• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Was Server 2008 bad in ways like Vista?

C

computerdude92

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2014
Messages
1,059
Location
Alaska
Hi guys,

I'm curious, but I can't find bad rep on Server 2008 really. Being built on Vista's code sounds like trouble. Was SP2 of Server 2008 really nice, and the original RTM had issues? Was Server 2008 not buggy and slow like Vista is known to be? Did it share compatibility issues with Vista?

Thanks for any replies.
 
I have worked extensively with Server 2008 R2, both in professional and personal situations - and found it to be utterly stable. I also found Vista x32 to be pretty stable, given a decent amount of RAM and probably a better cpu than it would commonly have been sold with at the time.
 
Vista wasn’t slow or buggy when it was used with appropriate hardware. Too many people tried to run vista on slow XP class computers with 512MB of RAM. I ran it on a pentium dual core with 2GB of RAM and it was just fine. I eventually upgraded to a core2 duo and 8GB of RAM so I installed the 64bit version. It was still fine. I’d take windows vista over windows 8 any day.

People that buy dedicated servers don’t usually skimp and buy the minimum specs for the OS they run. They typically buy what they need for the task the server is going to do, and sometimes more if they expect it to stay in service for many years.

The only compatibility issue I recall of the top of my head with 2008 was that some people with 2000 or 2003 and shared SCSI disk arrays and windows clustering couldn’t upgrade because 2008 didn’t support them. 2008 wanted newer technology for failover clusters, to resolve issues with it. So you needed SAS or Fiber Channel.

I’ve got systems at work that ran Vista service processors for close to 10 years and they ran fine. They really are awful when upgraded to windows 10. For the same reason that some people think windows vista sucked when they upgraded from XP. If the hardware can barely support it, you won’t be happy.
 
Vista's bugs were real. The slowing of network speed when audio was played was a significant impediment to enjoying the OS before the Service Pack.

Server 2008 had the same system requirements as Vista but most of the problems were avoided because of the server role. It was unlikely that a server would be used as a jukebox so network problems during audio playback are obviated. The increase in memory consumption to keep copies of all the windows to permit Aero effects like transparency and full image dragging didn't happen if one used the default Windows 2000 style UI. Server 2008 was fine as a server OS.
 
computerdude92 said:
Hi guys,

I'm curious, but I can't find bad rep on Server 2008 really. Being built on Vista's code sounds like trouble. Was SP2 of Server 2008 really nice, and the original RTM had issues? Was Server 2008 not buggy and slow like Vista is known to be? Did it share compatibility issues with Vista?
Click to expand...
Server 2008 was fine. We rarely saw issues with any of the post NT versions. The consumer product was, of course, bloated up with unnecessary garbage, and typically run on hardware with insufficient memory. The server platforms were extensively tested on Dell, HP, etc... servers and honestly had a lot more money spent on ensuring stability. On the PC side they need to make 50,000 different combinations of various quality hardware magically work - and that's hard to do.

-- Bob
 
jafir said:
For the same reason that some people think windows vista sucked when they upgraded from XP. If the hardware can barely support it, you won’t be happy.
Click to expand...
...or upgraded to XP from Win2K. I still use 2K server on a couple of machines for backward compatibility reasons. It's pretty surprising how fast it is on (relatively) recent hardware.
 
The only compatibility issue I recall of the top of my head with 2008 was that some people with 2000 or 2003 and shared SCSI disk arrays and windows clustering couldn’t upgrade because 2008 didn’t support them.
Click to expand...

2008 dropped support for Appletalk (not a biggie for 90% of admins) and Removable Storage Manager (a BIG problem if you use tape libraries). To continue using my IBM 3583 LTO3 library for long-term archival duties I'm stuck using a system running Server 2003.
 
Support for NetBEUI was dropped for Vista (and I assume 2008), if you wanted a fast network protocol for local networks that didn't require any setup. It worked on XP but you had to install it yourself from the CD. Was standard for all prior Windows versions back to Workgroups.

To me, Vista appeared slower because the new windows-7-looking features were built on the XP base, causing it to run slower on the same hardware. Windows 7 seems a bit more efficient in that regard.

The annoying thing with Vista was the in-your-face UAC, which users had never seen before. I don't recall if 2008 had UAC, but I think it may have.

All that being said, on better hardware Vista looks very nice and runs quite well. It's a pity (as usual), that software makers were so quick to drop support for it.
 
I'm concerned because I saw a Youtube video where someone tried to see if Vista is underrated. They took a laptop that originally came with Vista and they updated it with SP2 and further updates. He still had bugs like Windows settings would revert back after changing them and Vista was slower to process certain tasks than similar Windows versions like Win7.

So I had the impression that you can't polish a turd.

I would want to use the "non-R2" Server 2008 someday and use it as a regular desktop OS with multimedia support. I read it has no built-in DVD codecs. Can anyone recommend a good codec pack that also includes support for Bluray? I also read that I need Windows updates from at least 2012 because of this:

The computer stops responding when you copy files to a Blu-ray Disc in Windows Vista SP2 or in Windows Server 2008 SP2 - Microsoft Support

Fixes an issue that occurs when you copy files to a Blu-ray Disc in a computer that is running Windows Vista SP2 or Windows Server 2008 SP2.
support.microsoft.com support.microsoft.com

Also, the newer R2 Server 2008 version had problems with copying large amounts of data to Bluray discs. Win7 is also affected, but XP is not. Is Vista SP2 and the original Server 2008 SP2 affected by this bug?

news.softpedia.com

Windows 7 SP1 Fix – Copying 40GB of Data to a Blu-Ray Disk May Take Over 3 Days

Customers can download the hotfix from Microsoft Support
news.softpedia.com news.softpedia.com

Last question: How good is Server 2008 SP2 with dual booting with XP SP3 32-bit? Would the self healing NTFS feature of Server 2008 cause problems with XP because it's an older OS?

Thanks for your help so far.
 
computerdude92 said:
I'm concerned because I saw a Youtube video where someone tried to see if Vista is underrated. They took a laptop that originally came with Vista
Click to expand...
Find the error. ;) (note: has been said in this thread many times already)

From a technical standpoint, Vista SP2 is basically the same as Win7 RTM. There are many detailed reports/videos about how they tweaked Windows 7 to make it *feel* faster than Vista, even if it is not.
 
I don't see the error Timo, but my point is the guy tried out a laptop which is "hardware designed for Vista"

So because of this, that laptop should have the best compatibility with Vista, making it the best choice for seeing how well Vista runs after adding SP2 and further Windows updates.
 
computerdude92 said:
I don't see the error Timo, but my point is the guy tried out a laptop which is "hardware designed for Vista"
Click to expand...
See the posts above. When Vista came out, systems that were sold with/for it were simply too weak to run it. The hardware needed to run it well didn't exist until about two years later. So it makes no sense to see if it was any good by using a system from the time it came out. You need to test it on newer hardware.
 
Vista was still somewhat buggy even after SP2 and updates - is what the guy showed in the video. I don't remember what video it was.

Here's a quote from a page I've started reading:

"There is nothing wrong with Vista. What ruined the experience was those stupid OEMs that thought they could get away with porting XP drivers"


Please tell me, are poor quality XP ported drivers for Vista the likely reason for the remaining bugginess after SP2 and updates with that Vista RTM era laptop?
 
You're right, it may be too much of a hassle trying to make Server 2008 work like Vista, because a number of features are disabled. I should use Vista like you suggested.
 
Server 2008 was based on Vista

Server 2008 R2 was based on Win7

Many orgs skipped Vista and 2008 and waited for the more mature Win7 and 2008 R2. They were/are solid OSes. There's no reason I can think of to run the original 2008 server (instead of R2).
 
OEMs pressured Microsoft into lowering the official minimum RAM and processor specs for Vista because they wanted to sell their current stock of bargain basement hardware as "Vista Compatible". So the kind of people who buy whatever PC is the cheapest in the supermarket would go home with a single-core Celeron with 512MB RAM, find it slow and unusable, and then blame Vista. Run it on hardware it was actually meant to run on and it was a lot better.

There was also the "problem" where Vista reported Free Mem vs Available Mem differently to how XP did, which confused the overclocker crowd and the people who try to micro-manage every byte the OS uses - who then went screaming to the internet about how Vista stole all their RAM! :biggrin:
 
FishFinger said:
There was also the "problem" where Vista reported Free Mem vs Available Mem differently to how XP did, which confused the overclocker crowd and the people who try to micro-manage every byte the OS uses - who then went screaming to the internet about how Vista stole all their RAM! :biggrin:
Click to expand...
7+ still do this, in fact, and you have to launch the standalone Resource Monitor before it'll tell you the real truth - Task Manager reports RAM as "free" in about the same sense that you could say "my arms are full because I'm carrying 17 apples, but if I put those down, I could pick up 17 more apples, therefore I have 17 apples' worth of free carrying capacity." It was a hard-earned lesson for me when I was managing a 2008 R2 remote-desktop server with 32GB of RAM and trying to my wits' end to figure out why it was constantly swapping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top