Windows Server 2008 is better than Vista, but why?

VN:F [1.9.18_1163]
Rate this post
please wait...
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Page 2 of 2 | Previous page

Related posts:

  1. Microsoft sets launch day for Visual Studio 2008, SQL Server 2008, Windows Server 2008
  2. Vista SP1 shares same core as Server 2008
  3. Vista SP1 vs Server 2008 as a desktop OS: more comparisons
  4. Windows Server 2008 is done, embraces PHP
  5. Installing .NET, PowerShell on Windows 2008 Server Core: it can be done

5 comments on this post.
  1. Christian Mohn:

    Hi, and thanks for the quotes. As for my testing, it’s only based on a general feel for how my laptop behaved and performed over a period of time. It’s, as you say, not scientific nor really based on a clearly measurable metric but solely on my experience as a user of the systems.

  2. Tom Welsh:

    Maybe it’s simply that writing a good server OS is easier than writing a good desktop/laptop client OS. Windows’ GUI probably takes more code to implement that the whole of OS370 did. And I suspect it’s far more complex code, with crazy dependencies not all of which can be fully predicted. Microsoft has always majored in the “user experience”; they lived by it, and Vista shows how they just might die by it. Namely, when they have added everything that’s state of the art and reasonably mature, they have to go out on a limb and start trying stuff that isn’t reasonably mature. That’s when the problems begin.

  3. tim:

    @Tom – possibly, but Server 2008 can be used as a desktop OS (even though it is not its intended purpose), and according to reports does the job better than Vista. That’s intriguing.


  4. Peter:

    It would be interesting to see what the difference is with Vista running SP1 is as SP1 updates Vista to be running the same core kernel as 2008 is so from that perspective they would be on the same level.

  5. tim:

    @Peter – the first test referenced is vs Vista SP1.