|03 Dec 2009||#1|
| || |
W7 performance great - W2K3 server - HUMUNGOUS
This isn't really a fair topic since we are comparing a SERVER OS with a desktop OS - but much as I am a great fan of Windows 7 it still doesn't come anywhere NEAR to speed in operation to Windows 2003 server (in either the x-86 or x-64 version - yes there is a W2K3 x-64 version),
The server OS will happily easily run in a 10GB partition (with Photoshop CS4, Office 2007 and a few other applications) and boots up and shuts down like greased lightning.
Networking is a Breeze (should be as it's a SERVER) whereas Windows 7 still has problems seeing XP machines at times (or is it XP has problems seeing Windows 7 machines) - Networking on Windows 7 still seems to be a hit or miss affair.
I/O throughput on the server - even for "bog standard IDE and SATA disks" is far faster.
Windows 7 seems to "Quiesce" disks that haven't been accessed for a while -- you can hear them start up when you access a file say on my drive "L" for example. You need to have at least 3 disks to notice this BTW.
On the server there's no delay. Now for a domestic OS the "Quiesce" might be fine - but I can't find any way of switching this off -- this would at a stroke improve Windows 7 performance.
You should of course expect I/O to be optimized for a server but it's a pity MS didn't use the same algorithm on Windows 7.
Memory use on a 4GB machine -- available memory is around 3.30 GB compared with 2.60 GB for Windows 7 X-64 running on the exact same machine.
CPU usage -- not significant on either OS running a QUAD processor so lack of CPU power not an issue.
In any case CPU power isn't what a server needs it's the I/O throughput that makes the difference.
IE8 --No crashes on W2K3 server -- had many on Windows 7 however that seems to have stabilized a bit with the latest batch of Windows updates.
Don't get me wrong -- I LOVE Windows 7 but W2K3 server in cases where you can usefully employ it still runs rings around Windows 7 (you need to make the server however behave more like a workstation- a bit fiddly but worth it for a Home server).
Again I'm not being quite fair as W2K3 has had 2 service packs and can be optimized whereas I think most of us are basically running Windows 7 essentialy straight out of the box. It will be interesting to see what SP1 for Windows 7 brings.
I've looked at W2008 server which should be more like Windows 7 but chucked it at the moment due to a lot of driver issues - back porting Windows 7 drivers doesn't always work.
Windows 7 performance is definitely superior to "Bog standard XP" but I'd love it to compete with W2K3 server.
(Technet suscribers can get W2K3 server via download -- use the R2 version if you want to play around).
|My System Specs|
|Similar help and support threads for2: W7 performance great - W2K3 server - HUMUNGOUS|
|Installing Win7 printer drivers on W2k3 Server||Network & Sharing|
|Access problems after joining Windows 7 machines on W2K3 Server domain||General Discussion|
|Virtual Server - W2K8 / W2K3 Client licensing issues||Virtualization|
|Any great games that doesn't require great hardware?||Gaming|
|Just Gone Bonkers -- installed W2K3 Server ON A NETBOOK||Chillout Room|
|Installing Office 2010 - X86 in XP or W2K3 Server||Microsoft Office|
|Memory usage between W2K3 server and W7||General Discussion|