Replacing Windows Vista with Windows 2008 Server

[Spanky deMonkey]

Replacing Windows Vista with Windows 2008 Server is a stupid thing to do on
the desktop. Windows server is licensed per users and even if you use one
copy, it's more expensive than Vista. Some applications will not run on the
server, like antivirus and other backup utilities.

Just stick with Vista or if you don't like it, revert back to XP. People
who say that you should install Windows Server are just plain stupid.

Just FYI.

 

[Synapse Syndrome]

Windows server is licensed per users and even if you use one copy, it's
more expensive than Vista.

You are getting confused with using it as a terminal server, but the server
versions are around ten times as expensive, depending on what versions you
are comparing.

ss.

 

[Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]]

If you are getting it for free, I see no problem in using it as a
workstation operating system. The installation itself is in workgroup mode.
Its the users business really if they want it or not. But it doesn't make
sense especially with SP1 for Vista syncing the version of the kernel with
Server 2008, so you getting the latest and greatest on Vista.

 

[Guest]

Avast 4.7 Server Edition Anti-Virus Works Just Fine With Windows Server 2008
Release Candidate 0, Just FYI.

 

[Spanky deMonkey]

Avast 4.7 Server Edition Anti-Virus Works Just Fine With Windows Server
2008 Release Candidate 0, Just FYI.

Just FYI - You just don't get it. Using Windows Server is NOT for the
average person who comes here. It is beyond most peoples ability to
configure something like that and you keep on spreading the word. You are
dense. Of course the server edition of Avast works. The server edition of
Norton also works, but MOST people DO NOT have the server edition of
software.

DAMN. You are stupid. Just FYI.

DO you have the server edition of antivirus Just FYI? Did you pay for it
when the home version is FREE? Of course not.

Go back to your right wing nutjob views.