Server 2k8 in Workstation OS

[PiqueABoo]

this system should be much better at handling stuff like remote applications.

 

You reckon? Looks like it depends on the application and what you're doing with it. Scouting around the tech I found this MS docx: Remote Desktop Protocol Performance

 

The bit I wasn't aware of is RDP 6.x's significant "bulk compression" improvements. Possibly not that important on a nice fast LAN with a serious server etc., but a good reason for 2K8 rather than 2K3 in slower scenarios.

 

In other places: Remote Apps only look marginally faster across the network than Remote Desktops; And if you want remote glass et al then composition remoting uses more bandwidth unless it's IE when it's significantly less for some unfathomable reason.

 

it finally provides a window system that can cope with a crashed window

 

Pragmatically that's definitely not my number one concern running XP, nor is the age of the code (old usually means fixed, not full of new bugs).

Edited January 3, 2009 by PiqueABoo

[Guest richard_s]

I have to admit that that I had thought of using 2k8 instead of Vista on my laptop as I'm fed up of the slow file transfer speeds in Vista.

[SYNACK]

Pragmatically that's definitely not my number one concern running XP, nor is the age of the code (old usually means fixed, not full of new bugs).

 

Its not the fact that the code is old that makes it a problem but that the old ideas that it is based on. Stone tablets are hugely reliable and very well proven but for some tasks they are simply not capible of providing the functionality that is demanded in 2009.

 

You are right about the increased compression it is almost as good as the Citrix variety for bandwidth usage in the right situations.

[PiqueABoo]

they are simply not capible of providing the functionality that is demanded in 2009

 

But what is that required functionality and who is demanding it?

 

That's a sincere question because I genuinely don't know. From where I'm sitting all this window-updating-buffer-not screen thing does right now is give the OS an opportunity to make some eye-candy. But the raison d'etre for any OS is to run applications - the bits where you get some real work done - how are they going to benefit? Will anyone get that real work done any quicker?

[SYNACK]

But what is that required functionality and who is demanding it?

 

That's a sincere question because I genuinely don't know. From where I'm sitting all this window-updating-buffer-not screen thing does right now is give the OS an opportunity to make some eye-candy. But the raison d'etre for any OS is to run applications - the bits where you get some real work done - how are they going to benefit? Will anyone get that real work done any quicker?

 

Massivly higher resolution displays can and do make font scaleing a problem, being vector based vista can compensate easily. Sure you could do it with font sizes but those never applied system wide in XP. More usage of video and other embedded high frame rate content are handled much better when multi tasking is being used properly. Programmers do not have to waste stupid amounts of time to hack a solution if they want an odd shaped window and they can actually overlap playing videos without a full screen redraw. Each process can actually have more than the single GUI thread allocated to it so that creative coding does not have to be employed to beat GDI+ into partial submission.

 

If you really want real work to be done you should probably be in the console of a linux box anyway. Using a computer now is not just about real work, as they are being used more and more for entertainment the flashy eye candyish ability to easily and seamlessly handle media content do become important.

 

I use Aero on my media center box and would miss the fluidity that it provides if it was not there. Its attached to a TV, it should have the ability to look a little flashy otherwise it is just another relic from the age when computers were solely buisness tools for shuffeling large amounts of money about at speed.

 

http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=486506

http://blog.libertech.net/blogs/lketchum/archive/2007/05/25/windows-vista-home-basic-why-gdi-persists.aspx

Edited January 4, 2009 by SYNACK