[imadude]

I realize 2k8 sp1 and vista sp1 share the same kernel, but is there any kind of performance increase from 2k3 to 2k8, specifically in terms of gaming?

This post has been edited by imadude: 30 June 2008 - 02:46 PM

[nitroshift]

Let's keep desktop OS`es apart from Server OS`es... XP and Vista are for desktops whereas 2k3 and 2k8 are meant for server use.

[imadude]

nitroshift, on Jul 1 2008, 08:38 AM, said:

Let's keep desktop OS`es apart from Server OS`es... XP and Vista are for desktops whereas 2k3 and 2k8 are meant for server use.

I'm asking for a comparison between 2k3 and 2k8. Those are both server OS's.

[nitroshift]

imadude, on Jun 30 2008, 10:48 PM, said:

[...]specifically in terms of gaming?

Are you gonna game on a server?

[imadude]

nitroshift, on Jul 1 2008, 09:56 AM, said:

imadude, on Jun 30 2008, 10:48 PM, said:

[...]specifically in terms of gaming?

Are you gonna game on a server?

This subforum is called "Windows Server 2008 to Workstation". So, this would be an appropriate place to ask. And yes I do currently on 2k3.

[hoak]

Hi, imadude; sadly the ill-informed bulls***/rhetoric re. servers vs. workstation O.S. design will probably never stop in these threads... I have tried Server 2008 and use Server 2003 for gaming (and running game servers).

Though I haven't tested Server 2008 exhaustively enough to qualify game performance, it is very close to Server 2003, marginally slower with some newer DX9 games. There is a substantial performance improvement with both DX9 and DX10 games on Sever 2008 over Vista however, and that's with the same services complement running.

Factoring Server 2008's better game performance over Vista, with the fact that it's possible to license it for less then some editions of Vista does make it look like a promising gaming platform -- though I see little reason to move from a workstation/game platform based on Server 2003 which is very mature, robust, and performs marginally better in some cases.

[kooler]

i use w2k8 for gaming and i love it compared to all other os's i use... only reason is that in w2k8 alt-tab is almost instant and the game play is much smoother than vista... meaning it doesn't get laggy after couple hours of online game play, plus it boots much quicker

This post has been edited by kooler: 09 July 2008 - 06:41 PM

[hoak]

Yes, there are other nice gaming performance enhancements using the Windows Server OS's you'll see running Windows games over XP or Vista as well; some are small but measurable and very noticeable -- and can be proven through repeated demonstration:

· games load faster
· lower pings
· less packet loss
· less hitching
· higher & smoother frame rates

With many games Sever 2003 performs marginally better then 2008 with the same services complement and the latest DX9 release; 2003 uses less RAM then 2008 and has a lower quiescent system load which corroborates better performance as there are more system resources available for games.

Server 2008 is supposed to offer better resource management, but a lot of this applies to server roles with a lot of core services running -- though the Sever 2008 kernel is supposed to stop polling some processes and services when they're disabled that the 2003 kernel still looks for, so your milage may vary...

[blerk]

Server OS or Workstation OS.

Even MS knows the line is very thin or non existent. Just look at XP Pro 64. Sold as Desktop OS, but what's under the hood, Windows 2003. To me a server OS is nothing more than the Desktop version with server roles, or as one could also put it, a desktop OS is nothing more that the server version without the server roles. And it is not even that black and white with Vista vs. 2008. Several blogs and tech sites have done benchmarks and guess whats faster in those benches? To me running a vLited to the bone Vista version on the same machine as a vanilla Server 2008, Windows 2008 as WS beats Vista hands down. Not only in boot time but in everything. Don't take my word for it, test it yourself if you don't believe me, but please don't say things without testing and giving good arguments to why a server OS should only be used as a server.

I remember Windows 2000 which was a hybrid being used for both server and desktops is based on NT which was only used in servers and even back then people used NT as desktop OS, then XP in turn is based on Windows 2000 technology. I guess as someone already said it is a never ending story, some people refuse to believe or refuse to let others run what they want to run on their own PCs. Live and let live is my credo. Besides this is a sub thread called "Windows 2008 to Workstation".

To the OP, in my limited experience 2003 server or XP Pro 64 seems more snappy but thats mainly due to better support to strip it down with nLite, vLite can not yet strip 2008 Server without breaking adding and removing of features which we need for our workstation, Desktop Experience and Wireless Networking comes to mind. Makes you wonder why the even put Desktop Experience in, if this is not meant to run as desktop OS

[meowing]

hoak, on Jul 10 2008, 01:45 AM, said:

Factoring Server 2008's better game performance over Vista, with the fact that it's possible to license it for less then some editions of Vista

I have yet to see a 2008 Server version license that would be any cheaper than a Vista license.

[meowing]

..

This post has been edited by meowing: 28 July 2008 - 09:03 AM

[S.SubZero]

kooler, on Jul 9 2008, 05:37 PM, said:

i use w2k8 for gaming and i love it compared to all other os's i use... only reason is that in w2k8 alt-tab is almost instant and the game play is much smoother than vista... meaning it doesn't get laggy after couple hours of online game play, plus it boots much quicker

Kinda old post, and very off the original topic.

http://blogs.zdnet.c...ardware/?p=2245

My personal experience reflects the writer of above article. Server 2008 did nothing special for me, and only proved to be a hassle. Once I turned on desktop experience, hacked in the Aero cursor theme, tweaked things to be how I like them, and looked at it.. I had Vista. It benched like Vista, it played like Vista, it ran just like Vista.

I'm very curious about how you and other "WS2008" people are comparing Vista installs that may have been old RTM installs with early drivers on possibly underpowered hardware compared to Server 2008 a year later, when drivers have matured and hardware has increased in power (and decreased in cost) substantially. For me, since I have two identical SATA hard drives for my laptop, it was easy for me to install Vista SP1 on one, bench it, pull the drive out, put another drive in, install Server 2008 and bench that. The numbers were virtually identical.

[meowing]

S.SubZero, on Jul 28 2008, 05:10 AM, said:

Kinda old post, and very off the original topic.

http://blogs.zdnet.c...ardware/?p=2245

My personal experience reflects the writer of above article. Server 2008 did nothing special for me, and only proved to be a hassle. Once I turned on desktop experience, hacked in the Aero cursor theme, tweaked things to be how I like them, and looked at it.. I had Vista. It benched like Vista, it played like Vista, it ran just like Vista.

I'm very curious about how you and other "WS2008" people are comparing Vista installs that may have been old RTM installs with early drivers on possibly underpowered hardware compared to Server 2008 a year later, when drivers have matured and hardware has increased in power (and decreased in cost) substantially. For me, since I have two identical SATA hard drives for my laptop, it was easy for me to install Vista SP1 on one, bench it, pull the drive out, put another drive in, install Server 2008 and bench that. The numbers were virtually identical.

Exactly. That is why I still vote in favor of Xp Pro x64. It's just leaner and feels faster than both 'supernew kernel' versions. Even when I use transparency and the Aero theme, XP x64 still seems a much better choice to me. Even on newer hardware. I have tried using Win2008 for a while, but it just doesn't add up. It takes way too much time to get it right and have it usable.
Take one very small step down and you'll end up doing real work on your PC or notebook again.

In fact, in all honesty, I was disappointed in Win 2008. It might boot pretty fast, but all the security hassle is a huge pain in the a** and not really needed for precisely the kind of users that would try it out. Vista is for the user-type of computer-users. I'm not a user, I'm an IT person. Vista and 2008 are for dumb lazy users, the Mac type of people.

Check this out: http://www.imagebam....e/9786675364575 and decide for yourself. Windows XP Pro x64 edition is still the bomb for me. Everything just works, and all software out there is available for this OS.