Author Topic: Windows Server as a desktop OS?  (Read 14279 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ampera

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2567
  • Country: us
    • Ampera's Forums
Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« on: December 27, 2016, 02:13:57 am »
I have a copy of Server 2016 Datacenter, I was thinking it might make a nice, lightweight operating system. Security is vastly improved over desktop versions, and a lot of the bloatware is gone. It's sorta like how NT was used in the 90s.

Thoughts?
Professional complainer-in-chief criticizing other people's code
Programmer and bumbling Unix fool
Op @ EEVBlog IRC: irc.austnet.irc #eevblog
 

Offline NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6355
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
Re: Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2016, 02:54:52 am »
Assuming it's the version with the full GUI, it should just work.
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 

Offline Ampera

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2567
  • Country: us
    • Ampera's Forums
Re: Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2016, 02:58:59 am »
Assuming it's the version with the full GUI, it should just work.

Even the cut down version can be retrofitted with a GUI.
Professional complainer-in-chief criticizing other people's code
Programmer and bumbling Unix fool
Op @ EEVBlog IRC: irc.austnet.irc #eevblog
 

Offline TiN

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4191
  • Country: us
  • xDevs.com/live - 24/7 lab feed
    • xDevs.com
Re: Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« Reply #3 on: December 27, 2016, 04:11:18 am »
I use 2008 since ~2010 (used 2003 prior to that) and it works happily ever. I often have 40+ programms open/100+ tabs in browsers, and server OSes run better on bigger RAM/CPU core count machines I usually have (currently 10c Xeon + 56GB RAM).
YouTube | Metrology IRC Chat room | Live-cam | Share T&M documentation? Upload! No MB limit, firmwares, photos.
 

Offline evb149

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1666
  • Country: us
Re: Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« Reply #4 on: December 27, 2016, 04:21:14 am »
I've heard of it being done on other 'server' versions of the OS.  I imagine it may be possible to do with this version.
One problem I've heard about, though, is that there is a lot of badly written 'utility' software out there that will REFUSE to install or work on a server OS since they only "support" desktop versions.  So if you want to use such bad 3rd party software you may have some problems in getting it to work properly.
Maybe even some Microsoft SW might behave like that, I don't know.
It could be that some device drivers could also give such problems.
I would not be surprised if anti-virus packages were often like that.


 
 

Offline Ampera

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2567
  • Country: us
    • Ampera's Forums
Re: Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« Reply #5 on: December 27, 2016, 05:01:20 am »
I've heard of it being done on other 'server' versions of the OS.  I imagine it may be possible to do with this version.
One problem I've heard about, though, is that there is a lot of badly written 'utility' software out there that will REFUSE to install or work on a server OS since they only "support" desktop versions.  So if you want to use such bad 3rd party software you may have some problems in getting it to work properly.
Maybe even some Microsoft SW might behave like that, I don't know.
It could be that some device drivers could also give such problems.
I would not be surprised if anti-virus packages were often like that.

I would probably have to change registry values/compatibility stuff, but I am going to dualboot with Windows 7 for now.

I just don't want all the crap that Windows 10 introduces.
Professional complainer-in-chief criticizing other people's code
Programmer and bumbling Unix fool
Op @ EEVBlog IRC: irc.austnet.irc #eevblog
 

Online Halcyon

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4013
  • Country: au
Re: Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« Reply #6 on: December 27, 2016, 06:29:36 am »
Stick with Windows 7 in my opinion (which you can still buy). It will be supported until at least January 2020. Windows Server just introduces services and features you're probably never going to use. I run Windows Server on a server here which does some RADIUS auth./Certificate Services/Active Directory stuff and it's still overkill. It won't necessarily offer you any more stability. With Windows (depending on the version), proper hardware is the key to stability, not the version of OS you're running*.

If you're having issues with stability or uptime, it's not Windows 7 that's causing you dramas, take a look at your hardware. It might not be faulty, just a little bit crap.


* Unless you're running Windows 95a, Millennium Edition, Vista, 8.x... then you're on your own.
 

Offline Ampera

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2567
  • Country: us
    • Ampera's Forums
Re: Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« Reply #7 on: December 27, 2016, 08:05:34 am »
Stick with Windows 7 in my opinion (which you can still buy). It will be supported until at least January 2020. Windows Server just introduces services and features you're probably never going to use. I run Windows Server on a server here which does some RADIUS auth./Certificate Services/Active Directory stuff and it's still overkill. It won't necessarily offer you any more stability. With Windows (depending on the version), proper hardware is the key to stability, not the version of OS you're running*.

If you're having issues with stability or uptime, it's not Windows 7 that's causing you dramas, take a look at your hardware. It might not be faulty, just a little bit crap.


* Unless you're running Windows 95a, Millennium Edition, Vista, 8.x... then you're on your own.

I am having no stability/uptime issues, Windows 7 is running fine, but it's hindered by it's Vista origins. I like the idea of upgrading to Windows 10 because it's a faster operating system, but I don't want all the bloaty crap that comes with it like Cortana, and I don't want all the stupid monitoring crap.


But I pulled the trigger, and thankfully I manage to not pull the trigger to my head while doing this.

Man do I got a story to tell.

So, installing Server 2016, not as easy as you might think, at least not for me.

Long story short, I have DVD+RWs. That's it, I don't have USB drives, I just don't got any, need to rectify that in the future.

And Server 2016 doesn't FIT onto a DVD (over 5GB in size). So I thought I might be able to chuck some files off the ISO to make it lighter. (Btw I got the system off Microsoft Imagine, didn't steal notin)
yea, everything is stored in an installation image too big to fit on a DVD.

So, ha, ha, haaaa... I thought if I don't have a flash drive, and a DVD won't fit... What sort of bootable storage device can I use to put the ISO image on and install Server 2016?

A hard drive!

So I gutted my media center computer that has been sitting ignored for ages (Sadly) and grabbed a drive that I never hooked up and had just thrown in. Windows didn't want to partition, or do anything with it, and it was a spare bad blocks drive, so I am assuming it's dead.

Next drive lucky, time for a 300 GB WD Caviar Blue with bad blocks, but still working. One partition later, and I could use it. So I used a tool called YUMI to "Burn" the ISO on there with a strange pocketed bootloader... Yea I don't know what the hell it's doing. I can't use DVD burning software as it only works for optical media, I can't use Win32DiskImager because A. It doesn't work with fixed drives and B. I don't f**king trust it (I lost two computers to it, never try to write a floppy with that software, it will mistake your C drive for the floppy, MS-DOS on an i7 was funny for a few seconds), so that worked fine.

Booted up, and started the installer

I want to dualboot, and I am not going to take no for an answer here. Windows Server 2016 setup has the option of, bin the Win7 installation, or throw me on a drive and see what happens.

I chose the latter, and it installed on a second partition on my SSD. But one reboot later, and it wouldn't boot in. I thought, Ahh I'll just add it to the Windows 7 bootloader.

Yeea, I used EasyBCD, added it as an entry, and it complained that winload.exe's digital signature couldn't be verified.

No matter what I did, including trying to swap both the file and signature of Windows 7's winload.exe, to no luck, until I decided I was going to try to repair the bootloader or whatever I could try on the install disk's repair utilities.

So booted that up, and lo and behold, it didn't go into the installer, but the Server 2016 installation! The bootloader on the install disk allowed me to enter both Windows 7 and Server 2016.

So I decided to not bother messing with anything else, and that I am going to leave the 300GB hard drive in and just use that bootloader to switch into either system, with the accidental perk of having the setup utility incase something goes to pot with my install.

Not gonna mess with anything else, I am sure I made more errors along the way, and there probably was a stupidly easy solution to all of it, but that doesn't matter now. It is working, and that is what I need it to do.

So now the question is, is this viable? I think it may be, but time will tell, but one thing is for sure.

I.E. on Server operating systems is LITERALLY unusable. I can't even install google chrome.

Cheers.
Professional complainer-in-chief criticizing other people's code
Programmer and bumbling Unix fool
Op @ EEVBlog IRC: irc.austnet.irc #eevblog
 

Offline Ampera

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2567
  • Country: us
    • Ampera's Forums
Re: Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« Reply #8 on: December 27, 2016, 08:41:16 am »
UPDATE:

Everything installing smoothly, I tried to use some programs from the other installation. Steam works fine in that manner, but an attempt to use Ext2FSD (Windows Ext support) resulted in it picking up my partitions as EXT3, and not mounting them properly.

Whatever, drivers and everything are fine.
Professional complainer-in-chief criticizing other people's code
Programmer and bumbling Unix fool
Op @ EEVBlog IRC: irc.austnet.irc #eevblog
 

Offline slicendice

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 365
  • Country: fi
Re: Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« Reply #9 on: December 30, 2016, 11:29:39 am »
If your computer is online pretty much 24/7, or you don't mind long boot up times, then yes, use Windows Server. The Server version of Windows is so much better in any aspect, especially when it comes to stability and reliability. Only two reasons I don't use Windows server as my main workstation OS is the cost and convenience. Windows 7/8.1/10 has all the features I need out of the box. But Tweaking the server allows you to get all the same features and much more.
 

Offline suicidaleggroll

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1455
  • Country: us
Re: Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« Reply #10 on: December 30, 2016, 04:41:36 pm »
The server versions of Windows have horrible licensing requirements.  You can't install Office, you need the "special" server version of Office for twice the price.  Every user needs a user CAL, every user who wants to remote desktop in needs a remote desktop CAL, every device that wants to talk to the computer needs a device CAL, etc.  Using a Windows server OS in a desktop environment will likely require many hundreds of dollars in additional licensing that is not required for the desktop version.
 

Offline Ampera

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2567
  • Country: us
    • Ampera's Forums
Re: Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« Reply #11 on: December 30, 2016, 05:35:38 pm »
The server versions of Windows have horrible licensing requirements.  You can't install Office, you need the "special" server version of Office for twice the price.  Every user needs a user CAL, every user who wants to remote desktop in needs a remote desktop CAL, every device that wants to talk to the computer needs a device CAL, etc.  Using a Windows server OS in a desktop environment will likely require many hundreds of dollars in additional licensing that is not required for the desktop version.

Not when your a student :)

Anyways it's been working brilliantly, and when Microsoft's usually crappy and broken ass services don't work, use open source. Libre/Open Office is fine for most people.
You can also turn most of that certificate crap off or ignore it, and those are mostly for features I don't use anyways. Remote Desktop is rarely used by me, and Samba
which IS used by me is as dysfunctional as Windows 7 (Which is alright I guess)

But the advantages that I receive are not bad. I get a Windows 10 experience WITHOUT stupid Cortana spying on me, I get an honestly better interface, which I find ironic since it looks like something that can be made with MDA characters, but whatever, it's minimalist enough.

I also get the "Advanced" (Stupidly confusing) configuration, but it does allow me to do a lot of stuff I couldn't normally do on Desktop

My verdict is if you are looking at a business use, go away, it's not worth it in monetary terms for you, but if your a student like me, or your an enthusiast with access to an MSDN license (Like most of us wish we had) you might as well give it a try, and at the end of the day, I still have Windows 7 on dual boot.

Also I cannot confirm,  but I think Server 2016 Datacenter at least might have legacy driver support as I was able to install drivers for my WinTV HVR-1800 TV Tuner, which is fairly old. So unless Happauge updated the driver (And stuck it into a really old installer) it's got legacy driver support, which could be a good way out in 4 years when Win7 support kicks the bucket.

And yea, it runs your windows programs, don't think it doesn't. It has no Edge or fancy ass windows application support, or whatever that is (Not really sure), but I never had that in Windows 7 anyways...

Also, remember Hypervising, you can just have a Win 7 VM on hand and do all the stuff you can't on Server 2016 (Which I might actually do)
Professional complainer-in-chief criticizing other people's code
Programmer and bumbling Unix fool
Op @ EEVBlog IRC: irc.austnet.irc #eevblog
 

Offline KhronX

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 335
  • Country: fi
    • Khron's Cave - Electronics Blog
Re: Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« Reply #12 on: December 30, 2016, 05:55:21 pm »
I actually had / used Server 2008 R2 for a few years, with the freebie student license i got, back in '09 or '10 :)

Apart from having to edit the Kaspersky .msi file to fool the OS check, i don't really recall having any (serious) issues. Even migrated (read: drive-cloned) the OS across three laptops since then :D Finally ended up installing Win10 about a year ago, using the Win7 license that came with my latest laptop though.
Khron's Cave - Electronics - Audio - Teardowns - Mods - Repairs - Projects - Music - Rants - Shenanigans
 

Offline Ampera

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2567
  • Country: us
    • Ampera's Forums
Re: Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« Reply #13 on: December 30, 2016, 06:07:49 pm »
I actually had / used Server 2008 R2 for a few years, with the freebie student license i got, back in '09 or '10 :)

Apart from having to edit the Kaspersky .msi file to fool the OS check, i don't really recall having any (serious) issues. Even migrated (read: drive-cloned) the OS across three laptops since then :D Finally ended up installing Win10 about a year ago, using the Win7 license that came with my latest laptop though.

2008 R2 found it's home on my IBM 325. Not a bad operating system, but I wouldn't use it as my main OS.
Professional complainer-in-chief criticizing other people's code
Programmer and bumbling Unix fool
Op @ EEVBlog IRC: irc.austnet.irc #eevblog
 

Offline slicendice

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 365
  • Country: fi
Re: Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« Reply #14 on: December 30, 2016, 06:31:19 pm »
Server 2008R2 still works quite well, but if you want the latest virtualization support with latest tech and want no Cortana spyware as you stated, then def. go for Server 2016 or at least Sever 2012R2.

The MS student licenses are very generous (free), so I would def. go for server in this case.

When I was at school for a brief 2 years, all Operating systems on the school lab computers were Windows server 2012R2.
 

Offline Ampera

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2567
  • Country: us
    • Ampera's Forums
Re: Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« Reply #15 on: December 30, 2016, 10:36:10 pm »
Server 2008R2 still works quite well, but if you want the latest virtualization support with latest tech and want no Cortana spyware as you stated, then def. go for Server 2016 or at least Sever 2012R2.

The MS student licenses are very generous (free), so I would def. go for server in this case.

When I was at school for a brief 2 years, all Operating systems on the school lab computers were Windows server 2012R2.

I went to MIT for spark a couple years ago, the computers ran Windows 7 Enterprise.
Professional complainer-in-chief criticizing other people's code
Programmer and bumbling Unix fool
Op @ EEVBlog IRC: irc.austnet.irc #eevblog
 

Offline Ampera

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2567
  • Country: us
    • Ampera's Forums
Re: Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« Reply #16 on: January 11, 2017, 09:20:49 am »
The server versions of Windows have horrible licensing requirements.  You can't install Office, you need the "special" server version of Office for twice the price.  Every user needs a user CAL, every user who wants to remote desktop in needs a remote desktop CAL, every device that wants to talk to the computer needs a device CAL, etc.  Using a Windows server OS in a desktop environment will likely require many hundreds of dollars in additional licensing that is not required for the desktop version.

This is not true, and sorry for the slight necropost, but this is important information to the topic at hand for anybody who wants to try what I'm doing.

Long story short, Microsoft office installed just fine for me, check.



There was no additional fees to be paid, it's just standard office as supplied by my school. There is no special server stigma to it, and as far as I can tell,
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/28649763/installing-microsoft-office-on-a-windows-server

There is absolutely no restriction on Microsoft Office for Server 20xx

And it doesn't make sense the other way either. From the standpoint of Microsoft why would they charge extra for the 2 people who want to install office on an operating system that barely needs a desktop UI?

And there is no certificate anything to connect to another machine. Samba shares work fine, and remote desktop does to. I can even terminal into Windows Server 2000 which has 0 security, and vice versa if I set the settings right.

Anyways, how has it gone? Beautifully! While most don't, I can share programs between windows installs by shortcutting to them. I haven't yet had a program refuse to install because of it being a server OS, albeit I am sticking with Windows Defender for AV. As I said, word works fine, and so does Libre/OpenOffice. All desktop programs run fine.

So you might be thinking, what are the actual advantages? Why would I spend money on this?

The answer to this is, if you have to spend money on an individual copy, it's probably not worth it unless you are incredibly frustrated with windows and need a way out regardless of the cost.

But if you have access to Microsoft Imagine (Their give free stuff to students program) or an MSDN subscription, it's DEFINATELY worth spending the time to throw it on your system.

Here are the pros:

It's faster than any other desktop Windows installation including Windows 10.
It supports all Windows 10 drivers.
It has 0 Cortana, so you won't get spied on.
There are no forced updates.
It comes with a half decent AV.
It runs almost all desktop apps.

Here are the cons:
Everything is named differently and in a different place, but if you didn't already expect this, you haven't been using Windows.
If you don't have it for free, it's going to be a steep expenditure for you.
SOME programs may not work because it's a server OS. These programs can occasionally be tripped up and fooled into running, but most of them are things that already come with Server 2016 like
AV programs and things like Macrium Reflect.

These are all the details I can include. It's a great OS to run. It's the closest you can get to a decent Windows OS. Some people had mentioned Windows 10 Enterprise, but it's not as cut down as Server 2016.
You still get all the desktop junk that you will never use. Server 2016 is cut down, but not uselessly cut down. You still get Windows Media Player, and the standard UI with all you'd need. Even still, if you are pining for the days of Windows 2000, arguably the last decent Windows Operating System Microsoft product, then this is for you, there will be no closer experience to that.
Professional complainer-in-chief criticizing other people's code
Programmer and bumbling Unix fool
Op @ EEVBlog IRC: irc.austnet.irc #eevblog
 

Offline slicendice

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 365
  • Country: fi
Re: Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« Reply #17 on: January 11, 2017, 11:10:59 am »
Windows server does not have to cost much. You dont need to purchase Windows Server 2016 Datacenter if you are going to use it as a workstation OS. The price consist of the additional services you setup for your server.

There are multiple editions of Windows Server (2016):

EditionPriceDescriptionLicensing ModelCAL RequirementsSuitability for Workstation usage
Datacenter~$6000 + VAT + CALFor highly virtualized datacenter and cloud environmentsCore BasedWS CALCan be used as Workstation but makes no sense to pay extra for things that you don't need
Standard~$900 + VAT + CALFor Physical or minimally virtualized environmentsCore BasedWS CALCan be used but makes no sense to pay extra for things that you don't need
Essentials~$500 + VATFor small businesses with up to 25 users and 50 devicesProcessor BasedNO CAL RequiredCan be used as a Workstation and has all the basic but enhanced server like features Windows 10 has built in
Multipoint Premium ServerDepends on Volume license agreement with MicrosoftFor Volume Licensing Customers in Academic segments onlyProcessor BasedWS CAL + RDS CALIf you own your own School and need a lot of licenses then you can get this, else not. Can be used as a Workstation though
Storage ServerIncluded in the harware price when purcasing a storage server computerStandard and Workgroup editions available in the OEM channel onlyProcessor basedNO CAL RequiredThis edition is design to be a File Storage server and makes no sense to even attempt to use it as a Workstation
Hyper-V ServerAbsolutely FreeFree HypervisorAbsolutely FreeAbsolutely FreeCan not be used as a Workstation as it's only intended to serve as a container for virtualized environments

For students all of the above products and many more are absolutely free if your school has made a DreamSpark agreement with Microsoft.

For small business startups you can also apply for a BizSpark agreement from Microsoft. You will be entitled to all the above operating systems and many many more for free for the agreement period. After that you can purchase licenses for the product you want to still use for a fraction of the price.

When going into details about the CAL and CPU licensing models it gets a bit complicated and that information was left out from this post intentionally.

So there you have it! Hope it helps.
 

Offline Ampera

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2567
  • Country: us
    • Ampera's Forums
Re: Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« Reply #18 on: January 11, 2017, 11:15:10 am »
Windows server does not have to cost much. You dont need to purchase Windows Server 2016 Datacenter if you are going to use it as a workstation OS. The price consist of the additional services you setup for your server.

There are multiple editions of Windows Server (2016):

EditionPriceDescriptionLicensing ModelCAL RequirementsSuitability for Workstation usage
Datacenter~$6000 + VAT + CALFor highly virtualized datacenter and cloud environmentsCore BasedWS CALCan be used as Workstation but makes no sense to pay extra for things that you don't need
Standard~$900 + VAT + CALFor Physical or minimally virtualized environmentsCore BasedWS CALCan be used but makes no sense to pay extra for things that you don't need
Essentials~$500 + VATFor small businesses with up to 25 users and 50 devicesProcessor BasedNO CAL RequiredCan be used as a Workstation and has all the basic but enhanced server like features Windows 10 has built in
Multipoint Premium ServerDepends on Volume license agreement with MicrosoftFor Volume Licensing Customers in Academic segments onlyProcessor BasedWS CAL + RDS CALIf you own your own School and need a lot of licenses then you can get this, else not. Can be used as a Workstation though
Storage ServerIncluded in the harware price when purcasing a storage server computerStandard and Workgroup editions available in the OEM channel onlyProcessor basedNO CAL RequiredThis edition is design to be a File Storage server and makes no sense to even attempt to use it as a Workstation
Hyper-V ServerAbsolutely FreeFree HypervisorAbsolutely FreeAbsolutely FreeCan not be used as a Workstation as it's only intended to serve as a container for virtualized environments

For students all of the above products and many more are absolutely free if your school has made a DreamSpark agreement with Microsoft.

For small business startups you can also apply for a BizSpark agreement from Microsoft. You will be entitled to all the above operating systems and many many more for free for the agreement period. After that you can purchase licenses for the product you want to still use for a fraction of the price.

When going into details about the CAL and CPU licensing models it gets a bit complicated and that information was left out from this post intentionally.

So there you have it! Hope it helps.

That does make sense, but I thought Essentials was command line only.

And your school doesn't need to sign a Dreamspark (Now called Microsoft Imagine) agreement. If they do, you get more software, but even homeschoolers with proof of homeschooling can get Imagine software for free, and this includes Server 2016.

But thanks for the info.
Professional complainer-in-chief criticizing other people's code
Programmer and bumbling Unix fool
Op @ EEVBlog IRC: irc.austnet.irc #eevblog
 

Offline slicendice

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 365
  • Country: fi
Re: Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« Reply #19 on: January 11, 2017, 11:18:38 am »
Quote
And your school doesn't need to sign a Dreamspark (Now called Microsoft Imagine) agreement. If they do, you get more software, but even homeschoolers with proof of homeschooling can get Imagine software for free, and this includes Server 2016.

Oh yes, that is right, they changed that recently.
 

Offline george graves

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1259
  • Country: us
Re: Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« Reply #20 on: January 11, 2017, 11:25:17 am »
Win NT was so amazing at the time.  I'm glad win 7 is basically the same except for the crappy web browers.  Who writes that code?  Rabid Monkeys?

Offline slicendice

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 365
  • Country: fi
Re: Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« Reply #21 on: January 11, 2017, 11:35:34 am »
Win NT was so amazing at the time.  I'm glad win 7 is basically the same except for the crappy web browers.  Who writes that code?  Rabid Monkeys?

Yes Windows 2000 was the first Workstation OS that was based on NT tech. After that they abandoned the DOS based systems. Only Windows ME was not NT based, and that was a total flop, fast but completely unusable for most.
 

Offline Ampera

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2567
  • Country: us
    • Ampera's Forums
Re: Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« Reply #22 on: January 11, 2017, 11:42:04 am »
Win NT was so amazing at the time.  I'm glad win 7 is basically the same except for the crappy web browers.  Who writes that code?  Rabid Monkeys?

Yes Windows 2000 was the first Workstation OS that was based on NT tech. After that they abandoned the DOS based systems. Only Windows ME was not NT based, and that was a total flop, fast but completely unusable for most.

That's completely not true. NT 3.1 was a workstation OS. That's why the main version of it had Workstation in the name, and why it was used on high end workstations.

Windows was just a renamed NT 5, it has no real drastic improvements over NT4 that make it stand out. NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, and 4 all had workstation versions, and so did Windows 2000.

In fact you could even argue Windows 2000 was less of a workstation version than NT3.x and 4 since it doesn't have a "Workstation" version, and instead uses the title of Professional.

EDIT: Slight correction, NT 3.1 doesn't have a version named Workstation, NT 3.5 does, NT 3.1 is still a Workstation OS though.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 11:46:07 am by TwoOfFive »
Professional complainer-in-chief criticizing other people's code
Programmer and bumbling Unix fool
Op @ EEVBlog IRC: irc.austnet.irc #eevblog
 

Offline kaz911

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 902
  • Country: gb
Re: Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« Reply #23 on: January 11, 2017, 12:21:42 pm »
I ran Win Server for some years - but have given up.

Not because it is not super stable - but because a lot of 3rd party software looks at your installation and says - uhh this is a SERVER - so you need to buy a 10-50x cost SERVER license. So anything like backup, image software and many others ended up with "can't use" without paying 10-50x what a normal "consumer" license would cost.

 

Offline Ampera

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2567
  • Country: us
    • Ampera's Forums
Re: Windows Server as a desktop OS?
« Reply #24 on: January 11, 2017, 12:54:42 pm »
I ran Win Server for some years - but have given up.

Not because it is not super stable - but because a lot of 3rd party software looks at your installation and says - uhh this is a SERVER - so you need to buy a 10-50x cost SERVER license. So anything like backup, image software and many others ended up with "can't use" without paying 10-50x what a normal "consumer" license would cost.

There are ways to trick programs, but I find if there is a program that REALLY just will NOT run on a Server OS, I can use use a VM or dual boot.
Professional complainer-in-chief criticizing other people's code
Programmer and bumbling Unix fool
Op @ EEVBlog IRC: irc.austnet.irc #eevblog
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf