-inspired tool inside Internet Explorer." http://ejohn.org/blog/javascript-in-internet-explorer-8/
Shameless really. Typical Microsoft.
There is a legitimate reason for running Windows Server as a desktop OS. I'm an ASP.NET / SharePoint developer and it's MUCH easier to run Windows Server on my desktop than to do remote development and debugging. And there's a lot more than 17 people in my situation.
It's really annoying when programs don't install on Windows Server when there's no good reason they wouldn't work. The Zune software and Yahoo Music Player are good examples. I don't care if companies don't want to support it -- just allow it to install!
hmm... I've run Windows 2003 and literally had it boot in one second! Although Vista is very fast, you can't beat that. There is a good reason to do it, and that is to run a development server on your desktop, which is just easier, that perfectly mimics your production environment (which wouldn't happen if I'm running Vista with 40-50 desktop apps installed messing up my configuration and you have Server 2008 running with slightly skewed configurations).
You don't want to be blogging, picture editing or anything like that on it, but it makes sense to me for hard-core developers...
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.
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??
"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...
A short article with some key links for those interested:
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/03/microsoft_rele...
Some of which, of course, runs counter to what Paul is saying.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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 ;)
