Windows Server 2008 is 20% faster than Vista
It seems Microsoft may have a successor (or replacement) for Vista after all and it’s already been released. Windows Server 2008 isn’t easy to configure as a desktop operating system but when done correctly can be 20% faster than Vista while retaining most of the same features.
Windows Workstation 2008 has all the patches and fixes that are present in Vista SP1; runs all the same software but does it faster. InformationWeek calls Windows Workstation 2008 the “speediest and most secure version of Windows to come along in a decade.”
Windows Workstation 2008 is not a product sold by Microsoft and must be configured from a copy of Windows Server 2008. It seems this version of Windows lacks the “bloat” that is part of Vista. However, I am not sure what the author is referring to (but is likely talking about unnecessary services).
Of course this version of Windows was designed with developers in mind who covet speed above all else. Workstation 2008 includes IIS and Hyper-V for creating virtual machines.
A Microsoft employee and third party website have created tutorials on how to use Windows Server 2008 as a desktop operating system. This is what I’ve been referring to as Windows Workstation 2008. Keep in mind that this will have the same driver problems as Vista does, meaning, if a Vista driver doesn’t exist for a piece of hardware you still won’t be able to use it with Server or Workstation 2008.
Related Posts:
March 11th, 2008
“Keep in mind that this will have the same driver problems as Vista does, meaning, if a Vista driver doesn’t exist for a piece of hardware you still won’t be able to use it with Server or Workstation 2008.” Just wanted to give a flip side to this. The plus is that Vista drivers, especially video and audio, work perfectly in Server 2008. This wasn’t always the case with XP/2003.
March 11th, 2008
I read that it does not contain DRM which could account for the 20% increase. Maybe MS has finally got something right after learning from the ongoing Vista issues.
March 12th, 2008
but vista have a beautiful visual desktop ,it’s a os for users speciality
March 12th, 2008
1234, you can enable the Aero theme on server 2008 and it’s just as beautiful.
March 13th, 2008
Server 2008 is exactly the same code base as Vista, with exactly the same kernal. Vista will run at the same speed if you disable all of the services that you don’t need – unless you actually want to use it as a useful workstation computer.
March 13th, 2008
Or you can still use XP and be about 50% faster, and more reliable to boot.
March 15th, 2008
i download the enterprise edition and now it want me to change Admins password, but every combination dont work.Any CluE?
Regards
BM
March 15th, 2008
No need to Answer , afer reading the PDF i just add a “!” – done
Regards
BM
March 26th, 2008
this is great news, vista is cool os.
March 28th, 2008
HI All
Can we upgrade vista to server 2008 ?
If yes then Please tell me how!!!!!!
I don’t want clean Install option.
April 15th, 2008
Mark – true in theory, but WS 2008 benchmarks faster than Vista for everyone. Check the web, you won’t find a single person saying they are the same or Vista is faster. For me on a fresh machine WS2008 with Aero, etc. was 18% faster in all the tests than Vista.
There is something underlying Vista that is not in WS 2008 – maybe DRM?
June 20th, 2008
Well Vista still has along way to go. XP back in the days was also slow and unstable. It got better after a few services packs. Vista will do the same thing eventually. I have a WS 2008 server with Server Intellect and I know that runs very faster that my desktop. I wish I could use that as my workstation and not my dedicated server=)
September 13th, 2008
Server 2008 is exactly the same code base as Vista, with exactly the same kernal. Vista will run at the same speed if you disable all of the services that you don’t need – unless you actually want to use it as a useful workstation computer.
January 11th, 2009
Are there any specific results, where we can appreciate the 20% speed improvement?
To be honest, a 20%, seems quite a lot to me.
January 20th, 2009
xp faster than vista??? yeah right>! maybe if your system is old and slow as hell. right now this is what it looks like
1. (fastest) windows 7
2. server 08 x64
3. vista x64
4. server 08 x86
5. xp x64
6. vista x86
6. xp x86
everything else is up to your system if yo uzsay xp is faster than anything else then you sir need to update your hardeare. try running crysis on your amchine and then tell me how its running. i bet it runs a whole lot smoother on my vista x64…
January 27th, 2009
To above poster: Vista is way slower than XP. Windows 7 is slower than XP but faster than Vista. XP is slower than 2000 on older hardware, but XP performs better than 2k on newer hardware. Windows 9x and below are all faster than XP.
Regarding the topic: Server ‘08 and Vista are pretty identical. Server 2008 has less services enabled and is build to be a server out of the box. If you install the Desktop Environment package, your system is now Vista pretty much, still with server configuration etc., yet it’s faster than Vista. It is most likely the services and possibly DRM that slows Vista down so much.
February 18th, 2009
Vista faster than XP HA, yea right, it’s a major resource pig. On my high end hardware it certaintly isn’t. Maybe if the game is optimized for vista, but other than that vista is really sluggish. I too have had the 15% boost when trying server 2008 over vista.
May 20th, 2009
This is such simple common sense that anyone who does not understand why one is faster than the other simply hasn’t learned how windows operating systems work yet.
Server 2008 and Windows Vista are the same basic core operating system. Comparing the two is very similar to comparing Server 2003 to Windows XP (2002). Although 2008 and Vista are even closer to identical than these prior counterparts. The ideal growth path is for Microsoft to merge the two as they tried to do many years ago when NT was the server and Windows 95 was the desktop.
The key difference that explains the speed difference is the number and selected services you choose to run.
For example autodetect of CD when inserted requires a service to look at the CD every 5 seconds and see if a new CD was inserted. Slows down your machine and slows down your bootup because it has to load ONE MORE service.
Built in FTP functionality, printer support, support for usb devices like external hard disks, flash memory sticks, cameras. All require services.
Task scheduler, automatic updates from windows, wireless network support dialup connection modem support, application compatibility. Guess what not usually running on the SERVER. By default we would expect all of this stuff turned off by default on a server so heck yeah its gonna run FASTER out of the box.
Add your antivirus, firewall and a few more bells and whistles and run the thing as a desktop and you bet its going to start to slow down a little.
Fact is most people need to have the light go on already that you can take a vista or XP or whatever desktop and run it much better by going in and turning all of those services OFF.
Oh dear whatever will we do if our CD’s dont automatically know when we insert them? Um CLICK ON THEM maybe?
June 18th, 2009
I noticed that a lot of you remark that Server 2008 is faster than Vista only because services are disbaled.
I run Server 2008 as a workstation, with all of Vista’s services running.
I can even autodetect CDs!
It is still faster than Vista on my laptop.
I was even running Aero and had better speed (I only turned it off because the old windows styling suits me better).
I don’t have a answer as to why, only that it does.
As for the comment that XP is faster than vista…..
Of course an older OS will run faster. There is less code, less features.
But before we just bag MS for their “not so good” new system, remember this:
In 3 years time, this same argument will happen, you’ll all say Windows 7 is a dog, and Vista was soooooo much better.
No one likes change.
November 15th, 2009
These are my tests. Windows Server 2008 is best.
1- Windows Server 2008 (fastest)
2- Windows XP (faster)
3- Windows 7 (slow)
4- Windows Vista (very slow, SOS = strange OS)
December 8th, 2009
Calculating the time it takes for an OS to boot up is an unfair way to determine its performance. Of course XP is going to boot up faster than Vista it requires less memory-demanding programs. It has nothing to do with the fact that Vista is a memory hog because when given adequate memory Vista is not a memory hog. The problem lies within the operating system because it has so many programs that require memory in themselves. The true performance test is post boot. How well does the OS perform after its been on for a week straight? I find that the core memory management built into the Windows Server 2008 (and R2) operating systems is what sets it apart from its desktop counterpart (vista and 7). This is where it shines. I notice after leaving Vista on for a few days, crashes become more frequent. I also notice that my memory usage goes up for some reason. In server the memory usage only goes up slightly (due to caching and previous activities of course). Personally I hate having to wait a minute or so to surf the web…i just want to type in my password, logon and browse the web in seconds. With Server I can do this without constant freezes or lock-ups as I had with Vista. It is because of this consistent reliability I am a Server fan 4 life.
December 8th, 2009
Also I would like to point out the following.
Myth: Windows Server 2008 has less services enabled by default than Windows Vista.
There are only but a few services that are turned off in Server that are turned on in Vista. Outside of the Wireless LAN services, the Themes service, and the superfetch service, the services enabled in Vista and Server 2008 are identical. By the time you install the desktop experience feature and wireless feature and turn on superfetching via registry tweak, the number of processes running on a clean vista machine and a clean server 2008 machine are identical.