Windows “Workstation” 2008 results lead to backlash from Vista zealots

I love irony. After a year of rabidly defending their platform, the Vista zealots are now eating their young. Specifically, they’re attacking those of us who’ve discovered that the core Vista bits run great, just not when packaged as Windows Vista.

In case you’ve been living under a rock these past few weeks:

It has been discovered that Windows Server 2008 in “desktop” mode (a.k.a. Windows “Workstation” 2008) runs circles around Vista, thus proving that – if they set their minds to it – Microsoft can produce a solid, enterprise-class OS using the Vista code base.

The problem is that Microsoft didn’t put this same effort into Vista, resulting in an OS that – whether due to different kernel switches/tweaks or the inclusion of certain DRM layers – is a bloated pig on even modern hardware. To those of us seeking a better “Vista” experience, Windows “Workstation” 2008 is salvation.

Of course, none of this sits well with those in the Vista zealot camp. Some claim that the test results are inaccurate, that Vista and Server 2008 share the same code base and thus cannot perform differently. Others are claiming that the tests were invalid because Server 2008 ships with a much “leaner” default configuration. They say that if you enable all of the “desktop” features on Server 2008 – or vice-versa with Vista – you’ll see that they in fact perform comparably.

However, if these people had bothered to read the disclosure part of the test scenario in question, they’d discover that the exo.performance.network researchers did turn on all of the “desktop” features in Server 2008 (Indexing, SuperFetch, Aero, et al). In fact, they afforded Vista every opportunity to perform, and yet it still fell well behind “Workstation” 2008 in a variety of test scenarios.

Note to the Zealots: The numbers are what they are. If you don’t believe them, run the tests for yourself (all of the tools used by the xpnet.com research staff are freely available through their web site). Personally, I’ve yet to encounter a “Workstation” 2008 convert that isn’t ecstatic with the results. It’s faster. Period.

In the end, I can’t help but pity these misguided Vista zealots. As true believers, they’ve steadfastly defended Vista as being as fast as Microsoft could make it given the level of complexity involved. To now have their benefactor “cut them off at the knees” – by providing evidence (Server 2008) that Vista is, in fact, slower than it needs to be – must be a bitter pill indeed!