Enterprise Desktop | Randall C. Kennedy | InfoWorld | Windows "Workstation" 2008 results lead to backlash from Vista zealots | March 12, 2008 04:10 PM

MORE ENTRIES

Windows "Workstation" 2008 results lead to backlash from Vista zealots

March 12, 2008 | Comments: (0)

Windows "Workstation" 2008 results lead to backlash from Vista zealots

I love irony. After a year of rabidly defending their platform, the Vista zealots are now eating their young. Specifically, they're attacking those of us who've discovered that the core Vista bits run great, just not when packaged as Windows Vista.

In case you've been living under a rock these past few weeks:

It has been discovered that Windows Server 2008 in "desktop" mode (a.k.a. Windows "Workstation" 2008) runs circles around Vista, thus proving that - if they set their minds to it - Microsoft can produce a solid, enterprise-class OS using the Vista code base.

The problem is that Microsoft didn't put this same effort into Vista, resulting in an OS that - whether due to different kernel switches/tweaks or the inclusion of certain DRM layers - is a bloated pig on even modern hardware. To those of us seeking a better "Vista" experience, Windows "Workstation" 2008 is salvation.

Of course, none of this sits well with those in the Vista zealot camp. Some claim that the test results are inaccurate, that Vista and Server 2008 share the same code base and thus cannot perform differently. Others are claiming that the tests were invalid because Server 2008 ships with a much "leaner" default configuration. They say that if you enable all of the "desktop" features on Server 2008 - or vice-versa with Vista - you'll see that they in fact perform comparably.

However, if these people had bothered to read the disclosure part of the test scenario in question, they'd discover that the exo.performance.network researchers did turn on all of the "desktop" features in Server 2008 (Indexing, SuperFetch, Aero, et al). In fact, they afforded Vista every opportunity to perform, and yet it still fell well behind "Workstation" 2008 in a variety of test scenarios.

Note to the Zealots: The numbers are what they are. If you don't believe them, run the tests for yourself (all of the tools used by the xpnet.com research staff are freely available through their web site). Personally, I've yet to encounter a "Workstation" 2008 convert that isn't ecstatic with the results. It's faster. Period.

In the end, I can't help but pity these misguided Vista zealots. As true believers, they've steadfastly defended Vista as being as fast as Microsoft could make it given the level of complexity involved. To now have their benefactor "cut them off at the knees" - by providing evidence (Server 2008) that Vista is, in fact, slower than it needs to be - must be a bitter pill indeed!

Posted by Randall Kennedy on March 12, 2008 04:10 PM

RATE THIS ARTICLE:

COMMENTS

If an MS zealot rolled his car, and a passing MS exec stopped and said "it's more steamlined now, so you should get better mpg", they'd drive off a happy bunny.

Posted by: Mark at March 13, 2008 03:30 AM

Funny... Are we going to see "Microsoft Vista Second Edition" instead of "Windows 2008 Worksstation"?

Alecs

Posted by: Alecs Jonson at March 13, 2008 10:36 AM

No, the next version will be Vista ME.

Posted by: Joseph Bloe at March 13, 2008 12:14 PM

A zealot is a zealot, whether they are in the MS camp, the Linux camp, or a Mac fan.

The proof is in the performance; what they SHOULD be addressing is that Vista can in fact perform better, so how does MS get it to that state (as the kernel is SUPPOSED to be the same as 2008's).

Instead, like any zealot (Windows, Mac or Linux) they curl up and yell as loudly as they can that the facts cannot be true.

Posted by: Jack at March 13, 2008 12:14 PM

If I were a betting person, I'd put my money on the Digital Restrictions Management layer as being the culprit.

Posted by: MarkL at March 13, 2008 03:24 PM

Vista is slow on purpose as it is designed to force people to upgrade their hardware. It is a consumer OS that will fail to meet the needs of Microsoft, Intel, AMD, Nvidia, etc., unless many many computer users have to buy new computers (or possibly upgrade existing computers).

It is something that EU and the US anti-trust commissions should look into.

Posted by: Father at March 13, 2008 03:33 PM

Never ascribe to conspiracy, what can better be explained by beaucracy.

Vista was designed by a committee. How that explains Server 2008 I'm not sure, but I'd guess that either it was a skunkworks-type project, or maybe Microsoft learned a lesson from Vista and actually improved their processes.

Posted by: Brian at March 13, 2008 04:07 PM

Server 2008 x86 is quite a bit more responsive than Vista Business x86 on the same hardware (HP xw4400 - C2D 6600 @2.4GHz, 2GB RAM), and even more responsive in terms of disk access times (loading Illustrator CS3 or Acrobat 8 Pro, for example) than even XP SP2. As others have mentioned, the only problems I've run across have been with the 'Windows Live' applications. Everything else runs great on it. I'm seriously thinking of grabbing an MSDN subscription and replacing my Vista installation at home with a Server 2008 install. It's quite nice. I don't know how it does with games, but most everything else has been very nice.

If you're interested in trying it, just download the ISO from MS and try it for 60 days - you don't need an activation key for that. You'll see that there is quite a bit of difference between Vista (and even XP).

Posted by: neo at March 17, 2008 12:08 PM

I'd like to see some kind of performance test of Windows Server 2008 Workstation against Ubuntu Linux.

I realize the apps are not apples to apples, but I suspect careful thought could product some equivalent benchmarks. Cross-platform apps, perhaps, etc.

Posted by: Performance Test at March 18, 2008 09:15 AM

Technology White Papers

InfoWorld Technology Marketplace

» Technology White Papers Library

Technology White Papers by Topic

Technology White Papers E-mail Alert