Server boards

[swsw1550]

I have a pretty simple question, Why do a lot of people on this forum use server boards and Xeons ect but still run XP Pro and Home,Why not run Server 2003 or 2008 and take full advantage of running server hardware, or is server software a bit confusing for some, because the stability issue is hear say with the type of work most people do on this forum,a good quality board from Asus or Gigabyte with a Dual core or Quad Core will do the job fine (if not quicker), The latest news from a friend of mine at Intel is that Xeons will be finishing up soon. so expect some new CPU'S in the near future.

[SoundFreak]

I use to think the same that a fast quad can do the same or better.
After having a system (super fast quad) on loan for a while, I came to the conclusion that it is fast, but when loaded with enough jobs it would collapse pretty fast compared to a Xeon system.

A quad edits nicley, renders fast, but if this is done while doing additional jobs in the back ground, it just won't hack it.
While rendering I do a lot of graphic & audio editing and vice versa, the quad proved way less capable in heavy multitasking.

As for the software, I have no answer for you, maybe others can explain.
The only reason I can think of is that the Server (systems) are only used as workstations, clearly different usage.

To have even something more powerful than a dual Xeon system would be nice, even a Xeon has it limits, what chip would that be ?

[GrassValley_BH]

I think most folks who end up with Server boards (versus Workstation or Desktop boards) do so because they have some kind of function they believe they need, or they believe server boards are built better.

IMHO, Workstation and Server class boards are built better than standard Desktop boards, but the overall stability comes from the sum of the parts, not just the board. Put cheap or mixed RAM in a Server board and it'll be just as unreliable as a desktop, same with putting in a cheap power supply. Server and Workstation boards limit your choices more, so you're less likely to choose substandard parts.

As far as OS choices, Server OS does take advantage of more CPUs, but few people have quad packages (four actual CPU modules, regardless of number of cores). I'm not sure if the performance tuning of Windows Server is different from workstation (XP) but it used to be back in the NT days.

The best choice also depends on the nature of your workflow. Someone running background transcoding while editing in the foreground would definitely reap more benefits from a Server-class system over a Desktop and still be ahead of a Workstation-class system, although to a lesser degree.

Probably the part that makes people choose Windows XP over Windows Server is simply price. It seems a silly argument when you've spent so much on the rest of the hardware to skimp on the OS, but people often do.

Let's say you have a $50,000 car, would you put discount $25 tires on it?

[swsw1550]

I couldn't agree more! Also the performance tuning of Windows Server does take advantage of a server hardware setup
where XP pro and Home does not.

Cheers
Steve

[GrassValley_KH]

Of course, there in lies the rub as EDIUS software is designed and tested for desktop operating systems.

Thankfully though, we are seeing a shift to simpler, yet powerful desktop hardware configurations which suit both our boards and software (and people's wallets!)

[GrassValley_BH]

Kenneally has a good point though... Sometimes things that heavily use multimedia functions don't work properly in Server OS.

[STORMDAVE]

I just wish Microsoft would release 2 versions of their operating system, Vista and a server version. They both should be 64bit and have the same architecture except server should have more enterprise features...a simpler business model.