Windows server like workstation o.s. - any advantage?

[amorosik]

I read that some developers utilize Windows Server like o.s. for the main working station
Wich advantages could this choice bring versus the classic Win10/Win11 pro/ent?

 

[Babycat]

I think Windows Server can handle more client connections, or at least it is designed for this job.
More securities, less UI effects which saves system resources (RAM/CPU...)

 

[Albert D. Kallal]

I read that some developers utilize Windows Server like o.s. for the main working station
Which advantages could this choice bring versus the classic Win10/Win11 pro/ent?

At one time, I could recommend this idea - not anymore.....

However, I can think of a few cases, where I have run a server OS.

So, I had a server OS setup for SharePoint services.

This was of course during time when Access “web services” and “Access web publishing” of Access applications appeared in 2010. It really is not “practical” to try and setup your dev computer as a full blowen SharePoint setup. There is so much “stuff” to be setup and installed for a working SharePoint server. So, I had setup a full computer with just SharePoint and used that for some time - including some development.
However, back then, hardware was not so silly cheap like it is today.

Today? Well, I do have more then one “VM” setup as a full blowen server. I use this for some web publishing and testing, so on that web server I have IIS (internet services) setup.

I could I suppose install IIS on my windows desktop, but I already have IIS express (used during most we development).

However, for publishing the web site, then often a lot of additional testing and setup is required – and such testing and installing things like a security certificate and more? That’s going to make a real mess of my clean and nice development computer.


However, I’m somewhat drifting off topic, since this is about using a server edition for a dev computer, not necessary about developing server-based software.

So, there ARE a few advantages to using a server edition of windows.

First up, there is less junk, and less desktop “stuff” pre-installed.

Also, as so much development is now web based, SQL server based, and what not?

Then a HUGE advantage of running a server-based edition for development exists, since such software installs better or often ONLY on a server system anyway. (today, that's not much true anymore, since windows 11 Pro, or server edition do share the same "core" anyway).


However, with running a server OS everyday?
Well, then when you are “on site”, then you have great ease in finding your way around all the servers that all your stuff have to be installed to!!! The UI is not that much different, but some things are in difference places – and running a server edition means you are “at home” when working on client’s server systems. So, running what all your software going to run on does make some sense.


And those server OS tend to be “cleaner” than a desktop install.

So, with less “junk” trying to run (such as Teams starting up when I boot etc.)?

The server OS tends to be setup better for just doing work, and running “services”.

Now windows desktop can often be “tweaked” for these server settings, but out of the box, server windows settings are already optimized for a server setup. (so, less resources and “priority” is say given to the UI threads as compared to desktop).

If VM technology (and the bountiful amounts of ram and CPU we have now) was not available?

Then I think the case for using server-based editions of windows can be made.


However, today? I can’t say running a server-based OS is all that compelling. We have such good hardware, and now it’s rather easy to run that server edition in a VM for testing and learning how to work with, and get around on such servers.


Another server bonus?
I tend to find boot times for servers are REALLY nice.

This could be due to me not having installed everything and beyond boatloads of software (like we have on our dev computer).


I mean, watch how fast my copy of windows server VM boots up on my laptop.

It boots stupid fast (and I do not have fast boot etc. installed on above).


So, less “stuff” and junk tend to be installed on a server.


So, I think at one time, installing a server OS had some merits. However, now, I think if one needs to test, learn, or deploy software such as SharePoint? I think using a VM is the road to choose here.


And with lots of ram + CPU these days?

Again, no real benefits to running server OS editions for development. (we have SUCH good hardware for such low cost - you don't gain much with a server os as a result).


I of course need to use windows Pro edition, since I have to often “join” a domain. However, now days, I try to even avoid that (like really avoid!!!!).

However, windows Pro also includes for free “Hyper-V”, and that’s a must-have feature and technology for all developers these days. Hyper-V is the VM (virtual machine) technology included in windows pro, and the above launching of the server edition of windows was thus using Hyper-V on my laptop.

R
Albert

 

[tvanstiphout]

I can only think of disadvantages, such as

• The software you'll install on this machine has not or barely been tested on this OS.
• This includes device drivers like your printer and camera.
• When you build your app (this is more for .NET development than Access) it may pick up unusual references.
• When you test your software, it will be in an environment unlike your clients'.

In short, I think as a developer you want to be mainstream, unless you are targeting a very specific client base.

 

[RonPaii]

An issue I found with W11 pro HyperV is it doesn't accept your workstations license on the VM, requiring you to purchase another one.

 

[Albert D. Kallal]

An issue I found with W11 pro HyperV is it doesn't accept your workstations license on the VM, requiring you to purchase another one.

Don't think windows ever included an extra windows license. Only exception was back in windows 7 days when they included windows xp mode (a vm to run older software). The other case was windows server editions- they allowed 2 free vm's for the one standard license (and they still do now to my knowledge). Now that the low cost windows "essentials" edition is no more? Then a standard windows server license is about $1000 vs that older edition for about $475. ( which was a steal for 3 server licenses).

So VM's are fantastic to run server editions of windows, but without access to MSDN iso images, then of course a VM edition of windows, or server editions requires a full license.
There's some reasonable cost ways to get MSDN access for all such iso images, but you have to pay.