Just how bad or good will a single or dual Pentium III Tualatin 1.4GHz system with 4GB or 6GB of memory run the original Server 2008? (Not the R2 version which won't support the Pentium III)
Dedicated Windows 95 Aficionado for good reasons:
http://toastytech.com/evil/setup.html
Minimum requirements are 1.4ghz and 512MB of ram. With 4GB it should run ok as long as you aren't running any cpu intensive software.
Why would you want to run 2008 on that machine instead of 2003 or 2000?
World's foremost 486 enjoyer.
Windows server 2003 and xp pro sp3 run really well on my dual tualatin 1.4 ghz with 3.5 gb of ram. Is server 2008 still receiving Wimdows updates?
Plan your life wisely, you'll be dead before you know it.
Yes, server 2008 will continue to receive support from Microsoft until 14 January 2020. But that's beside the point.
Why would you want to run a Vista-based OS on such under-powered hardware? The OS ALREADY takes forever to boot and runs rather slowly. I can only imagine how slow 2003 would run. I've seen a 2003 server with my own eyes ... God-awful slow on the console side, fairly responsive on the network side (background tasks and share folders).
wrote:Why would you want to run 2008 on that machine instead of 2003 or 2000?
Support for longer file names. I have a ton of files backed up and it's annoying to have to rename the files at times. I've had problems with XP based OS but not in Windows 7. Server 2008 is based on Vista, so I'd imagine it would be free of the problem as well.
Dedicated Windows 95 Aficionado for good reasons:
http://toastytech.com/evil/setup.html
Why do you need those backed up files on a Server 2008 PC? Cant you get those files on another Vista or newer PC? I would think if you really needed it you would rename such files even though its a pain.
I know everyone is saying the same thing and all. But it would save you lots of pain in the future. P3s don't even have SSE2 or newer. Its going to run like a turtle, and in the end you will just get fed up with the slowness im sure.
If longer paths is all you need, why no switching to Linux? Ubuntu Server will run like a charm, esp if you do not run Xs there.
https://mspoweruser.com/ntfs-260-character-windows-10/
If it was me I'd use Linux on that hardware over server 2008.
If Windows 2008 Standard 32bit you'll be limited to 4gb. I remember seeing an unofficial patch for this somewhere.
Windows 2008 Enterprise 32bit supports greater than 4gb assuming the hardware supports it.
wrote:If longer paths is all you need, why no switching to Linux? Ubuntu Server will run like a charm, esp if you do not run Xs there.
For this purpose, FreeBSD based FreeNAS is what you want. Pre-packaged, appliance type install. Robust disk storage. Good performance. If you want more features, go for something like ClearOS which integrates things like email and firewall into the same box.
All hail the Great Capacitor Brand Finder
wrote:For this purpose, FreeBSD based FreeNAS is what you want. Pre-packaged, appliance type install. Robust disk storage. Good performance. If you want more features, go for something like ClearOS which integrates things like email and firewall into the same box.
could not agree more
Going from another angle why not just stick with Vista or 7 If its for simple file sharing?
It still supports 2 CPU's and you don't load up the unneeded server related services.
Windows 7 on a dual Tulatin 1.4? How well is that likely to work? (I don't even want to think about Vista).
World's foremost 486 enjoyer.
wrote:Windows 7 on a dual Tulatin 1.4? How well is that likely to work? (I don't even want to think about Vista).
Not great but better then 2008 I would think.
I wouldn't want to use the PC, but simply accessing shares off it from other computers may not be so bad.
wrote:If longer paths is all you need, why no switching to Linux? Ubuntu Server will run like a charm, esp if you do not run Xs there.
I want to be able to play around with and use my files, so Windows is a must have.
Dedicated Windows 95 Aficionado for good reasons:
http://toastytech.com/evil/setup.html
wrote:If longer paths is all you need, why no switching to Linux? Ubuntu Server will run like a charm, esp if you do not run Xs there.
What are Xs?
Dedicated Windows 95 Aficionado for good reasons:
http://toastytech.com/evil/setup.html
wrote:wrote:If longer paths is all you need, why no switching to Linux? Ubuntu Server will run like a charm, esp if you do not run Xs there.
For this purpose, FreeBSD based FreeNAS is what you want. Pre-packaged, appliance type install. Robust disk storage. Good performance. If you want more features, go for something like ClearOS which integrates things like email and firewall into the same box.
I'll probably stick Windows XP on there and call it good since all it needs to do is move and store files and have compatibility with them. Renaming a few long named files can't be too bad after all.
Dedicated Windows 95 Aficionado for good reasons:
http://toastytech.com/evil/setup.html
wrote:wrote:If longer paths is all you need, why no switching to Linux? Ubuntu Server will run like a charm, esp if you do not run Xs there.
I want to be able to play around with and use my files, so Windows is a must have.
So, you need to be able to use it as a workstation as well? If so, probably Windows XP/Vista will be sufficient for your needs.
All hail the Great Capacitor Brand Finder
wrote:wrote:If longer paths is all you need, why no switching to Linux? Ubuntu Server will run like a charm, esp if you do not run Xs there.
What are Xs?
A GUI. If just a file server then all you need is CLI.
Yeah, but having a server running only in Command-Line Mode is super-scary to most people. I've known plenty of IT pros who are intimidated by CLI-only. But it's wonderfully compact and efficient that way. The GUI takes nearly 4x the CPU power and over 10x the system resources (memory) to run the same functions with a graphic interface.
Where did I get that from? Well, I'm studying up to take the Server 2012 R2 certification exams and 2012 has a CLI mode and a GUI mode and you have to know the difference between both to pass the test.
