Micro Mart Forum / Microsoft Windows / Technical Forums / Virtual Comparison of OSs / Latest Posts

RE: Virtual Comparison of OSs

FreakShow! — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 20:23:28 GMT

Hi maygood,

I've tried nLite before, so I will give vLite ago. Testing may show that Windows Server 2008 is quicker, but overall Vista is much more useable. It is very easy to alter Windows Server 2008 to a workstation situation, especially with the tool in my previous previous post (haven't used it myself as I did it manually, but it does the same things, just with a few clicks.)

I'm hoping that vLite will allow a cut down Vista be closer to the Windows Server 2008 performance. If the difference is 1-2% I think I'd be happy with that and use Vista over Windows Server 2008 either way, simply for useability (eg Anti-Virus detects server setup and will not install itself).

If your hardware was not fully compatible with Vista (driver wise) or the software, then obviously you'd go back to XP. It does the job. I'm sure there are fixes out there for getting your programs working on Vista, but would the time invested in getting it all working be worth it? I have a feeling it wouldn't.

RE: Virtual Comparison of OSs

maygood — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 01:24:45 GMT

Have you tried Vlite http://www.vlite.net/download.html to customise Vista?

I've used the XP version, Nlite, to dramatically alter XP to bare minimum for use on an audio workstation and it is VERY quick. Even when testing in a VM it was more responsive than the host (XP Pro). It took a bit of tweaking to get a fully working system (a lot of trial and error) but well worth the effort. I got the XP install down to 135MB and im sure it could be smaller but i can only test it properly on the rig in the studio and up time is money there.

There are loads of sites/forums advising on the best config for gaming using Nlite/XP and I'm sure this will be mirrored with Vlite/Vista

Just as a point of reference, trials of Vista on the studio rig were terrible. Half of the (very expensive) software would not install or if it did would crash at the drop of a snare drum. System was a hell of lot slower all round too.

As for my home rig, Vista stayed on it for all of 30 mins before wiping it and upgrading to XP.

We currently have 4 sealed XP Pro retail copies sitting in the backup cabinet for future use :)

Edit: After reading, this post does seem a little anti-vista but it was not meant (before Vista fanboys have their say) Im all for progress as long it is a usable solution and not just added eye candy at the expense of performance. Let us know how you get on, particularly on a real system.

Also i would of thought that using a server OS for purely desktop/home use would need a fair bit of tweaking to free up processes/services only needed for server use

RE: Virtual Comparison of OSs

FreakShow! — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:49:28 GMT

I'll get XP installed in Virtual aswell and do similar tests. Right, I have modified Windows Server 2008 to be a lot more like Vista.

The Vista I am using is Vista Ultimate. Just updating it right now.

I will only disable the sidebar, but otherwise it will be standard virgin install of Vista.

The only protection they will have is Spyware Blaster (I installed it on Win 2008 succefully). No free option works on Win 2008, so to stay fair, they will all use the same. As it's only a test I don't worry about viruses on it.

Tests will be PC Mark 05, SuperPi, HDDTach (test HDD writing speed, as Vista supposedly has DRM that slows down HDD access). Also Win 2008 vs Vista will have PC Mark Vantage (can not be run on XP).

Any other tests are welcome.

So far, from just the installing and updating etc, Win 2008 is definitely much quicker. Updates were identified and installed quicker, whereas Vista seems to have a lot. Admittedly, Win 2008 is practically SP1 spec. already, but it seems to take less time for it to decide what updates are available. I've had to follow a guide to alter Windows 2008, but it wasn't bad, as everything just loaded up. Vista takes a bit of time to get things going.

Thinking about it, I think that while Vista will be slower, it'll be much easier an OS to use day to day as it is aimed as a home system, compared to Server 2008. The test really is to find out how to cut Vista down to something more similar to Server 2008 in performance.

RE: Virtual Comparison of OSs

-Wiz!- — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:31:24 GMT

Be interesting to see it against XP too. :)

RE: Virtual Comparison of OSs

FreakShow! — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:27:14 GMT

While looking round for a few more tips on doing a complete convert, I found someone that has done a comparison:

http://wastingtimewithmikeandari.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/ws2008-vs-vista.pdf

About 10% better in the main. There's also a free tool that does the conversion for you, here:

http://www.win2008workstation.com/wordpress/2008/07/17/windows-server-2008-workstation-converter/

RE: Virtual Comparison of OSs

-Wiz!- — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 19:25:59 GMT

Super Pi
PCMark
3DMark
Some sort of file transfer comparison...possibly in PCMark.

Be interesting to see...:)

Virtual Comparison of OSs

FreakShow! — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:58:30 GMT

Hi,

I've been told that using Windows Server 2008 with a few alterations is a better bet than using standard Vista.

With not much time free atm, I can't install them properly and test them, but so far I've got Server 2008 looking like Vista and working. So, does anyone know what fair tests and comparisons can I do between them to evaluate if it is any better.

I want to try and do a fair comparison of the two. I'll use the same "hardware" and see if Win Server 2008 is better equipped.

For anyone with access to Win Server 2008 and wants to try it themselves, I used this guide:

http://articleinspector.com/downloads/Windows_Server_2008_x64_Workstation.pdf

The only pain I've had so far is forgetting to run things in Admin mode, but it's fairly easy to get it to the stage I have.