Windows Server 2008 is 20% faster than Vista

[zanzabar]

this is what microsoft was good enough to give me today, its to bad that vista x64 has problems with the rtm so they arnt giving it out. im going to install 08 this weekend

[dinos22]

you can download it from MS website and get the 240-day eval i'm pretty sure

actually i might do that for benching rigs

[zanzabar]

the evaluations are the standard edition i think so they dont have the virtulization but i guess that benching wouldent need that

[dinos22]

the evaluations are the standard edition i think so they dont have the virtulization but i guess that benching wouldent need that

have a look

Enterprise version evaluation for 240 days

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

[ColonelCain]

have a look

Enterprise version evaluation for 240 days

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

Oh, thanks. Just in time for Forum Wars.

Nice find!

[Shintai]

I dont know if people are aware that Vista SP1 and 2008 server is 100% identical. Its simply different cache settings and process priority.

If people think 2008 is any faster than Vista they are dead wrong. You can make Vista just as "fast".

Anyone remember NTs server vs user priority?

[dinos22]

Just downloaded a copy

[zanzabar]

thats awesome wall paper


with supper pi or wprime that have command line i wounder how much better u will score in core mode with no gui

[Afterburner]

I cant wait for Win 7 + SSD powa...

[YukonTrooper]

Sweet. So now we're back to XP speeds.

[tiro_uspsss]

Sweet. So now we're back to XP speeds.

i was wondering how long it would take for someone to say that

[ColonelCain]

Sweet. So now we're back to XP speeds.

i was wondering how long it would take for someone to say that

So true... so true.

[RaZz!]

Just downloaded a copy

is there a way i could get my hands on that wallpaper? it's awesome! i want it!

[road-runner]

Oh, thanks. Just in time for Forum Wars.

Nice find!

Only problem is they said we cant use it for the wars...

[Nizzen]

have a look

Enterprise version evaluation for 240 days

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

Is "6001.18000.080118-1840_amd64fre_Server_en-us-KRMSXFRE_EN_DVD.iso" the 64bit version for all platforms? Intel too? Looks like it is for AMD`

[Ruroni]

Is "6001.18000.080118-1840_amd64fre_Server_en-us-KRMSXFRE_EN_DVD.iso" the 64bit version for all platforms? Intel too? Looks like it is for AMD`

It's for all platforms.

[Strafe]

http://windowsitpro.com/article/arti...h-17-2008.html

Anatomy of a Falsehood: Windows 2008 20 Percent "Faster" than Vista?
There's a bit of baloney floating around the Internet ether right now, stating that Windows Server 2008 is somehow magically "20 percent faster" than Windows Vista and is, thus, the ultimate workstation OS. A story making this claim, from Blorge, was quoted everywhere online so I decided to see how this event unfurled. Sure enough, the title of the Blorge article, "Windows Server 2008 is 20% faster than Vista," seems unequivocal. But jump into this so-called story and you'll see the waffling begin. After configuring Windows 2008 properly (a process that "isn't easy" according to Blorge), the new OS "can be 20 percent faster than Vista." But it doesn't say how this claim was arrived at, linking instead to an Information Week article declaring that Windows 2008 is the "speediest and most secure version of Windows to come along in a decade." But how does InformationWeek determine this? Instead of actually testing the performance of the system itself, this site links to a blog whose tests show that Windows 2008 is "almost 20 percent faster ... in some tests" than Vista. Ah. "Almost." "In some tests." It turns out that the "almost 20 percent" gain occurred in only one performance benchmark, and that test was performed on just a single machine. How much testing was done overall? They ran three benchmarks. Three. And the average performance delta between Windows 2008 and Vista was actually 14 percent, not "almost 20 percent." As for that one test that was "almost 20 percent," the actual performance delta was 16 percent, not 20. But hey, what the heck: There's no reason you can't turn one test, by one blog, performed once on one machine, info definitive proof that Windows 2008 is 20 percent "faster" than Windows Vista. I mean, after all, I'm sure the test was done fairly and correctly the only time it was performed. By whoever did it. But we do know why they did it: A Microsoft blogger, they say, shows us how to turn Windows 2008 into a Vista knockoff, "one that's faster and more scalable than the original." Except that that's not what this blogger wrote at all: Instead, he wrote only that you could make Windows Server 2008 "look and feel" like Vista and made absolutely no performance claims at all. In fact, implementing some of his dubious advice (enabling Hyper-V) will actually turn off power management completely. I wonder if that accounts for that 20 percent performance boost? Sorry, I don't mean to over-think this. Unlike some other people.

Follow the progression, my friends, and discover how myth becomes reality on the Internet:
Culprit #1: Activewin and dozens of other sites where no juicy headline need be scrutinized
http://www.activewin.com/awin/commen...=43039&Group=1
Culprit #2: Blorg, where "almost 20%" becomes a definitive 20 percent
http://vista.blorge.com/2008/03/11/w...er-than-vista/
Culprit #3: InformationWeek, where it must be true if someone else says they tested it
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/...oft_relea.html
Culprit #4: xpnet blog, where misquoting a blog leads to 3 tests on a single machine
http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2008/03...one-right.html
Misquoted originator of this mess: Vijayshinva Karnure, who may very well have valid reasons for running Windows 2008 as a workstation OS
http://blogs.msdn.com/vijaysk/archiv...esktop-os.aspx


Read 'em and weep, both for the future of journalism and for the continued right-wing conspiracy (for lack of a better term) against Windows Vista.

[zanzabar]

Is "6001.18000.080118-1840_amd64fre_Server_en-us-KRMSXFRE_EN_DVD.iso" the 64bit version for all platforms? Intel too? Looks like it is for AMD`

all x64 products say that they are amdx64 but they will work on intel, amd x64 means that its x64 and x86, and not an italium x64 were its 64 only

[MuffinFlavored]

Just downloaded a copy

+1 for post that wall paper.





+1 for please post some results.


You are the man.

[ultimeus]

Just downloaded a copy

Waiting for your impressions about it

[SmaKKed]

Been running it as my main OS for a few days now, Feels alot snappier then Vista did, im on the 64 bit version aswell.

[eva2000]

Just installed Win 2008 Enterprise 64bit for a run strange that 2x2GB (4GB) is slightly faster than 2x2GB + 2x1GB (6GB) even at same timings ???

[95blackz26]

anyone have the user32.dll that they could give me mine got corrupt and it wont let me restore it without reinstaling.
there should be 2 diff locations this is for the 64 bit version btw
i would really like to do this without reinstalling so thanks in advance.

[MuffinFlavored]

Been running it as my main OS for a few days now, Feels alot snappier then Vista did, im on the 64 bit version aswell.

Does it feel snappier than XP did?

[dunn2953]

anyone have the user32.dll that they could give me mine got corrupt and it wont let me restore it without reinstaling.
there should be 2 diff locations this is for the 64 bit version btw
i would really like to do this without reinstalling so thanks in advance.

you should be able do boot into repair mode like in XP and replace it