Hey

im wondering if there any Benchmark diff between them tho they share the same comp.s

someone knows ? [by test it physically]

anyways didnt find any link in google about Benchmark of it

This post has been edited by aviv00: Feb 22 2008, 08:52 AM

Just installed 2008 64bit as a dual boot alongside Vista 64bit on an AMD 4600+ Asus MB system.

Purely subjective at this stage but W2K8 appears to run about 2X faster than Vista. So far very pleased with W2K8.

Not having Aero and all the other media stuff etc built into Vista probably helps.

Graham.

This post has been edited by snaithg: Feb 24 2008, 02:45 AM

Not having Aero and all the other media stuff etc built into Vista probably helps.

ws have aero use server manger to install it and enable it

http://www.msfn.org/board/Ultimate-Guide-M...in-t108882.html

did u see any diff in gaming ?


Found same review about that:

http://wastingtimewithmikeandari.wordpress...he-ram-of-vista

This post has been edited by aviv00: Feb 24 2008, 09:17 AM

Thanks for the links aviv00.

Not really a fan of Aero etc, so won't be rushing to install it. Good to know it's there though.

Not into (PC) gaming [YET!!!], so can't comment on performance.

I'm very tempted to use W2K8 as my desktop client OS. IMO the performance boost over Vista is impressive (at least with my setup). I need to see whether I can port my more important apps to W2K8.

Graham.

Oh!, by the way, W2K8 installs much quicker than Vista

Graham.

This post has been edited by snaithg: Feb 24 2008, 01:11 PM

yea save the winsat and more stuff to install

That is definitely subjective.

3DMark2006 comes up with similar numbers on my Dell Inspiron E1705 laptop for Vista and Server 2008.

Server 2008 feels faster only because the default desktop is always classic, and certain desktop user experiences (ie. superfetch) are by default disabled. If you set Vista up with that desktop and kill the indexing, search and superfetch, it will definitely feel faster.

I also saw no real difference in the installation time.

What about compatibility? Same core?

The core is same as Vista SP1.

Cheers

another test:

http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2008/03/windo...done-right.html

".......we were expecting to find little or no performance delta between the two platforms. So we were understandably surprised when repeated test runs showed Windows Server 2008 outperforming Windows Vista w/SP1 by a margin of 11-17%......."


another link of neowin

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/03/12/w...ster-than-vista

have fun reading


edit:

here another link about server and vista

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/17140/1103/1/0/

two interesting quoting:
"Microsoft has probably already confirmed internally where Windows Server 2008 is indeed faster than Vista SP1. "

.........my "Workstation" 2008 experience is that, from a technical standpoint, it doesn't make sense - or at least, it shouldn't. With the same kernel (as of Vista SP1), the OSes should in fact behave similarly.”


edited in 3.25.2008:

http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2008/03/windo...done-right.html

This post has been edited by aviv00: Mar 25 2008, 08:19 AM