Monday, November 17, 2008

Windows Vista... for a SERVER?!

Yes, I've seen people do it. WHY?! Why do people even THINK about doing that?

It's like paying 2 grand more then you should for a low end server when you can get a higher end one for that price. A server OS should have very low foot print so it can run the applications and give them the most resources possible.

Vista wont do this. It will hog them all instead.

Windows for a server is bad enough in most cases, but at least use Windows Server if you must use Windows. Some server applications are simply better in Windows, and that's what Windows Server is for. Win2k3 is actually not too bad of an OS. But it all depends on the needs. Something like web or mail will be better in Linux. Mail in Windows is actually pretty bad, they really kill you with all their licensing restrictions. It's YOUR server, Microsoft should not have a say in how many mailboxes or users you have. Linux won't limit you like that.

My "rant" of the day.

2 comments:

beowulfe said...

Hey Red I know you helped Triple6 get xp to work on this machine:Acer Aspire
AM1640-B1580A Can you walk me through the process as well?

Red Squirrel said...

Basically we just went with a regular XP install. The biggest task was finding the sata drivers but he had already found them. You need to load them on a floppy and then press F8 during setup when it says "press F8 to install a third party raid driver"

And yes it has to be a floppy, usb stick wont work. :/