What are the advantages of using R2 as a workstation?

Forums General Feedback What are the advantages of using R2 as a workstation?

Viewing 11 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #49969

      @naisanza wrote:

      My question is, why it is advantageous to use Windows Server OS as a workstation.

      Well you can read the Why Should I use a Server OS as a workstation from the R1 Manual.

      My initial impression is that there is practically nothing installed, which is a good thing.

      Yes, one downside is that having nothing installed means some compatibility issues, etc. but that is what this website is for!

      I am wondering, in terms of benchmarks, how much more improvement do you see using R2 x64 than Vista x64.

      Well as Windows Server 2008 R2 is based on Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 is based on Vista, you get a more advanced OS if you use R2 rather than Vista.

      I will add more as I can think of it, I’m in a bit of a hurry but this should answer some of your questions a bit. Other members will be able to give you their opinions too! 🙂

    • #59788
      AvatarAnonymous

      @naisanza wrote:

      My question is, why it is advantageous to use Windows Server OS as a workstation.

      Well you can read the Why Should I use a Server OS as a workstation from the R1 Manual.

      My initial impression is that there is practically nothing installed, which is a good thing.

      Yes, one downside is that having nothing installed means some compatibility issues, etc. but that is what this website is for!

      I am wondering, in terms of benchmarks, how much more improvement do you see using R2 x64 than Vista x64.

      Well as Windows Server 2008 R2 is based on Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 is based on Vista, you get a more advanced OS if you use R2 rather than Vista.

      I will add more as I can think of it, I’m in a bit of a hurry but this should answer some of your questions a bit. Other members will be able to give you their opinions too! 🙂

    • #49970

      Games work much faster too in both R1 and R2! Borderlands works almost perfect! If only BL wasn’t so short. my husband beat it in 3 days without poopsocking and we are now playing co-op and we are both lvl 21 (cap is 30 when the ending is) 🙁 they could have made it much longer!

      but yes gaming is definatly better on server 2008!

    • #59789
      AvatarAnonymous

      Games work much faster too in both R1 and R2! Borderlands works almost perfect! If only BL wasn’t so short. my husband beat it in 3 days without poopsocking and we are now playing co-op and we are both lvl 21 (cap is 30 when the ending is) 🙁 they could have made it much longer!

      but yes gaming is definatly better on server 2008!

    • #49971

      Well, it depends.

      With Windows 2003 server, it was a much better choice than XP for users of 2000. It was faster(newer kernel, some extra technologies), minimal, lean, and without all the fisher price trash.

      With Windows 2008 R1, it was aain slightly newer than Vista, and had many of the same advantages, albeit to a lesser extent.

      With R2, it is on par with with Windows 7. For desktop use, the performance etc is not significantly different, and 7 is in most cases better suited for desktop use, having features like Superfetch and such.

      One of the main reasons to use a server os these days is to learn, e.g. to play with active directory and domains and such, or to use hyperv, or whichever.

      Some people insist on using a server OS over 7 without any good reason. They are the type of people who think running a 32bit os on a 64bit cpu is unstable, or that 7 is a step backwards from vista. Mostly, these people just like to be different, and have no technical understanding or basis.

      You should look at your needs, and if the features of R2 would suit you, or if you would not otherwise gain anything. Don’t just run one “just to be different”, because it is truly pointless.

    • #59790
      AvatarAnonymous

      Well, it depends.

      With Windows 2003 server, it was a much better choice than XP for users of 2000. It was faster(newer kernel, some extra technologies), minimal, lean, and without all the fisher price trash.

      With Windows 2008 R1, it was aain slightly newer than Vista, and had many of the same advantages, albeit to a lesser extent.

      With R2, it is on par with with Windows 7. For desktop use, the performance etc is not significantly different, and 7 is in most cases better suited for desktop use, having features like Superfetch and such.

      One of the main reasons to use a server os these days is to learn, e.g. to play with active directory and domains and such, or to use hyperv, or whichever.

      Some people insist on using a server OS over 7 without any good reason. They are the type of people who think running a 32bit os on a 64bit cpu is unstable, or that 7 is a step backwards from vista. Mostly, these people just like to be different, and have no technical understanding or basis.

      You should look at your needs, and if the features of R2 would suit you, or if you would not otherwise gain anything. Don’t just run one “just to be different”, because it is truly pointless.

    • #49972

      Hi,

      Having run W2K8S R2 Standard and Enterprise side by side along Win7 Enterprise for the past months I feel you’d get better results by stripping Win7 to the bone rather than running W2K8S R2 as a workstation in most situations.

      Back when W2K3S was king it was a different story as even though you could make it’s WS counterpart XP-PRO look like W2K3-S you were still stuck with the 3 to 4Gb (at most) memory limit of the XP kernel for 32 bit computing among other things.

      Still, to my taste at least, Win7 still comes with a ton of stuff no one really wants on a true workstation but it’s still early days to say exactly what can and can’t be thrown out. Contrary to XP and family, Vista and now Win7 are so tightly nit that hacking bits and pieces off may well have disastrous consequences to the unwary.

      In case you hadn’t noticed already, I’m a bit of a “form follows function”, Porsche kinda guy 😉 which is why I tend to prefer the no nonsense approach of the server dev teams in general.

      Also, you’ll always have to keep in mind that a server kernel is written with that particular role in mind. For home use it’s much easier to turn a desktop version into a (sub)entry level server than vice-versa.

      While I haven’t done any benchmarking on either I still have a slight preference for W2K8S R2 for the reasons explained above but as far as mere speed goes I think the difference between the both of them as a workstation is negligable a few exceptions either way nothwithstanding.

      Best,

      $

    • #59791
      AvatarAnonymous

      Hi,

      Having run W2K8S R2 Standard and Enterprise side by side along Win7 Enterprise for the past months I feel you’d get better results by stripping Win7 to the bone rather than running W2K8S R2 as a workstation in most situations.

      Back when W2K3S was king it was a different story as even though you could make it’s WS counterpart XP-PRO look like W2K3-S you were still stuck with the 3 to 4Gb (at most) memory limit of the XP kernel for 32 bit computing among other things.

      Still, to my taste at least, Win7 still comes with a ton of stuff no one really wants on a true workstation but it’s still early days to say exactly what can and can’t be thrown out. Contrary to XP and family, Vista and now Win7 are so tightly nit that hacking bits and pieces off may well have disastrous consequences to the unwary.

      In case you hadn’t noticed already, I’m a bit of a “form follows function”, Porsche kinda guy 😉 which is why I tend to prefer the no nonsense approach of the server dev teams in general.

      Also, you’ll always have to keep in mind that a server kernel is written with that particular role in mind. For home use it’s much easier to turn a desktop version into a (sub)entry level server than vice-versa.

      While I haven’t done any benchmarking on either I still have a slight preference for W2K8S R2 for the reasons explained above but as far as mere speed goes I think the difference between the both of them as a workstation is negligable a few exceptions either way nothwithstanding.

      Best,

      $

    • #49973

      This is a good question, yours.

      Off the top of my head there are no particular “advantages” for me, rather instead preferences.

      Windows Server 2008 R2 has a cleaner interface with less fluff. It has a visually lower key logon and desktop.

      It’s name (Server) reminds me that some of the work I do on it is to serve others.

      Since I’ve dedicated one computer here for a couple of tasks (PGP Email and as a share/backup) I decided it would be ‘OK” to put R2 on it – no games, no instant messaging. It’s been doing very well.

      Wiindows 7 would do just a good a job, but I like the slightly more ‘to business’ feel of R2 so it keeps me from surfing with it or getting up to anything other than the business it is dedicated to. I haven’t installed things like Flash nor even any anti-virus.

      But yes, I realize that for what I use it for Windows 7 would do just as well. On what I consider my ‘main’ desktop I use Windows 7 Professional. And yes, I do have instant messaging on that. lol

    • #59792
      AvatarAnonymous

      This is a good question, yours.

      Off the top of my head there are no particular “advantages” for me, rather instead preferences.

      Windows Server 2008 R2 has a cleaner interface with less fluff. It has a visually lower key logon and desktop.

      It’s name (Server) reminds me that some of the work I do on it is to serve others.

      Since I’ve dedicated one computer here for a couple of tasks (PGP Email and as a share/backup) I decided it would be ‘OK” to put R2 on it – no games, no instant messaging. It’s been doing very well.

      Wiindows 7 would do just a good a job, but I like the slightly more ‘to business’ feel of R2 so it keeps me from surfing with it or getting up to anything other than the business it is dedicated to. I haven’t installed things like Flash nor even any anti-virus.

      But yes, I realize that for what I use it for Windows 7 would do just as well. On what I consider my ‘main’ desktop I use Windows 7 Professional. And yes, I do have instant messaging on that. lol

    • #49974

      Windows 7 is not it’s cracked up to be though. My sister had it and NO older games work that well. Adobe premiere acted very bad on it becuase of the built in codecs and we had to strip them out and it caused more problems. Priemiere is very picky about codecs. I wish they would NOT have bundled the codecs with 7. I know it is easy for n00bs who can’t download codecs on thier own, but c’mon what about the media professionals like my sister? They also put a ton of other media overhead crap in 7 that is clunky and I have no need for. I am glad to run a server OS becuase it is clean, efficiant, and I can put what I want on it and not have BS. I can and do make it nice by installing the desktop experience stuff becuase it looks good and makes me feel good.

    • #59793
      AvatarAnonymous

      Windows 7 is not it’s cracked up to be though. My sister had it and NO older games work that well. Adobe premiere acted very bad on it becuase of the built in codecs and we had to strip them out and it caused more problems. Priemiere is very picky about codecs. I wish they would NOT have bundled the codecs with 7. I know it is easy for n00bs who can’t download codecs on thier own, but c’mon what about the media professionals like my sister? They also put a ton of other media overhead crap in 7 that is clunky and I have no need for. I am glad to run a server OS becuase it is clean, efficiant, and I can put what I want on it and not have BS. I can and do make it nice by installing the desktop experience stuff becuase it looks good and makes me feel good.

    • #43899

      Hi. I’m new to this concept of using a server build for everyday use.

      My question is, why it is advantageous to use Windows Server OS as a workstation.

      My initial impression is that there is practically nothing installed, which is a good thing.

      I am wondering, in terms of benchmarks, how much more improvement do you see using R2 x64 than Vista x64.

      Thanks
      -Eric

Viewing 11 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.