- This topic has 8 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
-
I realize that this is going against the grain, but I have downgraded from Server 2008 R2 to R1. Let me explain why;
Perhaps the biggest reason was the lack of caching in R2. I found that it lacked prefetch and superfetch capabilities, both present in R1. I generally found the performance of R2 less responsive than R1, and while R1 has more hard disk activity when I first boot up, due to superfetch, once it has finished doing its thing my applications start faster in R1 compared to R2.
In a corporate environment R2 is no doubt a major improvement over R1, with Microsoft hoping that home users, like me, will migrate to Windows 7. I guess what I am saying here is that while Server 2008 R1 is great as a workstation, much better than Vista, Windows 7 is better as workstation than Server 2008 R2. Now that Microsoft has addressed many of the performance issues that bugged Vista, and this is perhaps the main reason why many of us opted to use Server 2008 as a workstation in the first place, using R2 as a workstation probably does not have as many advantages over Windows 7 than R1 had over Vista.
I would be interested in hearing your views.
@moosh101 wrote:
Perhaps the biggest reason was the lack of caching in R2. I found that it lacked prefetch and superfetch capabilities, both present in R1. I generally found the performance of R2 less responsive than R1, and while R1 has more hard disk activity when I first boot up, due to superfetch, once it has finished doing its thing my applications start faster in R1 compared to R2.
Well, you are right somewhat. R1 is superior to Vista just as 2003 was superior to XP. R2 is pretty much equal to 7 as far as performance enhancements and such.
The reasons I still use R2, is because it is entirely 64bit. It is beautifully snappy and responsive. I like the minimalist approach, as you would expect with a server. It’s why I still run Slackware as my Linux distribution. I appreciate the greater degree of control and policy, something that is somewhat hidden in Windows 7/Vista editions.
As for the lack of superfetch…, I have to say, it really is meaningless. It’s a nice feature if you have it, but I guess I don’t really turn my computer off enough to notice missing it. The applications I reopen, such as Firefox, Word or Premiere, open instantly anyway. Since I play a lot of games, it would be more of a burden for me anyway.
So, to summarize, it is not just improvements. It is about using an OS that is on par, or perhaps very slightly ahead to Windows 7 in performance, having a minimal install, having an install tuned for 64 bit and modern computers without all the legacy crap, and being able to have a finer degree of control. I would think with R1, the performance would not as great..although if it were negligible, and you still had the rest of the features, it would not make much difference.
@moosh101 wrote:
Perhaps the biggest reason was the lack of caching in R2. I found that it lacked prefetch and superfetch capabilities, both present in R1. I generally found the performance of R2 less responsive than R1, and while R1 has more hard disk activity when I first boot up, due to superfetch, once it has finished doing its thing my applications start faster in R1 compared to R2.
Well, you are right somewhat. R1 is superior to Vista just as 2003 was superior to XP. R2 is pretty much equal to 7 as far as performance enhancements and such.
The reasons I still use R2, is because it is entirely 64bit. It is beautifully snappy and responsive. I like the minimalist approach, as you would expect with a server. It’s why I still run Slackware as my Linux distribution. I appreciate the greater degree of control and policy, something that is somewhat hidden in Windows 7/Vista editions.
As for the lack of superfetch…, I have to say, it really is meaningless. It’s a nice feature if you have it, but I guess I don’t really turn my computer off enough to notice missing it. The applications I reopen, such as Firefox, Word or Premiere, open instantly anyway. Since I play a lot of games, it would be more of a burden for me anyway.
So, to summarize, it is not just improvements. It is about using an OS that is on par, or perhaps very slightly ahead to Windows 7 in performance, having a minimal install, having an install tuned for 64 bit and modern computers without all the legacy crap, and being able to have a finer degree of control. I would think with R1, the performance would not as great..although if it were negligible, and you still had the rest of the features, it would not make much difference.
I’m just not ready for a new codebase also since my architecture tools do not work right IN R2.
Also they removed features as well.
I also will not run any consumer grade windows becuase of the extra DRM crap and A/V stack bloat 7 still has. I don’t do much with A/V stuff besides listen to mp3’s and watch movies. I don’t stream, I don’t do “home theater” stuff, I don’t have half a million devices I want to stream to, I don’t have a TV tuner, and all that mess. so why should I have a bloat that I am not going to bother with.
I also am doing it for a 1337 factor. LOLz ^_^
so no consumer version for me and I won’t switch to R2 till some issues with superfetch and others are resolved. R1 is just fine for me right now and I am comfy with it.
I’m just not ready for a new codebase also since my architecture tools do not work right IN R2.
Also they removed features as well.
I also will not run any consumer grade windows becuase of the extra DRM crap and A/V stack bloat 7 still has. I don’t do much with A/V stuff besides listen to mp3’s and watch movies. I don’t stream, I don’t do “home theater” stuff, I don’t have half a million devices I want to stream to, I don’t have a TV tuner, and all that mess. so why should I have a bloat that I am not going to bother with.
I also am doing it for a 1337 factor. LOLz ^_^
so no consumer version for me and I won’t switch to R2 till some issues with superfetch and others are resolved. R1 is just fine for me right now and I am comfy with it.
@RemixedCat wrote:
I also will not run any consumer grade windows because of the extra DRM crap and A/V stack bloat 7 still has. I don’t do much with A/V stuff besides listen to mp3’s and watch movies. I don’t stream, I don’t do “home theater” stuff, I don’t have half a million devices I want to stream to, I don’t have a TV tuner, and all that mess. so why should I have a bloat that I am not going to bother with.
Hmm, this is not really a good reason to run a server OS in my opinion. The bloat you speak of really does not exist, not for DRM or AV stuff anyway. The bloat would be more to do with unnecessary apps drivers and legacy compatibility, but is not AV specific.
If you really need Superfetch and such, then it might be a reason to stick with R1, but in that case, Windows 7 is probably a much better option anyway.
IMO.
@RemixedCat wrote:
I also will not run any consumer grade windows because of the extra DRM crap and A/V stack bloat 7 still has. I don’t do much with A/V stuff besides listen to mp3’s and watch movies. I don’t stream, I don’t do “home theater” stuff, I don’t have half a million devices I want to stream to, I don’t have a TV tuner, and all that mess. so why should I have a bloat that I am not going to bother with.
Hmm, this is not really a good reason to run a server OS in my opinion. The bloat you speak of really does not exist, not for DRM or AV stuff anyway. The bloat would be more to do with unnecessary apps drivers and legacy compatibility, but is not AV specific.
If you really need Superfetch and such, then it might be a reason to stick with R1, but in that case, Windows 7 is probably a much better option anyway.
IMO.
Also my disk image for S2008 was way smaller then the vista install image.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
