Does anyone in here actually still do this? What do you prefer? What was faster for you? 2k8r2 or 7?
To use 2k8r2 as a workstation, it requires some tweaks of course, such as giving foreground apps a higher priority.
Tweaks like that can be found on [url]http://www.win2008r2workstation.com/[/url]
I've been using it for like a year now, and win 2k8r2 sp1 standard seems faster than windows 7 64 bit sp1 professional, although i didn't do any benchmarks yet, i'm planing on resizing my partitions and go dualboot on win7, 2k8r2, and ubuntu - should i do this?
[editline]24th December 2011[/editline]
Oh, and 2k8r2 is only available in 64bit as far as i know
Do you mean R2?
Windows Server is fine for gaming if you use it as a workstation.
As for the triple boot use if you need it, though I don't see what all you'd need 3 operating systems for.
[QUOTE=Panda X;33868740]Do you mean R2? [/QUOTE]
Oops, yea.
[QUOTE=Panda X;33868740]Windows Server is fine for gaming if you use it as a workstation.
As for the triple boot use if you need it, though I don't see what all you'd need 3 operating systems for.[/QUOTE]
Well, i would only install win 7 to do some benchmarks, and then delete the slower windows (I keep all my shit on a external harddrive anyways, os reinstalls are no problem for me)
I'm still using Windows 7. What improvements does Windows Server 2008 have over this? (Besides not having most of the desktop crap I guess...)
There's no difference worth noticing for gaming usage. They're both practically the same OS.
[QUOTE=gparent;33886646]There's no difference worth noticing for gaming usage. They're both practically the same OS.[/QUOTE]
I did some research lately, and that's what i hear [URL="http://superuser.com/questions/84526/windows-server-2008-r2-vs-windows-7-ultimate"]on alot of sites[/URL]
I also found that Windows 2008 R2 [b]does not[/b] have SuperFetch, and that the defrag service is not sheduled by default (The service seems to be turned on, there are just no shedules - Windows 7 defragments every wednesday on 1:00 or something)
Well, i'll just go back to windows 7, to stop all the hassle, it's called [b]Windows Server[/b] after all.
[editline]26th December 2011[/editline]
[IMG]http://www.abload.de/img/defrag9pjqp.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=DrogenViech;33904889]
I also found that Windows 2008 R2 [B]does not[/B] have SuperFetch, and that the defrag service is not sheduled by default (The service seems to be turned on, there are just no shedules - Windows 7 defragments every wednesday on 1:00 or something)
[/QUOTE]
It does but you have to install the feature Desktop Features, under features I believe it is
Just strip down your Windows 7 disc with RT7Lite, and take out whatever you don't need. You'll be left with a faster operating system with less bulk than Windows 2008 RC2.
Uh, no, RC2 is 7 based. It's RC1 thats Vista based.
[QUOTE=dbk21894;34016234]Uh, no, RC2 is 7 based. It's RC1 thats Vista based.[/QUOTE]
I stand corrected. Thank you sir.
You are quite welcome.
[QUOTE=dbk21894;34016234]Uh, no, RC2 is 7 based. It's RC1 thats Vista based.[/QUOTE]
And in either cases it's not RC2 at all, it's Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 [B]R2[/B]
oh right.
I'm disappointed in myself. I only use those operating systems to make a living.
[QUOTE=dbk21894;34021123]oh right.
I'm disappointed in myself. I only use those operating systems to make a living.[/QUOTE]
Hey, it's okay, I once referred to Windows Server 2008 as WS2005 because I use VS too much :D
[QUOTE=DrogenViech;33868451]Does anyone in here actually still do this? What do you prefer? What was faster for you? 2k8r2 or 7?
To use 2k8r2 as a workstation, it requires some tweaks of course, such as giving foreground apps a higher priority.
Tweaks like that can be found on [url]http://www.win2008r2workstation.com/[/url]
I've been using it for like a year now, and win 2k8r2 sp1 standard seems faster than windows 7 64 bit sp1 professional, although i didn't do any benchmarks yet, i'm planing on resizing my partitions and go dualboot on win7, 2k8r2, and ubuntu - should i do this?
[editline]24th December 2011[/editline]
Oh, and 2k8r2 is only available in 64bit as far as i know[/QUOTE]
7 and 2008 R2 (knowing Micro$oft) are based off each other, 2008 has less content and support for more memory... but I doubt that it would make a better operating system.
[QUOTE=Chulo Arco;34173356]7 and 2008 R2 (knowing [b]Micro$oft[/b]) are based off each other, 2008 has less content and support for more memory... but I doubt that it would make a better operating system.[/QUOTE]
[I]Cool'n sketchy.[/I]
But yeah, 2008 and 7 is as far as I know based on eachother.
[QUOTE=Chulo Arco;34173356]7 and 2008 R2 (knowing Micro$oft) are based off each other, 2008 has less content and support for more memory... but I doubt that it would make a better operating system.[/QUOTE]
Are you saying 2008 has less content and support for more memory than 2008 R2? Because that's not true at all.
Vista == 2008
7 == 2008 R2
[QUOTE=DeadKiller987;34177202]Are you saying 2008 has less content and support for more memory than 2008 R2? Because that's not true at all.
Vista == 2008
7 == 2008 R2[/QUOTE]
[url]http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_7[/url]
If you pay attention when you press F1 accidentally, you'll see Server 2003 references.
[QUOTE=Chulo Arco;34189511][url]http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_7[/url]
If you pay attention when you press F1 accidentally, you'll see Server 2003 references.[/QUOTE]
Holey sheit mang ur totl pr0 ur telling teh scurbz!!!!
No shit Microsoft made a OS that feels similar in the interface, also that link has nothing to do with anything
[QUOTE=Chulo Arco;34189511][url]http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_7[/url]
If you pay attention when you press F1 accidentally, you'll see Server 2003 references.[/QUOTE]
Windows Server 2008 Standard - Limit on X64 - 32 GB
Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard - Limit on X64 - 32 GB
R2 is simply an update to server 2008. It doesn't somehow have 'less content' and it certainly doesn't have different memory limits. The only reason 7 was released as a separate version of Windows is because Vista had a bad reputation.
The non-best versions of Windows have a software limit in the kernel that can(and has) been patched out using third-party patchers. Or you could simply disable such limit by using slic/key/cert installing software, such as one of those more complicated pirate tools, to change an already installed copy of, say, R2 Standard to R2 Enterprise, without having to actually change any files and the ram limit will be gone. The ram limit is only there to force people to buy more expensive versions if they need larger ram addressing.
[editline]14th January 2012[/editline]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10O7VHKbafY[/media]
[QUOTE=DeadKiller987;34207538]The only reason 7 was released as a separate version of Windows is because Vista had a bad reputation.[/QUOTE]
What? 7 was planned to release in 2009 even before Vista's reset. It had nothing to do with reputation.
[t]http://i.cubeupload.com/nYVrgD.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=DeadKiller987;34207538]Windows Server 2008 Standard - Limit on X64 - 32 GB
Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard - Limit on X64 - 32 GB
R2 is simply an update to server 2008. It doesn't somehow have 'less content' and it certainly doesn't have different memory limits. The only reason 7 was released as a separate version of Windows is because Vista had a bad reputation.
The non-best versions of Windows have a software limit in the kernel that can(and has) been patched out using third-party patchers. Or you could simply disable such limit by using slic/key/cert installing software, such as one of those more complicated pirate tools, to change an already installed copy of, say, R2 Standard to R2 Enterprise, without having to actually change any files and the ram limit will be gone. The ram limit is only there to force people to buy more expensive versions if they need larger ram addressing.
[editline]14th January 2012[/editline]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10O7VHKbafY[/media][/QUOTE]
A box for your post.
[QUOTE=Panda X;34207643]What? 7 was planned to release in 2009 even before Vista's reset. It had nothing to do with reputation.
[t]http://i.cubeupload.com/nYVrgD.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
You mean Blackcomb? I might be wrong, but wasn't it supposed to be a major overhaul released a long time after Vista? To my understanding they just pushed a bugfixed Vista with a few new features out and called it 7. But I might be wrong.
[editline]15th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Chulo Arco;34208932]A box for your post.[/QUOTE]
You know you don't have to post about it whenever you rate someone. :|
[QUOTE=DeadKiller987;34221413]You mean Blackcomb? I might be wrong, but wasn't it supposed to be a major overhaul released a long time after Vista? To my understanding they just pushed a bugfixed Vista with a few new features out and called it 7. But I might be wrong.
[editline]15th January 2012[/editline]
You know you don't have to post about it whenever you rate someone. :|[/QUOTE]
Originally Blackcomb was suppose to be an overhaul after Windows XP. They then decided to make a minor in-between version of Windows called Longhorn. Though Longhorn ended up becoming that overhaul and Blackcomb became the minor update.
[QUOTE=Panda X;34222070]Originally Blackcomb was suppose to be an overhaul after Windows XP. They then decided to make a minor in-between version of Windows called Longhorn. Though Longhorn ended up becoming that overhaul and Blackcomb became the minor update.[/QUOTE]
So
[QUOTE=DeadKiller987;34221413]they just pushed a bugfixed Vista with a few new features out and called it 7.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DeadKiller987;34222830]So[/QUOTE]
What are they suppose to do, recode windows from scratch every release?
They pushed a bugfixed Vista and called it SP1/SP2.
By your logic NT4 is just a bug fixed NT3 with a few new features and Windows 2000 is just a bug fixed NT4 with new features and XP is just a bug fixed Windows 2000 with a few new features and Vista is just a bug fixed XP with a few new features and 7 is just a bug fixed Vista with a few new features and 8 is just a bug fixed 7 with a few new features and 9 is just a bug fixed 8 with a few new features, so why bother going through all that when you can just get NT3 and be done with it?
[QUOTE=Panda X;34223073]What are they suppose to do, recode windows from scratch every release?
They pushed a bugfixed Vista and called it SP1/SP2.
By your logic NT4 is just a bug fixed NT3 with a few new features and Windows 2000 is just a bug fixed NT4 with new features and XP is just a bug fixed Windows 2000 with a few new features and Vista is just a bug fixed XP with a few new features and 7 is just a bug fixed Vista with a few new features and 8 is just a bug fixed 7 with a few new features and 9 is just a bug fixed 8 with a few new features, so why bother going through all that when you can just get NT3 and be done with it?[/QUOTE]
What are you so angry about? I was originally just saying that Server 2008 R2 doesn't have less content and ram limits.
[editline]15th January 2012[/editline]
I'm not saying that them releasing 7 was bad.
[QUOTE=DeadKiller987;34224067]What are you so angry about? I was originally just saying that Server 2008 R2 doesn't have less content and ram limits.
[editline]15th January 2012[/editline]
I'm not saying that them releasing 7 was bad.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't angry, I was just making an exaggerated joke.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.