Why would anyone use Windows 2008 Server as Desktop?

There are a few who preach about using Windows 2008 server as a replacement
for Vista as a desktop OS. Why would you do that? Maybe they just don't
know what they are doing. With all the modifications needed it really seems
stupid.

You mentioned the operative word....stupid.

--
Peter
Toronto, Canada
"C : Enter" <> wrote in message
news:uA8%...
> There are a few who preach about using Windows 2008 server as a
> replacement for Vista as a desktop OS. Why would you do that? Maybe they
> just don't know what they are doing. With all the modifications needed it
> really seems stupid.
>
>
>

"C : Enter" <> wrote in message
news:uA8%...
> There are a few who preach about using Windows 2008 server as a
> replacement for Vista as a desktop OS. Why would you do that? Maybe they
> just don't know what they are doing. With all the modifications needed it
> really seems stupid.


It also costs a hell of a lot more.

ss.

Frankly, using a server operating system as a desktop OS is a completely
stupid idea unless you have very specialized needs - and if you do you will
know all about it before you start. Anyone who espouses such for everyday
use is either a show-off or is likely someone who you don't want to rely on
for comprehensive or reliable computer advice.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"C : Enter" <> wrote in message
news:uA8%...
> There are a few who preach about using Windows 2008 server as a
> replacement for Vista as a desktop OS. Why would you do that? Maybe they
> just don't know what they are doing. With all the modifications needed it
> really seems stupid.
>
>
>

In article <#>,
"Richard G. Harper" <> wrote:

> Frankly, using a server operating system as a desktop OS is a completely
> stupid idea unless you have very specialized needs - and if you do you will
> know all about it before you start. Anyone who espouses such for everyday
> use is either a show-off or is likely someone who you don't want to rely on
> for comprehensive or reliable computer advice.

In this case it's both.

Mike

To be perfectly honest, there is one very big benefit, out of box, to using
Windows Server 2008 as a desktop OS, but it is very superficial:

You can turn on the themes service, and it looks just like Vista, but
Windows Server 2008 is much much much much much faster. So, essentially you
have a super awesome fast Vista.

Robert Firth
http://www.winvistainfo.org

"C : Enter" <> wrote in message
news:uA8%...
> There are a few who preach about using Windows 2008 server as a
> replacement for Vista as a desktop OS. Why would you do that? Maybe they
> just don't know what they are doing. With all the modifications needed it
> really seems stupid.
>
>
>

Being a server person, I like my desktop OS to be the same OS as I work on,
or will be. I currently use Vista on my desktop and the performance is
sub-par (I could use other words, but it wouldn't be appropriate). My plans
are to upgrade to W2k8 soon. I run Windows Server 2008 on my laptop and 1
other machine hosting websites. W2k8 is MUCH faster than Vista, in my
experience anyway.

If you are a developer, desktop support person, or general user, then Vista
is for you. The world I live in where everything I work on are Servers,
running the OS you will be supporting makes sense. Plus as one other poster
said, it is much faster! My 2 cents.

--

Steve Schofield
Windows Server MVP - IIS
http://weblogs.asp.net/steveschofield


"C : Enter" <> wrote in message
news:uA8%...
> There are a few who preach about using Windows 2008 server as a
> replacement for Vista as a desktop OS. Why would you do that? Maybe they
> just don't know what they are doing. With all the modifications needed it
> really seems stupid.
>
>
>