February 22, 200818 yr Hey im wondering if there any Benchmark diff between them tho they share the same comp.ssomeone knows ? [by test it physically]anyways didnt find any link in google about Benchmark of it Edited February 22, 200818 yr by aviv00
February 24, 200818 yr Hey im wondering if there any Benchmark diff between them tho they share the same comp.ssomeone knows ? [by test it physically]anyways didnt find any link in google about Benchmark of itJust installed 2008 64bit as a dual boot alongside Vista 64bit on an AMD 4600+ Asus MB system.Purely subjective at this stage but W2K8 appears to run about 2X faster than Vista. So far very pleased with W2K8.Not having Aero and all the other media stuff etc built into Vista probably helps.Graham. Edited February 24, 200818 yr by snaithg
February 24, 200818 yr Author Not having Aero and all the other media stuff etc built into Vista probably helps.ws have aero use server manger to install it and enable ithttp://www.msfn.org/board/Ultimate-Guide-M...in-t108882.htmldid u see any diff in gaming ?Found same review about that:http://wastingtimewithmikeandari.wordpress...he-ram-of-vista Edited February 24, 200818 yr by aviv00
February 24, 200818 yr Not having Aero and all the other media stuff etc built into Vista probably helps.ws have aero use server manger to install it and enable ithttp://www.msfn.org/board/Ultimate-Guide-M...in-t108882.htmldid u see any diff in gaming ?Found same review about that:http://wastingtimewithmikeandari.wordpress...he-ram-of-vistaThanks for the links aviv00.Not really a fan of Aero etc, so won't be rushing to install it. Good to know it's there though.Not into (PC) gaming [YET!!!], so can't comment on performance.I'm very tempted to use W2K8 as my desktop client OS. IMO the performance boost over Vista is impressive (at least with my setup). I need to see whether I can port my more important apps to W2K8.Graham.
February 24, 200818 yr Oh!, by the way, W2K8 installs much quicker than Vista Graham. Edited February 24, 200818 yr by snaithg
February 25, 200818 yr Purely subjective at this stage but W2K8 appears to run about 2X faster than Vista. So far very pleased with W2K8.That is definitely subjective.3DMark2006 comes up with similar numbers on my Dell Inspiron E1705 laptop for Vista and Server 2008.Server 2008 feels faster only because the default desktop is always classic, and certain desktop user experiences (ie. superfetch) are by default disabled. If you set Vista up with that desktop and kill the indexing, search and superfetch, it will definitely feel faster. I also saw no real difference in the installation time.
March 16, 200818 yr Author another test:http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2008/03/windo...done-right.html".......we were expecting to find little or no performance delta between the two platforms. So we were understandably surprised when repeated test runs showed Windows Server 2008 outperforming Windows Vista w/SP1 by a margin of 11-17%......."another link of neowinhttp://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/03/12/w...ster-than-vistahave fun readingedit:here another link about server and vistahttp://www.itwire.com/content/view/17140/1103/1/0/two interesting quoting:"Microsoft has probably already confirmed internally where Windows Server 2008 is indeed faster than Vista SP1. ".........my "Workstation" 2008 experience is that, from a technical standpoint, it doesn't make sense - or at least, it shouldn't. With the same kernel (as of Vista SP1), the OSes should in fact behave similarly.”edited in 3.25.2008:http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2008/03/windo...done-right.html Edited March 25, 200818 yr by aviv00
Create an account or sign in to comment