[aln688]

I know what you’re meaning, modifying the MSI so it’ll meet the requirements for a Server OS. So once it’s installed, definitions updated (presumably), try installing any role or feature? I’ll try it out over the weekend, I’ll try adding the IIS Web Server role as a test.

Your reasons for keeping Windows Server 2008 are obviously very sound, and if it works for you, great. Yes, I’m aware that Windows has to run 32-bit apps through an emulation layer. From all the points you made, from 32-biit apps, to not really needing the features which represent the difference between W2K8 and W2K8 R2 are valid.

What do you mean by saying your BIOS is slow? If the BIOS ran on the .NET runtime I’d agree completely (that’s a horrible thought)! Maybe you mean the detection of devices in as the BIOS is going through its startup process? I’ve disabled a lot in my BIOS, on-board sound, on-board NIC, parallel and serial ports, as much as I can get away with.

I agree completely, Hyper-V is useless. In my BIOS I have a feature to allow sofware Hyper-V software to work better by using hardware capabilities. But really, with Sun (Oracle) VirtualBox, who on earth needs it? VirtualBox is an extremely good piece of software, even better than the VMWare bloat-ware. I would use a VM purely to try out a new piece of software that I don’t want to destroy my primary Window’s install, that is the only time I’d use VM.

Aero snap and aero shake, lol (whacky names), I’d never use those. I use Window’s in “classic” XP mode, the screen above was just to see if adding the “Desktop Experience” feature works, obviously it did. That’s amazing, I thought the same as you, the Show Desktop button, I kept reaching for it and activating the time, not to mention my mouse is usually over on the left.

So doesn’t AutoBanIPLite work on Server 2008 R2? It sounds like a great app. That’s unbelievable, 40,000 attempts in one day? Wow.

I develop software and run database servers, but also graphics work, Server 2008 R2 seems to work well. I know it’s just the same as Windows 7, but for me there’s less to turn on in Server 2008 R2, than there is to turn off in Windows 7, lol. Windows Server 2008 R2 starts up fast and shuts down fast too.

You’re right, Server 2008 and Server 2008 R2 are almost the same, just a slightly tweaked kernel in the latter. Just curious, what version of IIS is on Server 2008? The last time I thought about running a server was Windows 2000, then I used desktop OS’s, then discovered Server 2008 R2.

[aln688]

I found the utility (using something called ‘Google’ 🙂 ), 13.712 seconds on my system.

[aln688]

@halladayrules wrote:

Not so Awesome Edition 🙁

For some reason when I had NOD32 running on R2 it would crash when i installed a new role or feature in server manager. I uninstalled NOD32 and rebooted computer. Not sure what happened but it refused to boot up! I was like what the heck? I think i’m fed up with R2, server 2008 never gives me any problems. I’ll miss the Windows 7 features but too many problems on my machine.

Try ESET Smart Security (http://www.eset.com/business/smart-security), the anti-virus + firewall, instead of just anti-virus; I’ve got the it loaded on R2. Can you give me some steps to try and re-produce the crash you see? I tried adding new roles and features, it worked fine.

@halladayrules wrote:

I like this version better myself.

LOL, you like the Vista server better? For me R2 runs fine, in fact one noticeable difference between this and W7, this shuts down a lot faster than W7 does. I turned off System Restore, Firewall, Themes and other services in W7, but R2 still shuts down faster.

How do you measure your boot up time? I want to try it on my system.

[aln688]

LOL, Awesome Edition, nice one.

The other aspect to Superfetch is, those lucky enough to have an SSD as your boot drive (or as any drive!), Windows 7 disables Superfetch anyway because caching of files isn’t required on an SSD, so that levels the playing ground between Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2.

[aln688]

How can you compare Windows 7 to Windows Server 2008 R2 with a different set of installed programs? If your Dad’s machine is using 64 processes, I would expect his PC to use more RAM, with your Server using 38 processes (less) – this to me is normal but doesn’t prove that Windows Server 2008 R2 is more minimalistic in its resource usage.

[aln688]

I never actually said that, however I do agree with you 100%. 🙂

[aln688]

@JingoFresh wrote:

Even on W7, superfetch is very easily disabled, and then R2 and 7 use almost identical amounts of ram.

And you’re right, the superfecth addin for R2 won’t do anything and it never will. Support for prefetching must be enabled in the kernel, and it is explicitly disabled in the R2 kernel.

The best thing to try would be to try replacing the r2 kernel with the 7 kernel, and since theya re based on the same codebase this should work. In that case though, why not just use 7 and tone it down?

Good point, but it’s hardly worth it. I’ve “customized” Server 2008 R2 to the point I sit here wondering why on earth don’t I use Windows 7?! In my mind, there’s more tweaks to make to Server 2008 R2 to get it to act similar to Windows 7, than there are tweaks to make to Windows 7 to make it act like Server 2008 R2!

@JingoFresh wrote:

You mean 2008 R2 right?

If it’s any guide, my habbits are similar to yours, with the addition of some development and virtual machines.

I tend to do all my heavy stuff under linux anyway. The reason I like R2 at the moment is the group policy, firewall, minimalism and hyper-v. Most of that stuff ahs an equivilant in 7, so there in’t too much of a difference in running them.

Actually, I really do mean Server 2003 R2. 🙂 I’ll admit, looking at that Server 2003 R2, blocky, digitized splash screen as it loads, looks like something from the last century, but once it’s loaded, drivers installed (Chipset, Video and USB Wireless), the speed is incredible, and Office 2010 32-bit will install on it.

For what I do, all I need is Visual Studio 2008, Oracle 11g, some graphics tools and e-mail, Server 2003 R2, Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7 all fit the bill, but out of the three, Server 2003 R2 is the fastest, although maybe not optimized for my custom-built PC (Core i7-based).

[aln688]

Thanks for the information. My use for an OS is mainly development and graphic design, a little gaming (HL2, Crysis, etc.) as well as the more mundane tasks such as e-mail and web-browsing. I think you’re right, there is a certain element of hype regarding 64-bit software.

For laughs I tried Windows Server 2003 R2 and while it was lightening fast, I couldn’t get the latest ATI Catalyst drivers to install, it wouldn’t detect the card. I had to go back to a driver version from last year before it would install, the latest 10.2 wouldn’t.

I did read about the SuperFetch not working on Server 2008 R2, I’m not sure I’d miss it even if I stuck with Server 2008 R2. For myself, it’s choice between Server 2003 R2 or Windows 7; XP Pro x64 would be a choice but MS for some strange reason decided not to let Office 2010 install on it, not even the 32-bit version!

Thanks all.

[aln688]

Thanks for the reply. From what I’ve read, I think Windows Server 2008 made more of a case than Server 2008 R2. The Server 2008 was much better than Vista in terms of performance, but Server 2008 R2 really isn’t much of an improvement over Windows 7, as Windows 7 is already quite fast as-is.

[Author]

Posts