Windows 10 Pro For Workstations Will Debut Alongside Fall Creators Update

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't understand... Why couldn't they just make Windows 10 Pro support this type oh hardware? Why segment the platform further? Win 10/10Pro/ENT/Ent-LTSB/Pro-WKST are we also going to see an Enterprise-Workstation? What about Enterprise Workstation LTSB?

On the other hand, outside of choosing the correct processor architecture, you can get one Linux distro, and it just works, regardless of the CPU or RAM quantity.
 
Couldn't they come up with something better than Windows 10 Pro for Workstations? Windows 10 Elite, Windows 10 Premiere, Windows 10 Enthusiast, Windows 10 Extreme, Windows 10 Filch, Windows 10 Platinum, Windows 10 J.A.R.V.I.S.

Why not just make this standard for Windows 10 Pro? Give people more reasons to buy Pro than Home. I'd think the increase in sales of people opting for Windows Pro over Home would be greater than those opting for Pro Workstation over Pro.

As it stands the cost of Pro over Home isn't worth it to me as the only features I want is GPedit and Bitlocker. The addition of SMB Direct and ReFS would be tempting. But not to pay anymore than an OEM Pro license currently costs.

Although if I was using a workstation which required running Windows server due to hardware. I would be quite happy. A lot of software vendors make you pay through the nose if you run Windows Server. Just to run the same exact program user computer. They don't care if it is a single user PC. If they see Windows Server they see $$$.
 
Interesting, Debian seems to handle as many CPUs as I throw at it. It also handles virtual windows server 2012 r2 + gpu passthrough so I can play the occasional game.

People try to do real work on Windows 10? Its rubbish, and so is Server 2016.


Its 2017, there is nothing Windows does that a Mac or Linux system cannot do. Hell, where I work, we jump onto a Windows VM for anything that actually needs Windows and that is plenty fine. No update hell, no reboot hell. I update when convenient, I reboot when convenient.

Windows Server 2016 reboots on its own still, what were they thinking?
 
Meh, they would still have fix 3 important issues before I even start to consider the possibility of considering W10

Remove that "feature" where W10 reserves a scaling percentage of your VRAM, even when the card is completely headless.

Moreover GPU rendering on W10 with Redshift is 5-8% slower on W10, even with the maximum performance presets.

Lastly, that damned telemetry. I have signed NDAs when drafting patent designs/schematics for clients and they do not want to risk Microsoft "accidentally" peaking. I do not know if the telemetry is actually capable of sniffing out the contents of any of my scenefiles/rendered-outputs but if it makes the client happy then I am keen.

As long as these three issues remain (and the defer updates only sometimes works for the people I know) then a CentOS/Mint future is looking mighty fine after W7's life lines are cut.
 
"There's nothing Windows do that linux can't do...."
"...We now run Windows VM's instead"
😀
Sounds like someone needs to learn the difference between virtualisation and running software on a different operating system.
 
I like it... And to the fellow who thinks Debian can do anything Windows can - sure it can - it just makes it far harder. On Debian the hassle factor is so high for often simple things.
 
"That's why you'll now be able to use up to four CPUs and up to 6TB of memory, which is double and triple, respectively, what's supported in Windows 10 Pro right now."

I'm confused. This implies that until now, Windows has only supported 2 CPUs. But consumer-grade Intel Core processors have been quad-core for a long time now. And I've never heard of anyone having problems with 6/8/10/12-core Broadwell-E processors in Windows. Nor have I heard any problems with using Ryzen with Windows.

And I've got a quad-core AMD with multithreading, and Windows has no problem acting as if it has 8 logical CPUs.

So what's the story?
 
In 1992 a 386sx with a 256k video card and 2mb of ram was a server. So how do we define a "server" I really don't care.

All I know is the quad thread ripper rig with half a terabyte of ram and 500 TB of hard drive space with 8 SLI graphics cards should be supported by Windows 10 pro so I can play Crysis at 900FPS on my 12 8k monitors. :-D
 
@MIKEWINDDALE

"I'm confused. This implies that until now, Windows has only supported 2 CPUs. But consumer-grade Intel Core processors have been quad-core for a long time now. And I've never heard of anyone having problems with 6/8/10/12-core Broadwell-E processors in Windows. Nor have I heard any problems with using Ryzen with Windows."

That means sockets on the motherboard, not cores in the CPU. Some motherboards allow you to install 2 CPUs, each with multiple cores. Even rarer is the motherboards that support 4 CPUs. That is 4 CPU Sockets on 1 motherboard.
 


Just because it is running server grade hardware doesn't mean they will use it as a server. Some people need a workstation OS and not a server OS. I have clients who have "Servers" and yea they are Dell Servers but only run windows server because they have too when they really need a workstation OS. Server 2016 for example doesn't allow you to install Windows store apps. What defines a server and a workstation is not how much hardware it has but the OS. You can take 200 dollars of hardware, toss on server, install apache, iis, ftp, etc and BAM its a server running workstation hardware.

 


it doesn't matter how many cores it has as long as its one Physical CPU chip it counts as one CPU. multiple CPU's would be having a motherboard with 2 or more CPU sockets



 
WILLIE NUGS and CAPTAINCHARISMA, thanks. But I'm still surprised. I would have thought that from the OS's perspective, all that mattered is the number of physical and logical CPUs. Why does it make a difference to the OS how many sockets there are? I would have thought that the number of sockets was an issue for the motherboard manufacturer. But that from the OS's perspective, a physical CPU is a physical CPU is a physical CPU, regardless of the socket.

So now I'm curious, why does it make a difference to the OS how many sockets there are? Like, from an OS's perspective, what's the difference between (say) 4 sockets with 1 CPU per socket, versus 1 socket with a quad-core processor?
 
WILLIE NUGS and CAPTAINCHARISMA, thanks. But I'm still surprised. I would have thought that from the OS's perspective, all that mattered is the number of physical and logical CPUs. Why does it make a difference to the OS how many sockets there are? I would have thought that the number of sockets was an issue for the motherboard manufacturer. But that from the OS's perspective, a physical CPU is a physical CPU is a physical CPU, regardless of the socket.

So now I'm curious, why does it make a difference to the OS how many sockets there are? Like, from an OS's perspective, what's the difference between (say) 4 sockets with 1 CPU per socket, versus 1 socket with a quad-core processor?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom