Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
It's a name. Yay.
I can't help but think of crappy cars and bad real estate descriptions.
I can't help but think of crappy cars and bad real estate descriptions.
Windows *Vista*
- Thread starter Mercutio
- Start date
Bartender
Storage is cool
Groltz
My demeaning user rank is
Thanks Bartender. Pour yourself one, on me. :drunk:
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
I am now downloading the beta. 2.42GB, released as a DVD .ISO. I hope to have it running on something or other in the next couple days.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
And, of course, the torrent download is 7.4x faster for me than the one from the MSDN site.... <cough>
Platform
Learning Storage Performance
Bartender said:
Very Intelligent Spam Telecommunications Accelerator
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
It's against the rules, MaxBurn.
But, I could probably mention that there's a site called IsoHunt...
But, I could probably mention that there's a site called IsoHunt...
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Hey, did everyone see the news about Windows Vista having eleventy-billion different versions and a minimum required 512MB RAM for the 32bit version?
Or the thing about needing a monitor that supports HDCP to display HD (720p and above) content?
Or the thing about it wanting a DX9-capable video card with 256MB of RAM to turn on all the bullshit eyecandy in Aero?
All this and more can be found in the increasingly interesting Wikipedia article on Windows Vista.
I keep thinking I'm going to install it on something, but the more I look at it, the more I think that no matter what I give it, it's going to run like ass.
Or the thing about needing a monitor that supports HDCP to display HD (720p and above) content?
Or the thing about it wanting a DX9-capable video card with 256MB of RAM to turn on all the bullshit eyecandy in Aero?
All this and more can be found in the increasingly interesting Wikipedia article on Windows Vista.
I keep thinking I'm going to install it on something, but the more I look at it, the more I think that no matter what I give it, it's going to run like ass.
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
I'm still running Windows 2000.
I wonder when I will be forced to upgrade?
I wonder when I will be forced to upgrade?
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Personally, I think 2003 Server Web Edition is a WONDERFUL replacement for Windows 2000. It's almost Linux-like in its speed and utility, and it plays all the games and crap that I like to have on Windows.
Anyway... forced to upgrade, a few guesses:
1. New software won't install - IIRC neither Norton AV 2004 nor 2005 will install on Windows 95. Office 2003 doesn't, either. Nor Media Player 9 or DirectX 9. Technically, you don't need any of that stuff, that's an awfully big stick for some organizations.
2. IE7-only web pages - the FEMA disaster relief forms are IE6 SP1-only... Mac and Linux, Firefox or Opera users need not apply.
3. DRM - Something you REALLY want to use requires DRM that's only supported in, say, XP and Vista. Or maybe just Vista. HDDVD, maybe.
4. Future hardware - I can forsee a day when some hardware - especially the $400 video cards we all love - won't install on a computer with a BIOS.
5. Zero driver support - Supposedly WDM works with everything from Win98 to Server 2003, but I've found WDM drivers that don't work on Win98 and/or Server 2003. Ask Tannin how much fun it is to find OS/2 drivers for modern hardware.
6. New authentication/encryption methods - Windows 2000 supports EAP, which means that things like swipe cards and fingerprint readers in theory work pretty well, but what if someone found a big, nasty flaw in 3DES or MPPE or some other encryption protocol? Windows 2000 is in "legacy support" at this point. Would they go back and add support for updated or additional security protocols to a deprecated OS?
Being "forced to upgrade" isn't really much of an issue. In reality, what will happen is that you'll eventually decide that your uber 1GB Athlon 3200 is best used as a doorstop, you'll get something else, and there will be the next version of Windows... or you'll build your own box and realize how much work it is to make Windows 2000 work on that hardware, and you'll take the path of less resistance.
Or you'll decided that you like the stupid eyecandy better than the eyecandy-less version, and that'll be the end of the discussion.
Anyway... forced to upgrade, a few guesses:
1. New software won't install - IIRC neither Norton AV 2004 nor 2005 will install on Windows 95. Office 2003 doesn't, either. Nor Media Player 9 or DirectX 9. Technically, you don't need any of that stuff, that's an awfully big stick for some organizations.
2. IE7-only web pages - the FEMA disaster relief forms are IE6 SP1-only... Mac and Linux, Firefox or Opera users need not apply.
3. DRM - Something you REALLY want to use requires DRM that's only supported in, say, XP and Vista. Or maybe just Vista. HDDVD, maybe.
4. Future hardware - I can forsee a day when some hardware - especially the $400 video cards we all love - won't install on a computer with a BIOS.
5. Zero driver support - Supposedly WDM works with everything from Win98 to Server 2003, but I've found WDM drivers that don't work on Win98 and/or Server 2003. Ask Tannin how much fun it is to find OS/2 drivers for modern hardware.
6. New authentication/encryption methods - Windows 2000 supports EAP, which means that things like swipe cards and fingerprint readers in theory work pretty well, but what if someone found a big, nasty flaw in 3DES or MPPE or some other encryption protocol? Windows 2000 is in "legacy support" at this point. Would they go back and add support for updated or additional security protocols to a deprecated OS?
Being "forced to upgrade" isn't really much of an issue. In reality, what will happen is that you'll eventually decide that your uber 1GB Athlon 3200 is best used as a doorstop, you'll get something else, and there will be the next version of Windows... or you'll build your own box and realize how much work it is to make Windows 2000 work on that hardware, and you'll take the path of less resistance.
Or you'll decided that you like the stupid eyecandy better than the eyecandy-less version, and that'll be the end of the discussion.
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
How many known security flaws in your operating system is acceptable?
Once you hit that limit, you'll need to upgrade.
Once you hit that limit, you'll need to upgrade.
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
Runing W2k myself, I have the same questions. How good is support for Win2003 for "consumer" grade devices, Merc - video cards, USB, firewire, etc., things that normally wouldn't be thought of as important to a server?
Considering most businesses are still using W2k, MS would use a carrot-and-stick approach to egg them on to move to Vista. I read just yesterday that M$'s growth is now in the single digits, and, poor babies, the're hurting because of that. They'll certainly want to "urge" everybody to move to the latest perfumed, polished turd available.
Novell claimed recently that Vista will force many people to take a good look at Linux and move in that direction. There's certainly some grain of truth to that.
Considering most businesses are still using W2k, MS would use a carrot-and-stick approach to egg them on to move to Vista. I read just yesterday that M$'s growth is now in the single digits, and, poor babies, the're hurting because of that. They'll certainly want to "urge" everybody to move to the latest perfumed, polished turd available.
Novell claimed recently that Vista will force many people to take a good look at Linux and move in that direction. There's certainly some grain of truth to that.
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
Sechs, I already feel restless knowing that Win XP has a higher priority for M$ than W2k, now that W2k is on life support. The absence of SP5 makes reinstalling W2k a nightmare.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
It's easier than installing Windows XP. Takes roughly half as long. (And you get a better result too.)
CougTek
Hairy Aussie
I'm also still on W2K and I have no plan of downgrading with a more recent version either.
Onomatopoeic
Learning Storage Performance
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
What applications in particular do you have problems with?
Just in case I get the crazy idea of installing 2003 Server on my machine.
Just in case I get the crazy idea of installing 2003 Server on my machine.
Onomatopoeic
Learning Storage Performance
timwhit said:
I'll get back with you on a complete list, but DEFINITELY &#<%@ Adobe products of all kinds. Then there are my video and audio non-linear editing applications.
Oh ya, device drivers for certain PCI cards. OUCH!
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
If I can't install Photoshop and Acrobat Pro then the whole thing is a no go.
God damn Adobe.
God damn Adobe.
Onomatopoeic
Learning Storage Performance
timwhit said:
Well, might as well try it if you already have 2K3 -- or an evaluation version. I'd love to hear about other people's install woes (or successes).
I've gotten different problems over the years from trying to install Adobe products on Server. The full-blown Adobe Creative Suite product just spins the CD. Attempting to install the individual products from "CS" cause different sorts of installation errors.
- NOTE: If you are a student of ANY accredited college taking ANY sort of courses (maybe not barber's school), you can buy nearly any MS product, most Adobe products, and a few other worthwhile applications for significantly less money than even the lowest priced commercial discounters. Academic versions are usually the same software as ordinary commercial versions and are usually upgradeable.
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
I am no longer a student.
I only have one computer to use, (other than my work laptop) so I don't want to spend hours and days installing an OS that may or may not work with software that I need. It would be easier if I had an extra drive to use, but I don't.
Maybe Mercutio can provide some insight into whether Adobe Photoshop or Acrobat Pro will install/run on Win 2k3 Server?
I only have one computer to use, (other than my work laptop) so I don't want to spend hours and days installing an OS that may or may not work with software that I need. It would be easier if I had an extra drive to use, but I don't.
Maybe Mercutio can provide some insight into whether Adobe Photoshop or Acrobat Pro will install/run on Win 2k3 Server?
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
Onomatopoeic said:
Tried installing/running in compatability mode. It works... sometimes.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
I have Photoshop 5.5 and (full) Acrobat 5 on the Server 2003WE I have as my work desktop. I've had Illustrator 7 and Pagemaker on it at different times. Does Premier not work? I would think that some people with high-end Intel rigs would be forced into 2003 Server just because of processor support (ie 4 CPUs). Vegas Pro works. Ulead DVD Workshop works.
The *only* programs I have found to have problems with Server 2003 are 1. a few games (mostly ones that have trouble with XP, too), 2. Acronis TrueImage (wants you to buy the Enterprise version), 3. Partition Magic (ditto).
At different times I've had USB and Firewire scanners, several different digital cameras (HP, Sony, Canon, Nikon, Kodak), Philips-based, Conexant-based, AverMedia, Plextor and and Hauppauge hardware vidcap hardware, personal dye-sub printers, DV camcorders...
The only piece of hardware I could absolutely NOT get to work was a old SCSI scanner where the installer said "Windows NT is not supported" and exited.
The *only* programs I have found to have problems with Server 2003 are 1. a few games (mostly ones that have trouble with XP, too), 2. Acronis TrueImage (wants you to buy the Enterprise version), 3. Partition Magic (ditto).
At different times I've had USB and Firewire scanners, several different digital cameras (HP, Sony, Canon, Nikon, Kodak), Philips-based, Conexant-based, AverMedia, Plextor and and Hauppauge hardware vidcap hardware, personal dye-sub printers, DV camcorders...
The only piece of hardware I could absolutely NOT get to work was a old SCSI scanner where the installer said "Windows NT is not supported" and exited.
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
If you have time, could you try a newer version of Photoshop? Like CS or CS2? No rush, just if you are bored.
Have you used any Macromedia products with 2k3: Dreamweaver, Flash, Fireworks, etc.?
How much more memory hungry is 2k3 than 2k? I am currently forced into only using 512MB because my MB doesn't like all three memory slots occupied or my 512MB stick, so I only have 512MB usable memory. I should really rectify this regardless of OS choice as it is painfully slow.
Also, I was under the impression that MS Server OS's were geared toward background services rather than foreground applications. Does this affect performance in any way?
Have you used any Macromedia products with 2k3: Dreamweaver, Flash, Fireworks, etc.?
How much more memory hungry is 2k3 than 2k? I am currently forced into only using 512MB because my MB doesn't like all three memory slots occupied or my 512MB stick, so I only have 512MB usable memory. I should really rectify this regardless of OS choice as it is painfully slow.
Also, I was under the impression that MS Server OS's were geared toward background services rather than foreground applications. Does this affect performance in any way?
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
The foreground/background thing is pretty much switchable option. Server 2003 does NOT have theme support (no Luna) or the memory hog that is System Restore, and has no services beyond what XP has enabled by default.
I don't have anything Macromedia, but I could probably swing a copy of Photoshop CS sometime.
Memory-wise, the 2003WE server right next to me, that's running a couple torrents (bitcomet) as well as about 10 Firefox tabs in one window, and an idle Nero session, has a commit charge of 262MB. That's 262MB out of 2GB. I'd say the requirements are actually about the same or possibly a bit lower.
Server2003 uses an updated kernel and has improved disk performance over 2000 or XP; I'd guess it's about 10% faster than Windows XP on the same hardware. It's enough that I notice it.
Man, I really don't want to sound like I'm a fanboy of Microsoft-anything, but to date I've been quite happy with Server 2003.
I don't have anything Macromedia, but I could probably swing a copy of Photoshop CS sometime.
Memory-wise, the 2003WE server right next to me, that's running a couple torrents (bitcomet) as well as about 10 Firefox tabs in one window, and an idle Nero session, has a commit charge of 262MB. That's 262MB out of 2GB. I'd say the requirements are actually about the same or possibly a bit lower.
Server2003 uses an updated kernel and has improved disk performance over 2000 or XP; I'd guess it's about 10% faster than Windows XP on the same hardware. It's enough that I notice it.
Man, I really don't want to sound like I'm a fanboy of Microsoft-anything, but to date I've been quite happy with Server 2003.
timwhit
Hairy Aussie
Sounds like it might be worth a shot. Especially since I haven't reinstalled my OS in about 2-3 years.
You could probably acquire a copy of Photoshop in about 2 hours on bittorrent to "test" on Server 2003.
Just for reference I hate Luna. I turn off every conceivable pretty option.
You could probably acquire a copy of Photoshop in about 2 hours on bittorrent to "test" on Server 2003.
Just for reference I hate Luna. I turn off every conceivable pretty option.
Groltz
My demeaning user rank is
Mercutio said:
Merc,
No sarcasm here, just curiosity... Do you really think a better gaming box can be ran off Server 2003 than WinXP Pro?
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Honestly I do not know. My interests align primarily with disk-intensive tasks, which gaming is not. I can say it's more than credible desktop OS, that the default install seems to use less RAM than XP (around 50 or 100MB, based on the lab PCs I checked today) and lacks some of XP's more obnoxious features, but a hardcore gamer probably turns that crap off anyway.
I can set up a PC to load XP and 2003WE in a very short period of time, but what benchmarks would tell the story?
I can set up a PC to load XP and 2003WE in a very short period of time, but what benchmarks would tell the story?
Groltz
My demeaning user rank is
I couldn't say, to be honest.
Was just curious as to your opinion. I'll stick to highly trimmed-down XP Pro installs for now.
Was just curious as to your opinion. I'll stick to highly trimmed-down XP Pro installs for now.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
But isn't it mega-expensive?
Pradeep
Storage? I am Storage!
You can download a 120 day trial of 2003 Server from MS. It may be the x64 version IIRC.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
But what do you do on day 121? How much is it? Surely it's a bloody fortune.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Web Edition is made to be fairly cheap. It can be found for $350 for a full version, which is in line with the $250 a full retail copy of XP Pro costs.
Several people at my day job went a Microsoft conference and came back with copies of 2003 Server Web Edition for their trouble. I got all their discs and serial numbers from those, so for me the price was certainly right.
Several people at my day job went a Microsoft conference and came back with copies of 2003 Server Web Edition for their trouble. I got all their discs and serial numbers from those, so for me the price was certainly right.
Santilli
Hairy Aussie
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2002
- Messages
- 5,278
I paid 170 bucks for my last copy of XP Pro, for the Athlon 3000+, and, I think I should have paid 140, if I had been a bit smarter, and bought from eWiz.com.
I use XP Pro, with almost all the XP stuff, visuals, off. I LIKE classic, and I like the darker blue of XP.
I use XP for one major reason, either for dual cores, or dual processors, it supports hyper-threading, and multiple processors, but, I suspect 2003 Server does, too, at twice the cost.
Merc you hit an intresting point: IIRC when XP first came out, it BARELY worked with scsi...
GS
I use XP Pro, with almost all the XP stuff, visuals, off. I LIKE classic, and I like the darker blue of XP.
I use XP for one major reason, either for dual cores, or dual processors, it supports hyper-threading, and multiple processors, but, I suspect 2003 Server does, too, at twice the cost.
Merc you hit an intresting point: IIRC when XP first came out, it BARELY worked with scsi...
GS
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Santilli, Windows 2000 Pro also supports SMP and hyperthreading (2 "real" CPUs with 2 "virtual" CPUs inside 'em), and doesn't have all the visual crap XP does. For you, and a lot of other people, XP brought nothing to the table.
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
Hmmm. I thought W2k supported neither hyperthreading nor multi-core CPUs, only real physical CPUs.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Windows 2000 supports hyperthreading. I've seen 2000's task manager on single CPU P4s with multiple graphs.
I'm not sure about support for dual cores. It probably does, in much the same way; it can't distinguish between a logical and a physical CPU.
I'm not sure about support for dual cores. It probably does, in much the same way; it can't distinguish between a logical and a physical CPU.
At the time I switched from win2k to XP pro, I noticed a remarkable difference in gaming performance. I specifically remember an area in diablo II that was rather bad in performance. After a clean install of XP on the same exact hardware, that area was perfect. I also recall other games with similar results.