Is there an OS that doesn't outperform Vista SP1? (OK perhaps Vista is slower than VIsta SP1 but there aren't too many other OS's that perform as poorly as Vista) How is it that no one at MS noticed what a POS vista is? Is this a case of the emporer's new clothes? No one at MS had the guts to step up and say - HEY - Vista really sucks - it is slower than a tortuga - perhaps we should scrap it and start again making speed our main goal.

I tried to point out how slow Vista is to MS during beta testing - they insisted I was doing something wrong that it ran fine. Glad they have testers so they can ignore their feedback about trivial things like it being butt slow.

Oh Please! What a miraculous discovery from Microsoft. Especially when they found out that they literally couldn't give vista away.

It's not a joke. We [CSEE and CS] get vista for free at our university. Not the low end version either; we get the Business Edition. I'm a student in the CSEE department. We all installed vista as soon as it came out, and we have almost all uninstalled vista without exception. Vista was unstable even with 4 gigs of RAM!

We have all either reinstalled XP Pro SP2 or more likely we have installed Fedora Werewolf [version 8] and when we need to we run a little old Microsoft app; we do it in a vitual window on Fedora using VMware. It's pretty cool when it looks like you are running XP and the you hit CTRL+ALT+Right arrow, and the 3D Beryl desktop rotates to show it's really Fedora.

Now that everybody knows that Vista blows; Microsoft, in a sudden flash of epiphany has miraculously found out that they might have a decent OS after all. I would put that in the same category as Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. I think it is spin and damage control from Microsoft marketing. I don't blame them; they have bills to pay too. If you are a sucker and buy their B.S. [I don't mean a Bachelor in science :)] It's your fault for allowing yourself to be spoon fed lies.

Someone said people don't get the government they want; they get the government they deserve. Just swap the word government with software and you will understand why Microsoft is a giant!

Here’s something else; thanks to Microsoft's Anti piracy protections in Vista; Microsoft knows when someone installs vista, and when they uninstall it [automatic updates and genuine advantage checks stop. They know that students are removing their free copies, businesses are going back to XP, or refusing to update. They know vista is a huge flop and they are desperate to make sales in anyway they can. Even by promoting vaporware that does not exist.

But, Karma is a bitch. Microsoft too is getting what it deserves. They farmed out all of their development to third and second world countries because it was cheaper. They didn’t do it to save you any money; they did it so they could pay the top 5% of management more money as they laid off the massive parts of the other 95% or cut their salaries either directly or by not giving them raises to keep in ratio with inflation. Did they really think there is no difference between a US graduate and someone who graduated from a university in India, Bangladesh, or Botswana? If the guy in India was any good he would be living here in the US or EU, or ...etc. You use second class engineers you get second class products! End of story.

Sincerely,

Current student and future Engineer who is worried about getting a job when he finally does graduate and does not want to move to Timbuktu to design hardware or software because all of the pretty Indian, Chinese, Russian, Vietnamese, French, German, Italian, and ...etc girls are right here in California already and they would be terribly lonely if I left. :D

P.S
I love this place :) and I hope my professor does not see the run-on sentence above ;)

Back when Windows 2003 came out, a bunch of people switched to it because it was so much faster than XP. Is 2008 faster than 2003?

Not surprised it outpeforms. Hey. even Win 98 could outperform Vista. Only downside is that a license for Server 2008 is way more expensive than Vista.

When Vista first came out, I tried to explain to people how and why it was so slow.
They brushed me off as paranoid and too negative simply because I was known to support FOSS.

A year down the road and people are finally coming to the same realization I provided?

I think it is telltale how just because you call down a Microsoft product you are automatically wrong. I think it is obvious how ignorant and paranoid the pay-for-software economy has become.

Of course, the same people who ignored me now follow a firm policy of "tolerate anything" when it comes to Microsoft.
They just can't be pressed into admitting the company is really as technically incompetent as the history books prove.

Case in point, Windows Server 2008 with all the improvements in this article still pales in comparison to Linux...
Don't bother trying to re frame the situation and re scope the argument just to market or spin a point, Windows is slower than Linux, cycle to cycle.

Take that from the experts now, or a year later. Your choice.

It seems to me you use a lot of superlatives for a 17% improvement. "Trashes" would seem to require something like 2X to 10X improvement, not just 1/7 faster.

I wouldn't mind seeing some in-depth examination of where the tradeoffs are being done. What is being given away to get that increment of performance?

This is interesting. A colleague and I were talking about this a couple of days ago: how nice it would be if Microsoft developed a abrain and made a workstation version of 2008 available.

I've held on to Windows 2000 as long as possible. One computer has been upgraded to Windows XP to host my VS2008 compiler. If MS offers a version of Windows 2008 Server tweaked for the workstation environment, I would be interested in upgrading. My Windows boxes are for software development and a little documentation as necessary. Speed, stability and API compliance are my critical hot buttons. Vista doesn't cut it. All my other development is on x86/x86_64 with Fedora or Debian. I watch my movies on BluRay with a 1080p monitor in the living room...after my work is done. That's not why I have a network of computers around the house.

I'm surprised that no-one is asking the question "Should Vista be expected to outperform Server 2008?". There just seems to be an expectation from the article and most comments that it should. I actually would expect server products to perform better on most nemchmark tests as they are meant to be supporting a multitude of simultaneous activities and requests. I would be worried (as I think most Sys Admins should be) if you stated that Vista performed better. What would be do then? Propose that a desktop OS be used as a server! All I think this means is that Server 2008 is doing what it is designed to do.

Maybe Server 2008 suits your specific marginal needs but my experience tells me an awful lot of consumer software simply will not run on a server due to a variety of reasons.

I am sure there are some legitimate complaints about Vista but since I upgraded my PC which came with Vista Ultimate it simply flies. Everything runs super quick and most apps start virually instaneously. All my hardware including old laser printers, scanners, and plug-in devices all work fine. There's no way I am going back to XP (for a desktop OS that is).

Actually, Mike S. raises an interesting point. Maybe a comparison should be done on Server 2003 V's XP for fairness as well as Server 2003 V's Server 2008.

This would enable an objective assessment to be made instead of the many emotional subjective arguments put forward for both sides of the discussion (including my own which is biased by an overall positive experience and perception of quick performance of Vista with an overall optimistic look on life thrown in for good measure - not a scientific measurement by any means).

David D, your argument is largely nonsense.

In what way does an operating system's purpose by sale determine how much of your systems performance you are entitled to?
That is completely disingenuous. Putting the word "server" or the word "workstation" after the name of an operating system doesn't impact the system(s) it runs on ONE BIT.
A workstation OS like Windows XP or 2000 have and are being used as servers! Don't kid yourself. Apache, MySQL and countless other applications are used on XP to "serve".
An OS is an OS, all it is, is a place for your applications to run. Your computer doesn't magically explode just because you didn't buy the word "server".

Ever wonder why there's no "server" or "workstation" version of Linux EXCEPT by the support provided or the implied implementation by default packages??
Because there is *NO DIFFERENCE*. It is pure marketing, and you are falling for it wholesale!

Additionally, I have found that people who defend the poor performance are not really qualified to make that distinction. If your use of a computer is only skin deep, or you do not care for your system resources, you will choose not to notice any change in them.
I also find that people inclined to defend Windows do so in spite of any amount of evidence showing poor performance.

Some of you microboosters just don't want to give it a hard look and so you claim otherwise because you know it is easy to keep it unquantifiable.
Shame on you. You know full well your systems perform better with XP and 2K, so admit it.

The sentiment over at mini microsoft should be humbling at this point - even that blog is having a hard time fending off the stark reality of the situation: Microsoft software is too high level and bloated.

This is why I hate Microsoft's/proprietary boxed/forced solutions. You have no choice, but what someone else decides.

Why should there be a difference between server and workstation? The only difference should be in the kernel as it is with Linux. You can "convert" any Linux workstation to a server and vise versa. There is no software in the Linux world that does not run because some idiot decided that they should charge more for it because it's running on a "server". A "server" to me is a function or way of using it. Not an OS.

People like myself have been running Win2K3 since the day it came out. Gotta love Microsoft, they do so love to give away free stuff at seminars and events, so I snagged a pre-release NFR copy of 2K3 Enterprise (pre-release meaning RTM but still not retail quite yet). I've been running it nearly non-stop since it was released, never had issues with it, only recently switched over to the 64 bit version and it's even faster.

I have a feeling I won't be disappointed.
I also use XP x64 (another NFR copy) as it's based on 2K3 - not XP x64 - and shares service packs with 2K3 x86/x64 and offers considerable performance boosts over XP alone.

I'm not surprised in the least that Win2K8 by default is faster than any edition of Vista, and after tweaking will only prove to be even faster. Nice to see Microsoft is offering a trial of Win2K8 Enterprise x64. Guess I need to make an image of this "workstation" and check it out. :)

LOL Vista is sooo slow and unstable?

Please stfu with your bullshit FUD.

With 8GB RAM, 4x 15k SAS in RAID 0, Quad Core, and 8800GTX; Vista run's just fine for me ;-)... But before I made many of these hardware upgrades (and running it on a gaming laptop) I can 100% concur with the above. If you cannot aquire these expensive items, Vista is extremely bloated, and reminds me a lot of ME (it's not wonder why people are calling it ME II). I'm a network admin (so I just run VM's on my main computer) but am also a gamer, so switching over to 2008 is outta the question until Microsoft gains more support from the 3D card companies.

Originally posted by Alex T.:
"Additionally, I have found that people who defend the poor performance are not really qualified to make that distinction."

Now here is a real intelligent argument: people who disagree with you are just too stupid to know better!

I must say I found the same thing on my home machine. W2k8 did seem to go heaps faster than my Vista build. However, try bloating up 2008 with ALL the features of Vista. Bet you the performance outcome is the same. MS should really have made Vista more option orientated.

Oh and I hope thats the last time I read someone claiming that windows 98 is so much faster than anything else. Yes we all know that. I loaded Windows 2.1 the other day (emulator needed) and it hammered, but who cares !

Originally posted by Alex T.:
"Putting the word "server" or the word "workstation" after the name of an operating system doesn't impact the system(s) it runs on ONE BIT."

Unfortunately you undermine your credibility here and place your comments purely in the "I hate Microsoft, Linux rules" camp. I did not say a workstation OS (as "marketed" by microsoft) could not be used as a server OS or vice versa as demonstarted by the author of this article. However, they have been designed for different usages and each includes features for specific purposes. By saying a workstation and server OS are the same it seems from your argument that Vista and Server 2008 should be one and the same! Clearly from the tests they are not.

OK, so Microsoft does not take a one size fits all approach, but I don't see many sys admins in the large corporations I come across using Win XP as a server instead of Server 2003. Now why is that when XP is much cheaper. Could it be that you have discovered some unknown nugget of info or could it be these guys know what they are doing and use the right tool for the job?

Note, that this is not implying linux is not up to scratch but a large number of corporate apps don't run on linux. You use what makes sense for the particular requirement. And yes, most of these large corporates also run linux. So ask yourself why would they use a Microsoft server "marketed" product?

All of this is beside the point (and I apologize to the readers who at least take the time to try Vista/W2k8 out for themselves for my rant above). Some of their criticisms on bloating and perception of speed I entirely agree with.

So, after all that we have some basic data to say that Server 2008 is faster than Vista. My original question still stands. Should Vista be expected to outperform Server 2008? It seems most assume yes but all I ask is "on what grounds?". Now it may turn out that this is entirely reasonable but I am just posing the question as if this is not the case then the response to the article should be a collective "so what" rather than a "I told you so".

Vista is fine on a newer machine. It flies and ive seen zero instability(you guys who claim its unstable are linux fanbois).

But I just installed Windows 2008 on my laptop and it rocks. I have a brain that works so the drivers were not that hard to figure out.

Sorry Linux can't even come close. 2008 fricking flies and is worth it just for the speed boost and server features.

And as a .Net developer it lets me develop even faster(I can crush Java dinovelopers like 4 times faster now instead of 3).

I bootcamp vista ultimate on my macbook pro. my macbook is the best windows laptop ever! I think you all with the vista issues are just running shitty hardware :))

Windows XP artificially limits IIS to 10 concurrent connections which is one of the reasons you will not see corporate web applications deployed on XP.

See http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000329.html

Also there are differences in between distributions of GNU/Linux aimed for either the desktop or server; this includes but is not limited to compiling the kernel with different options and custom patches.

See http://www.enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/netos/article.php/3710641

David,
The reason why they run a server OS is because the licenses require it!

I don't see how I undermine anything by saying that one edition of any OS is more than plenty.

What "features" are you referencing when comparing editions of Windows? This sounds like a lot of the crippled Microsoft thinking. You also prove my point that as soon as I support FOSS, I'm instantly branded as some software anarchist.

What makes a server OS? Is the kernel more...server-y? Maybe the source file is named "ServerKernel" instead of "WorkstationKernel"!
The fact of the matter is you can still crack open a full-functioning Apache server on WindowsXP, 24/7.

Your vague references to what I can only determine is suitability for purpose are patent consumer ignorance.
The real distinction between an MS "server" and an MS "workstation" is indeed the bundled sofware. Which is at best arbitrary unless you have specific need of it.

Let me remind you: They do it because of licenses. A kludge all Microsoft adopters grin and bear, along with digesting the rest of the disinformation.

You're funny man, really funny - learn what an OS is before you go around trying to talk about it.