"There are a myriad of both subtle and fundamental differences in the basic architecture of Windows Server 2008, which could dramatically change not only the way it's used in the enterprise, but also the logical and physical structure of networks where it's the dominant OS. The abilities to consolidate servers, to manage hardware more effectively, to remotely manage hardware without the graphical traffic, and to radically alter the system security model, could present a more compelling argument for customers to plan their WS2K8 migrations now, than the arguments for moving from Windows 2000 to Server 2003."
Post a Comment
RE: ...or moving to Linux
RE[2]: ...or moving to Linux
RE[3]: ...or moving to Linux
Member since:2005-07-06
Quite possibly because you were/are off topic? I was modded down, rather quickly I might add (;)), for being both an ass AND off topic. You were modded down for being off topic and possibly for showing your "contempt and disdain" for me being an ass to the other guy and not writing my comment like I was writing for a college English class.
The other dude was probably modded down for being a troll. He might not have been trolling, but when you mix a badly written comment, such as his, with what he was asking about Unix on a news article about a Windows server, well, it is going to get modded down.
Now, this comment will be modded -5 promptly, I'm sure, as it should be. I suggest we both just drop it and stay on topic. 
P.S.
Was this comment articulated well enough for you? *rolls eyes*
P.P.S.
Oh, I couldn't write a well done comment in Spanish. I remember very little of my Spanish from Highschool. . . Even though that was just 2 years ago. . . *sigh*
Edited 2007-05-29 21:45
Member since:2005-12-15
It does beg the question as to what will eventually be delivered, doesn't it? Vista is an excellent example of over promising and under delivering, at least in terms of bullet list features.
That said, I don't think we should be casting Microsoft with such a negative stroke of the brush.. just yet. These announcements are very much public and expectations are beginning to be set. These additions, whilst existing in other operating systems, do push Windows in the right direction. This is something we all need.
Speculation at this point that they wont deliver is about as reliable as speculating that they will deliver. They'll have learnt some big lessons from the Vista experience I'd imagine.
Probably best to wait and see and reserve judgement for a while.
Edited 2007-05-28 22:33
Member since:2005-07-06
Depends on how you define as 'lack of delivery'. The problem is that Microsoft went too far into detail about what they wanted to deliver, and they said it too early. They talked about the specifics of the project which then built up hype. The hype was like a snow ball, it bought on a life of its own.
For example, the searching capabilities should have been kept to something simple as "Windows Vista will improve the speed and accuracy of searching" - and then, as parts were actually finalised and merged into Windows Vista, announce that a certain feature will be made available. In otherwords, making sure that what you say has actually been done before announcing it.
As for the rest of the post; lets remember, for all the trashing and bashing of Microsoft, they actually do a pretty damn good job. What other operating system out there has the same depth and bredth of software support as Windows? what other operating system has the same level of not only out of the box hardware support, but the number of ISV's who create drivers.
Until there is an operating system that reaches the same level of Windows Vista, both in software availablility and hardware support, I find it very rich when I hear people on this forum bash Microsoft senselessly whilst ignoring the flaws in their operating system of choice.
Member since:2006-03-23
Member since:2006-02-05
MS bends over backwards to give the best tools, APIs, and environment for commercial application development.
Linux may support more legacy hardware, but I call BS on third party drivers. Supporting closed source driver development on linux is pure hell, it requires a re-release for every minor release of the kernel (even bug fixes can break the ABI).
Member since:2005-07-06
I think one thing that will deflate the jihad from the "linux fanboys" (I call them fanboys to differentiate them from those who use Linux, but don't feel the need to write home about it) is this; end users don't give a toss where the hardware support comes from, as long as their hardware is supported.
I find it a double standard when people complain about application compatibility on Windows Vista or hardware compatibility, its all Microsofts fault. When the same issues are bought up about the lack of third party software or hardware support on Linux, there is this band of people who gather around being apologetic for these short comings.
Member since:2005-11-21
For example, the searching capabilities should have been kept to something simple as "Windows Vista will improve the speed and accuracy of searching" - and then, as parts were actually finalised and merged into Windows Vista, announce that a certain feature will be made available. In otherwords, making sure that what you say has actually been done before announcing it.
But why is that a "problem"? That's the part no one can really explain. The only "problem" it caused was the massive amount of bad press they recieved. Truthfully, 99% of that bad press is from sources aimed at geeks and techies (i.e. the slashdot-arstechnica-osnews-toms hardware crowd) not at the real developers, hardware makers, or corporate customers. That's who Microsoft published that information for... that's who WinHec and the PDC are for.
By revealing their plans early they were able to get tons of feedback and make numerous design changes that developers requested. Anyone REALLY following the situation knows that. WinFS when it was first introduced was a Windows Client-only product that used completely different API's than all of Microsoft's other server products. Moving WinFS into their server/office products (think Exchange, Sharepoint, SQL Server) and unifying the API's and technology with SQL Server completely changed the scope of the project but nonetheless WinFS would suck without those changes.
To say it would have been better if MS had just pulled "an Apple" and just released it without giving time to make changes and recieve feedback is stupid.
Member since:2005-07-06
True, but at the same time, I would love to know where the move went freom 'these are ideas' to "this is going to definately appear in Windows Vista" - because if that was the case, why wasn't Microsoft coming out ahd saying, "hey, what was said at the symposium were mearly ideas, they're not concrete!"
With that being said, I could never really understand why people thought it was a dud; Microsoft never said it was going to spur computer growth; infact the only people who said all the crap surrounding so-called 'Vista explosion' were those half-witt day trading analysts who have less honesty than a second hand car dealers and know as much about the future as the local tarror card reader and 0900 phone up psychic.
True, but who announced that it was part of Windows? why did they announce it when they ended up having to change things? why not simply say, "we're working on this, but there is no assurance it'll get into Windows Vista" - no one is let down.
Who said that? making sure something actually works is not an 'apple thing'. Make sure you've actually got the bloody code in the tree and internally tested before you open your big mouth to promote it. Its pretty damn logical. You don't promote a concert till you know that the singer will actually turn up. Same goes for software, don't promote it till it is actually in there in a state where you can confidently say that when when the product ships, that feature will be in there too.
Member since:2005-11-21
You're belief just illustrates my point. The perception put out by the media is that Microsoft was claiming that the stuff at the PDC was pretty much how it was going to ship in the final product but NO ONE who actually saw, listened to, or read the transcripts/slides from the PDC could get the impression. ALL PDC STUFF IS SUBJECT TO MASSIVE CHANGE! In fact, they just canceled the PDC in October of this year because the products they were going to talk about (SQL Server 2008, Silverlight, WS2k8 etc.) will all be feature complete by then.
Numerous times during pretty much every presentation you would hear the presenter say "but all this is subject to change" REPEATEDLY. I have all the materials from the PDC 2003 PDC 2005. After a while it gets annoying to hear them say it so much.
Even in the videos on channel9 they repeat it over and over. They even made a point to repeatedly mention how the purpose of talking about it so early was to get feedback early enough that they could make major changes. Like I said, it is impossible to go over PDC materials and not be bombarded with Microsoft repeating that information.
Microsoft was being very open about their development process and informing developers/partners about their plans every step of the way. So when it was in their plans to actually be part of Windows they talked about it as so, when it wasn't part of Windows anymore they told us that too.
[/q]why not simply say, "we're working on this, but there is no assurance it'll get into Windows Vista" - no one is let down.
They did say that. It was repeated hundreds if not thousands of times, it's at the end (and often the beginning) of every PDC/WinHec powerpoint presentation, and IT'S A COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD CONCEPT FOR ALL PEOPLE ATTENDING THE PDC OR RECIEVEING PDC/MSDN MATERIALS.
The problem is that most people (non-developers/partners) aren't getting their information from Microsoft. They're getting it from Thurrott, Mary Jo Foley, C/ZDNET, Arstechnica, The Register, OS News, and Slashdot... who are leaving that part out.
[q]Who said that? making sure something actually works is not an 'apple thing'. Make sure you've actually got the bloody code in the tree and internally tested before you open your big mouth to promote it. Its pretty damn logical. You don't promote a concert till you know that the singer will actually turn up. Same goes for software, don't promote it till it is actually in there in a state where you can confidently say that when when the product ships, that feature will be in there too.
The issue with Apple's approach is that once they tell the public/developers about something then it's set in stone. If their new developer feature sucks donkey balls when they announce it at WWDC then there is zero chance that anything but small bug fixes will change before release.
That's why Core Image/Video has been so under utilized. Many of Apple's developers say it's a mess. That's why there were so many stupid design decisions made with Spotlight that people will have to deal with until Apple decides to break application compatibility and redesign it. That's why Pixlet and the Apple Intermediate codecs were DOA. Same goes for Time Machine (you'll see what I mean when Sircusa writes his in-depth Leopard review), Dashboard, Automator, and Bootcamp. Not to mention all the new visual looks they keep dropping on everyone... that no one likes.
I don't want MS only announcing things when they are feature complete. I hate when Apple does it too.
Member since:2006-02-05
That's why Core Image/Video has been so under utilized. Many of Apple's developers say it's a mess. That's why there were so many stupid design decisions made with Spotlight that people will have to deal with until Apple decides to break application compatibility and redesign it. That's why Pixlet and the Apple Intermediate codecs were DOA. Same goes for Time Machine (you'll see what I mean when Sircusa writes his in-depth Leopard review), Dashboard, Automator, and Bootcamp. Not to mention all the new visual looks they keep dropping on everyone... that no one likes.
I don't want MS only announcing things when they are feature complete. I hate when Apple does it too.
Ironically, this new attitude of openness (talking about what is being done, encouraging developer blogs, etc) was adopted by ms because of what they perceive as a strength of the open source community. 90% of the software desktop linux users use is pre 1.0, and would be considered a public beta in the commercial world. But having access to the information gives people the opertunity to feel like they are part of the developement process, which is a big part of the community building that naturally occurs in the opensource world.
For some reason WinFS not being delivered on time is a crime against humanity, while storage (http://www.gnome.org/~seth/storage/) was announced years before, and is about as close to being done.
Member since:2005-07-06
I disagree. Having had the millions of Windows Vista sold so far, they've had millions of beta testers testing the core components for them. Windows Server hopefully will continue on with the same good progress they made with Windows 2003 when it was released.
Hopefully when Windows Vista SP1 is released, you'll see what Windows Vista was meant to be rather than the current pile of steaming beta code that it is right now. I'm running it right now, and it was a couple of nights ago that an application froze, thats cool, I tried to open up the task manager to kill it. It failed to load. Tried it again, failed to load. Tried to load other applications - again, failed to load, tried to shut down; you guessed it, failed to work. I had to do a hard shutdown (not too sure damage I did in the process) just to get things working again.
Nothing wrong with Windows Vista if you took out the bugs, the problem is that they rushed it to get it out on an unrealistic schedule, and it really shows.
Member since:2006-02-27
Member since:2005-07-06
Oh yes, a few disgruntled agro-marxists trying to 'stick it to the man'. For the vast majority of end users, they don't know any better. They'll continue using Windows Vista (or what ever is installed by default), Microsoft will receive millions of feedback through their automatic feedback mechanism.
Service Pack will be released, reviewers will praise it like mana from heaven, Paul Thorott will claim that it 'brings back the shine to Microsofts reputation' - apart from a few piraters running their hack-a-ware versions, the world keeps spinning, end users will be installing it.
Ah yes, that massive tax ($50, WOW! mind my sarcasm for a moment) I keep hearing about since the so-called 'year of the Linux desktop' was announced since 2000 and each year apparently is that year. Please, the options have been there in the past; VA Linux for instance, Penguin Computing, the average white box vendor down the road will shove what ever the customer wants on it to make a sale. Considering that 1/2 of the computers sold are from non-big name vendors, it isn't as though there is some sort of grand unified conspiracy against Linux.
I'm sorry to say this, but Ubuntu will fail for Dell, for the same reason it failed back in the days of VA Linux and Penguin computing offering 'mainstream desktops' - end users don't run Linux because there isn't the applications from big name vendors on it. You, me and the uber geek might be happy with the good enough replacement, but for the average user, they like using something that they're used to. They've learned how to use applications, and they don't want to have to learn something all over again.
Quite frankly, why should you, me or anyone give a toss if the average end user doesn't use Linux (or some other *NIX)? quite frankly, I'm happy sitting back and allowing the quagmire that is Windows to unfold on the end users lap. Maybe one day end users will realise that a computer isn't a toster, and shock horror, it might actually require a little reading, a little learning and understanding of the basic fundamentals. Maybe if they knew the fundamentals, when a problem occurs when doing something, they'll know how to diagnose the problem, trace it back to the source and see if they can work around it.
Member since:2005-07-08
Quite frankly, why should you, me or anyone give a toss if the average end user doesn't use Linux (or some other *NIX)? quite frankly, I'm happy sitting back and allowing the quagmire that is Windows to unfold on the end users lap.
Well, it depends on whether you think that Windows and its ecosystem is simply technically and/or economically wrong or if it's (also) socially wrong. If you believe something is harming society, then you have a moral imperative to care about it and to speak out. Of course, people have to right to disagree and think you're a weirdo. Bear with me while I delve into some political and social philosophy...
It doesn't matter whether you believe that the terrorists hate freedom, that the sea level will rise 20 feet, that the Rapture is near, or that kids these days have no respect for authority. It's human nature to have these sorts of fears, to band together with fellow believers, and to spread the gospel of your cause. This is the very basis of political and religious power. People need to believe in something, and they want to share these beliefs with other people. Freedom and individualism are productive ideas to a large extent, but unifying beliefs hold society together.
If you believe that proprietary software is morally wrong, then this is a religious belief. If you believe that proprietary software is inferior, inflexible, and costly, then you are invoking reason. An essential part of advocacy and leadership is understanding the difference between appealing to reason and faith. Leaders that appeal only to reason will be shocked and amazed at the uphill battle they face, and those that appeal only to religion will be attacked and discredited by non-believers.
Ultimately, society is motivated by fear, but the fear must have its roots in reasonable ideas. In the case of free software, make them believe that they are locked into a single vendor, that they won't be able to develop custom solutions, that monoculture breeds malware, that secret code cannot be trusted, and that closed source hinders interoperability. Plausible ideas, based on the truth, distorted for political value, and expressed as worst-case scenarios. They won't take the risk and make the change if they don't feel threatened.
The idea that people respond to well-reasoned argument is naive. If you're a "liberal" intellectual, then you most likely haven't come to this conclusion (yet), but it might give you some insight into the "odd" tendency for people to reject the ideas that make so much sense to you. It might even give you some insight into the mind of RMS. This is the underlying justification for promoting free software as a moral imperative and religious ideology.
Everybody lies. If you believe everything, you're naive, and people will take advantage of you. If you question everything, you're naive, and nobody will listen to you. For the intellectual, it's important to promote beliefs that unite people for peace and the common good, even if you know they aren't strictly true.
Member since:2005-07-06
But at the same time, the debate isn't about the religious aspects of free software. I mean, I don't feel like going into depths over the new age, almost guru like structure that exists within FSF - its almost like version of what the west calls 'Hinduism'.
Where do I fit on the spectrum? call me Kissinger then. I'm a ruthless pragmatist who has no loyalty to an operating system. The day you start having some sort of romantic loyalty to an operating system, the ability to make a rational and reasoned judgement pretty much goes up in smoke.
Hence the reason I push out there, yes, Linux is a great operating system, but at the same time, there is a *reason* for people using Windows; its like blaming Islamic fundamentalism on 'evil' whilst ignoring the real reason(s) - the giant elephant in the corner of the room.
Windows is there because Linux lacks third party hardware support and a vibrant third party software ecosystem. We hear these very people go on about how much they want to get the desktop and yet they do absolutely nothing to improve the end applications. They sit around like post grad students for some wishy-washy subject, talking and talking and talking, and doing very in the way of substantial work to actually get anywhere.
If you want to get the desktop, sitting around and pontificating does very little. Knuckle down and actually plan something, and once planned, implement it, and once implement it, actually maintain it rather than having abandonware as with the case of so many opensource projects.
I guess the underlying thing is this; yes, it is possible to advocate ones own position, but at the same time, one should also be aware of the short comings of that particular thing they're advocating.
Edited 2007-05-30 01:13
Member since:2005-08-07
I'm running it right now, and it was a couple of nights ago that an application froze, thats cool, I tried to open up the task manager to kill it. It failed to load. Tried it again, failed to load. Tried to load other applications - again, failed to load, tried to shut down; you guessed it, failed to work. I had to do a hard shutdown (not too sure damage I did in the process) just to get things working again.
Somehow I don't think this is the ringing endorsement you intended it to be...
--bornagainpenguin (who is tired of paying for the privilege of beta-testing commercial software)
Member since:2005-07-06
It wasn't meant to be an 'endorsement', I am not Microsofts free PR spokes person, and hence, don't feel the need to endorse their products. They have a whole PR division to carry stuff out like that.
The point I was trying to make, if you look in context with all the posts I made on the matter. Linux and Windows aren't perfect, but it seems to me and most people, all operating system sucks, Windows just seems to suck less than the alternatives.
What I see as the problem, even with this so-called 'community' atmosphere within the opensource world, developers ramble on about 'freedom' and unrelated freak sideshows rather than actually addressing the real pressing isssues for end users. There is no use advocating Linux (Or what have you) when the hardware support is basic at best (both default and third party) and the middleware ranges from ok (a very stretched ok) to absolutely crappy. I don't want to keep hammering on, but where is the Photoshop Elements, for example. The consumer level Photoshop which allows end users to remove red eye and the likes without needing to navigate around freaky interfaces as with the case of GIMP.
The problem is that these developers know what they need to change in their application to make it easier to use, but they're held hostage to this religious view that everyone should change the way they think to allign with their philosophy rather than realising there is a prevalant way of doing something, and they'll just have to suck it up, and give the people what they want.
Member since:
2005-11-12
Member since:
2006-01-14
Considering the mess that is in Windows for SMB now, they dont need 2. They just need to clean up their mess. Samba is aleady pretty damn lean on Linux. They added a lot of bloat with Vista. Course, this will allow them to break compatibility with the standard yet again.
Member since:2005-07-06
hmm, didnt they re-brand SMB as CFS or something?
as in, they threw away the last bit of netbios support and went for pure tcp/ip?
all as part of active directory (that also used stuff like DNS, kerberos and maybe some i forgot but could dig out some books to check if i was interested enough).
but hey, this is how microsoft works. first they introduce some tech that noone needs. then they make said tech a integral part of something they do need.
did someone say bundling?
Member since:2005-07-06
hmm, didnt they re-brand SMB as CFS or something?
as in, they threw away the last bit of netbios support and went for pure tcp/ip?
all as part of active directory (that also used stuff like DNS, kerberos and maybe some i forgot but could dig out some books to check if i was interested enough).
Sounds like you mean DFS, which is literally SMB extracted to the domain level, for e.g. mydomain \ share would equate to a replicated share on one or more servers (for eg "ashare" on server1, "ashare" on server2 etc) (usually SMB shares) - these don't have to be windows servers; I've commonly seen terabytes of DFS data sitting on NetApps filers.
EDIT - it appears comments don't support double backslashes when trying to write example NT domain names and shares
Edited 2007-05-29 00:40
Member since:2005-07-11
Member since:2005-12-15
Member since:2005-07-02
Member since:2005-12-15
Using the history of Microsoft as it's future, you'd be right. I'd have to expect they'd anticipate the EU to kick up a fuss, so how they handle that will be interesting.
Ultimately, I don't think people need to know how SMB2 works, rather how to fully interface to it.
Member since:2005-07-07
Actually, SMB filesharing is pretty decent. It is fast, and thanks to the guys from SAMBA, is supported across many different platforms. I would imagine this is another way to try and keep ahead of the SAMBA team who has to reverse engineer the changes Microsoft has done to SMB/CIFS.
Member since:2006-12-07
Microsoft never does fix design flaws. They release ne version instead and charge for it. That is the practical reason why one should avoid Microsoft OS products. They never seem to make it right.
I thought it was a market strategy, but, on the other hand, Office and development tools are good. I guess that they just lack the skills for OS. I think that they should start shipping GUI for some BSD system, like they once did for DOS, instead of OS. They would avoid license issues that way.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2006-08-18
Windows Server 2008 is shaping up pretty good. Better Active Directory management, security features, IIS 7 web server software, etc.
I think WS2008 were free it'd be a serious threat to Linux and other server OSes in small businesses as it rivals most of its qualities.
Linux and other FOSS platforms will always have the upper hand at price point (assuming expensive Red Hat contracts are avoided) and the flexibility at adapting to changing business demands.
Edited 2007-05-29 04:20
Member since:2005-07-06
I think WS2008 were free it'd be a serious threat to Linux and other server OSes in small businesses as it rivals most of its qualities.
Ehrrr... I'd say that Linux could be a threat to Windows, actually ;-) Windows leads in both markets :-P
Anyway, why should they set it free while they're climbing the market by selling it? Plus a server system obtained by a SPLA contract already costs <200USD per year...
Member since:2006-12-07
There is a number of UNIX and Linux servers that are not in the market statistics, because they deployed free of charge. The number is by no means small, and the people who run them are potential customers for some Windows server, indeed.
So, real life numbers might look a bit different.
Member since:2005-07-08
on-the-fly repair of ntfs is actually really cool
would love that for ext4
Filesystems that never become inconsistent are even cooler. ZFS and similar designs developing in the Linux community are the way to go in enterprise storage. In fact, integrating the LVM with the filesystem is one of the crucial steps toward a scalable, master-less, distributed clustering filesystem. Managing storage is becoming more expensive than managing computing resources. Reliability and consistency are important, but provisioning is going to be even more important.
Member since:
2006-01-16
...I would call this article "Top 10 New Features promised for Windows Server 2008"
Mark Russinovich is a great guy though. I'm likely to believe what he said. Perhaps that's the reason why MS employed him 
Funny thing: Powershell is so "powerfull" as it utilizes the .NET framework; for example, piping works with .NET objects. But .NET is not available on the servers to be controlled by Powershell. Bad luck, eh?
Edited 2007-05-28 22:50
Member since:2005-11-10
Member since:2005-07-06
Funny thing: Powershell is so "powerfull" as it utilizes the .NET framework; for example, piping works with .NET objects. But .NET is not available on the servers to be controlled by Powershell. Bad luck, eh?
Actually he said that if you decide to install only the core of OS, .NET framework won't be installed and you will need to use WMI for PowerShell. The Core is the base OS without even a GUI for local accounts.
I don't think that was provided for security, actually. I believe that feature has been designed to be able to match base Unix/Linux systems which can act as specialized for hardware systems like routers, firewalls and so on.
Interestingly enough, if you connect to such bare Windows bare (core) systems via Terminal Services, you can use a GUI to manage them. That's nice ;-)
Member since:2005-07-11
Interestingly enough, if you connect to such bare Windows bare (core) systems via Terminal Services, you can use a GUI to manage them. That's nice ;-)
Congratulations, MS has finally caught up to where Unix was in the 90s. X11 has had this "feature" since it was first released.
It was only in recent years that the X server (displays graphics) ran on the same system as the X clients (GUI programs).
Member since:
2006-06-22
Member since:
2006-03-12
#10 sounds like it was implemented on way too high a level. Anything Microsoft can do to reduce the number of reboots necessary is a good thing, but a temporarily unavailable file will still crash and freeze a few programs. It's a pretty lame offering when the competition already has a filesystem that checksums itself and replaces corrupt data transparently.
#8 is a little scary. So all the virus has to do is keep reporting that it's working on shutting down, and it has all the time in the world to do whatever it wants. I'll bet a dollar right now that the next next sequel to Windows Server only extends this feature to "signed" "certified" or "trusted" services.
All that work to make people depend on their GUI, and now they're rewriting everything so they won't have to depend on their own. Their new shell, the one actually useful enough that it could free Windows from the graphics card, depends on a framework that depends on the GUI. It sounds like a self-made RPM hell.
Member since:2006-01-02
I agree with you about #10 not being too useful. If you don't have a hardware RAID solution and your disk starts flaking out, you really are in trouble. Flaky disks should be replaced because they seem to die soon after they first start corrupting yourself.
I strongly disagree about #8. This is a SERVER. If you have a virus on there, you have much bigger difficulties than the fact that your machine won't shut down perfectly. Don't run viruses on your servers... it's not that hard.
And your last point: I think a lot of people here have a strong misconception of how Windows machines are managed. Something is wrong in a large deployment if you have to connect to the machine as an interactive user of any sort to administer it. You don't SSH or TS into a Windows box. Windows has long had an RPC-based administration system which lets your run MMC on one machines and change the configurations of or deploy software to a bunch of machines at once. You never log into the machines; you just send them RPC-based commands from your workstation. What this means is that you run powershell from your workstation... not on the server itself.
Edited 2007-05-29 12:11
Member since:2006-03-20
Member since:
2006-12-07
Looks to me that Microsoft finally fixed some long standing problems. There is nothing to celebrate about it, and those are not features, rather bugfixes. One usualy doesn't release new version of Operating System because of that, but patches the old one instead, free of charge.
For people living in Windows world this news might sound great, but there is nothing great about them.
Member since:2006-08-18
Member since:2005-07-22
I'd change these
1: Shockingly dreadful quality
2: Horrible system requirements
to these
1: Variable quality of released Software
2: Most likely will need to upgrade all hardware to implement
Some bits of the software in Vista does work. Ok, under the hood it might be a pile of dog poo but it seems to work.
On the otherhand, some bits are totally wrong and also badly designed. The way UAC is implemented for example.
As we are only too aware the H/W requirments of Vista far exceed that of a working XP System. I fully expect the same trend of system bloat to continue. Windows is not alone in this but their requirements seem to grow exponentially faster than other Operating Systems.
So companies will have to fully expect to have to replace all those 2.4/2.8Ghz XEONS happily running Server 2003 to even get it to install.
Finally,
The GUI-less version should not be allowed to be called Windows should it?
Member since:2006-12-07
Member since:2005-07-28
I am testing it and it requires 512 minimum to install. Also, if you are thinking of running WSUS guess what? You need to install SQL server on another machine. Just how is that consolidating servers?
So far it's not too bad but I was looking for a better 2003 server and this is not it. They-(MS) want you to buy more modules, i.e. servers to implement their model. To me, that is not consolidation, that is buying more MS products to attain what you already have.
Member since:2006-12-07
RE[4]: Top 10 Features in Windows Server 2008
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:2005-11-13
I do know that a Linux server is more secure, fairly priced, high quality, is not DRM/activation/WGA infected, and has very reasonable system requirements and EULA. Why use Windows?
Well for starters my company uses asp.net, which you can *kinda* pull off on linux using mono but its not quite there yet.
Thats what keeps us using windows servers, that and our domain/AD setup. It also nice for systems management of our windows workstations.
It comes down to the services and applications you utilize in your business processes.
RE[6]: Top 10 Features in Windows Server 2008
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-11-13
Vendor lock-in!
When our support contracts end we always have the option of doing something else, if we choose to do so.
We are no more locked into windows than we are to IBM for our RS/6000 machines running AIX and a proprietary CAD program, or to Redhat who we pay for support on our linux servers. We also use IBM mainframes with z/os and have quite a bit of Sun hardware running Solaris.
If any of them do not deliver we can architect other solutions and we have dropped vendors and products in the past when things did not work out.
It seems that the only reason to use Windows Server is because you have been ensnared in the MS proprietary web. Crap like ".net" should be avoided, open standards are the superior choice.
Actually we use windows where its proven to work best for us. Just as we use Unix, Linux, z/OS and AIX where they work best in our computing enviroment.
What we are interested in is picking technologies that benefit us as a company. That might be standards based or proprietary depending on what we are trying to solve in a given situation. In many cases we end up with a mix of both to get the job done.
Member since:2005-08-11
"As we are only too aware the H/W requirments of Vista far exceed that of a working XP System. I fully expect the same trend of system bloat to continue"
When is this BS going to stop? I was running Vista on my Athlon XP 2800+, 1G RAM, ATI X1650, and it ran quite well, almost as well as XP or 2003 on the same hardware. Some computers may only be capable of running Aero basic, but a simple ram and/or VC upgrade will usually do the trick. The belief that Vista requires huge upgrades is a myth, plain and simple.
Member since:2005-07-06
When is this BS going to stop? I was running Vista on my Athlon XP 2800+, 1G RAM, ATI X1650, and it ran quite well, almost as well as XP or 2003 on the same hardware. Some computers may only be capable of running Aero basic, but a simple ram and/or VC upgrade will usually do the trick. The belief that Vista requires huge upgrades is a myth, plain and simple.
Why people actually run Aero when they KNOW it takes more system resources is beyond me anyway.
Is having a pretty screen that important? Then again I'm always the guy that goes straight to "classic" mode in XP because the GUI feels faster.....but that's just me.
Member since:2005-08-11
"Why people actually run Aero when they KNOW it takes more system resources is beyond me anyway."
Because all people are not geeks, and some like thier computers to look nice, and do cool things. I personally don't think it is all that great either, but I recognize that people want thier computer to have a personality, to wow them with effects.
Member since:2005-07-06
Because all people are not geeks, and some like their computers to look nice, and do cool things. I personally don't think it is all that great either, but I recognize that people want their computer to have a personality, to wow them with effects.
You're right. Just my mentality, I guess. To me it's a tool, nothing more. As long as I can get my work accomplished, I'm happy.
Member since:
2005-12-23
Don't be too quick to disregard it. The NT kernel is a great design and a fantastic piece of engineering, it's a lot of the bloat higher up the model which people have issues with.
Windows server 2000 and 2003 were excellent operating systems as they were much more 'bare bones' in comparison to their desktop counterpart. (IMO, 2003 is still the best OS MS have released)
If the previous models are anything to go by, and MS live up to these new features, I think 2008 will be a stormer of a server. MS are certainly making a drive for the server market and I think their new approach is starting to get results.
Member since:2007-05-20
I have to completely agree with you. The latest two server releases (2000 & 2003) are very good. There are still lessons to be learned (esp. in the security area) from the *nix paradigm, but generally they work, they are reliable, relatively easy to administer and provide good services to a windows based client network.
What I really HATE about Microsoft are: the politics, ridiculous pricing, and even more ridiculous licensing for the server products.
By the way, I believe Vista was rushed, that's why they ended up the way they are, I believe they learned that lesson now and will not do it again. On the other hand I don't remember them ever rushing out a server products, these are usually well thought out. Windows Server 2008 will be good, the only real flaw will again be price / license.
Member since:
2005-08-26
Member since:
2005-10-14
Member since:2006-01-02
I read a different meaning than you seem to in that quote... one which leads to this conclusion:
Those who do understand UNIX are smart enough not to adopt its misfeatures and will not reinvent it at all.
Seriously, Unix OSes and the people who love them kinda piss me off because it really is associated with some bizarre and stupid design decisions. Check out the Unix Haters' Handbook. Some of the problems mentioned there have been fixed or patched over, but the overall philosophy that created those problems has not been fixed.
We should look to what Unix is good at and steal its best ideas, but I think it's too bad that Linux is just a Unix reimplementation. VMS would have been a lot cooler.
Member since:2005-07-06
Those who do understand UNIX are smart enough not to adopt its misfeatures and will not reinvent it at all.
Seriously, Unix OSes and the people who love them kinda piss me off because it really is associated with some bizarre and stupid design decisions. Check out the Unix Haters' Handbook. Some of the problems mentioned there have been fixed or patched over, but the overall philosophy that created those problems has not been fixed.
We should look to what Unix is good at and steal its best ideas, but I think it's too bad that Linux is just a Unix reimplementation. VMS would have been a lot cooler.
A simpler way of putting it is this; if UNIX is perfect, then why did the original authors of UNIX go off and design Plan 9? to address the deficiencies in UNIX's design. What annoys me the most is the fact that Plan 9 hasn't picked up as a general purpose operating system; it addresses many of the flaws that exist within UNIX and takes ideas to a whole new level in reference to networking, for example.
As for UNIX fanboys, the problem is that many of the so-called 'UNIX Fanboys' are nothing more than Linux fanboys who arrived in the last 2 years. I see it on forums, they've tipped their toe using Ubuntu, and it makes them an expert. It pisses me off, having used *NIX since 1995 seeing idiots coming forth turning what used to be a semi-decent community of technically minded individuals debating the merits of technology paradigms to something being little more than a band of Microsoft hating junkies who feel the need to spam a forum to get their 'high' or 'rush' for the day.
May I suggest that these Linux boys get out, use Windows 2003 in a production environment, use Solaris and FreeBSD in the same sort of environment, then come back. Lord knows, I'm sure once people have been put into the situation, they might have a much more sober assessment of operating systems out there.
Member since:2007-05-17
Member since:2005-10-14
I think my point is perfectly valid - one of the points even explains it clearly.
<quote>
#1: Server Core. Here is where the world could really change for Microsoft going forward: Imagine a cluster of low-overhead, virtualized, GUI-free server OSes running core roles like DHCP and DNS in protected environments, all to themselves, managed by way of a single terminal.
If you're a Unix or Linux admin, you might say we wouldn't have to waste time with imagining. But one of Windows' simple but real problems as a server OS over the past decade has been that it's Windows. Why, admins ask, would a server need to deploy 32-bit color drivers and DirectX and ADO and OLE, when they won't be used to run user applications? Why must Windows always bring its windows baggage with it wherever it goes?
</quote>
Member since:2005-08-18
"Imagine a cluster of low-overhead, virtualized, GUI-free server OSes running core roles like DHCP and DNS in protected environments, all to themselves, managed by way of a single terminal."
The only "new" thing about this would be that it would be running Windows instead of Linux/BSD/QNX/Whatever.
Member since:
2006-03-20
They're claiming NTFS to be able to selfheal or hotfix itself since years now, and I've yet to witness that. No, instead I keep seeing machines crapping all over themselves over a single bad cluster in one of the system files. And replacing broken clusters during operation was supposedly also supported since ages, yet when it encounters one, it keeps stalling the whole system and doesn't do an inch to even remotely replace it.
I'd rather not rely on a selfhealing NTFS. Partial checking will probably do more harm.
Member since:
2005-12-18
"It may take another five years for enterprises to finally complete the migration, but once they do..."... they will have to update yet again to our new (then) architecture.
Was I the only once who noticed that Microsoft could be stepping on Linux and UNIX IP ("think about a GUI that manages non-GUI servers"[/]). That Uncle Stevie won't like.
[i]Edited 2007-05-29 19:57
Member since:
2006-09-12
As brilliant a marketing move as it is, to sell Windows on other OSes' strengths, Windows Server 2008 will *never* be used w/out a GUI. Sure, the core operating system might run w/out a GUI, but I guarantee you that none of your favorite apps will. Even on Unix, installing Oracle requires the X11 libraries to be installed. As idiotic as that is, Oracle is not the only *server* application like that (just the most widely deployed one I can think of).
If major vendors require GUI libraries to be installed on Unix to install their app, imagine how entrenched they are in Micro-soft land.
Member since:
2005-07-28
LOL. These W!ndows `pup` sysadmins, who probably can't even write a ten-line script are trying to `imagine` `low-overhead, virtualized, GUI-free server OSes running core roles like DHCP and DNS in protected environments, all to themselves, managed by way of a single terminal` already exist.
To the person who made the comment of running Oracle without a GUI ... I'm doing this on Tru-64 on an old Alpha in a production environment. It's CLI all the way!
Edit: Need to drink coffee first before attempting to type.
Edited 2007-05-30 12:14
Member since:2006-09-12
Running Oracle w/out a GUI is no problem, but Oracle requires the GUI for installation, even on Tru-64:
http://download-east.oracle.com/docs/html/B10811_05/ch2.htm#i101114...