OSNews

You know the answer. Things are easy to setup. What you would expect to work out of the box does. Anyone can configure it. People really do pay for this. Other people like to twiddle and fiddle, edit config files, google what others have done, etc. I'm in the twiddle, fiddle category, but even I sometimes would like things to "just work". I guess that's why many geeks wander over to the Mac side. I'm still twiddling.

Organizations deploying cheap server hardware of marginal quality will also likely be looking for cheap admins of marginal quality, who will, in turn, require a cheap OS of marginal quality which provides lots of hand-holding. It's a match made in heaven, really.

Edited 2009-02-26 17:57 UTC

Maybe if you Linux fanboys shout that out often enough, it might actually become true.

Anyone still saying that Windows Server is a bad operating system is completely and utterly decoupled from reality.

Chill, Thom. And please cut the childish "fanboy" name-calling. This story is specifically referencing a cheap, cut-down Windows SKU, in case you didn't notice. Yes, I know. You hit 'reply' without thinking, and showed your own... errrm... bias.

If there's one bias Thom doesn't have, it's a bias for Windows Server.

He's right. Windows Server is a fine operating system. To deny that makes a person seem very unreasonable; biased, even.

Fine OS? Depends on how you define FINE. Lets just look at the big picture. While WIndows Server is a solid OS and has a lot of features, it also has some problems. Being Windows, it is the target for hundreds of thousands of worms and viruses. It scales very poorly, both to the large side and to the small side. While it has gotten more compartmentalized it still doesn't hold a candle to what you can strip Linux down to. Until recently, it had only moderate support to be a virtual platform. Its awfully expensive to be running as a cloud platform.

Now Windows has its place. And its getting better. But there are many instances where its NOT fine. I also won't sit here and claim linux is any better. But lets at least be honest with our comments.

EDIT: or rather objective since honesty is a matter of opinion.

Edited 2009-02-28 22:56 UTC

Windows has come a long way in terms of reliability, usability, and security. So has Linux. Sadly people have not. I mean that in terms of fanboys and tech people or those in charge of tech people.

Everybody seems to hold true to old ideas. We remember how it was and don't bother to see how it really is. What's amusing is listening to people ramble on about it.

Part of the problem is people often make the mistake of equating "quality" to "does the thing I want it to do". Windows server does not do what I want it to do easily.
But it is the only device that does somethings at all ( run exchange, sharepoint, ect).

Obviously details are limited at this point, but I can't imagine that they would allow any of those killer server apps to run on this version of Windows Server. It would cannibalize their small company sales.

I am with Thom on this one, Windows server releases (from 2000 on) have been steller both in preformance and reliability/mantainability (ya they crash from time to time but I am talking over all. NOTE: I am not including windows SBS in this praise, that is a complete piece of garbage, the 2003 release, and has been a nightmear for me).

MS did good on their server OS, thats why myself, and a few other hard core geeks, run it as their primary OS (3d suport turned on and a few tweaks of course).

it's fair to give creadit where credit is due. BUT that being said, its to expensive.

It depends -greatly- on your definition of a "server" OS.
Does Windows 2K3/2K8 is capable of being a good exchange/file/print server. Yes.
Does Windows 2K3/2K8 is capable of being a good terminal server... Oh, maybe, I guess, but you'll need beefier hardware.
But does Windows 2K3/2K8 is capable of being the host of super-high-load name-your-application-here, maybe, greatly depends on the application.

A couple of examples. (From my own personal experience)

1. NTFS is notoriously bad when it comes to simultaneously writing huge amounts of small files. When I say bad, I mean, switching from Win2K3/NTFS (and 2K8) to RHEL 5.2/ext3 yields a 1/10-1/20 increase (depending on the file size and load), mostly due to CreateFile redefining to the term slow; NTFS slowing down to 1/10'th once you have more than 1000 files per directory, etc. Create enough simultaneous small files and your brand new 16c machine with an 8x147GB SAS RAID and Windows 2K8 server will yield floppy-disk-drive-like performance. (I actually saw 300KB/s)

2. Linux can easily manage large number (>8) of 1GbE links on an 8 core machine. Same hardware, Windows 2K8 and the number take a -huge- plunge. (~1/3)
Far worse, Windows simply cannot seem to utilize a full GbE links. (It usually caps at ~800Mbps)

3. While Windows is quick at creating / killing threads, Windows is amazingly bad at creating processes. If your application cannot use threads (Say, due to security reasons), look elsewhere.

4. Oracle 11g + RHEL 5.2 will run circles around SQL 2K8 / Win2K8 running on the same machine. Especially if you are talking about a multi-TB DB.

Now, you may dismiss these items as irrelevant and/or claim that you data/experience proves otherwise... But thrust me when I say - I doubt that anyone is stupid enough to spend millions on software migration just because they don't like Microsoft.

- Gilboa

Edited 2009-02-26 23:14 UTC

"I doubt that anyone is stupid enough to spend millions on software migration just because they don't like Microsoft."

I will call you on that one.

Company: United Health Care.
Setup: a whole heap of random stuff some windows some linux some IBM lotus notes (no exchange), lots of random other stuff.

I worked at a California office and it was an IT nightmear. The person who I was filling in for said that the reason it was converted away from MS was, "the guy calling the shots in corporate just flat out didn't like Miscrosoft" not for any good reason mind you, just didnt like them. So the migration away from them started.

I believe now they have gone back to MS after the mess that was caused by the attempted switch, but its been years since i worked there and i just dont recall.

Moral of the story: The people who make the final call in big corporations are rarely IT knowledgeable and offten have no idea if something is better or worse and or how much work something like that is. But trust me, those companies are out there. I have worked for bunches of them.

Bad wording on my part.
Let me rephrase.

I had to conduct a lot of (relevant) benchmarks before my employer even thought about migrating to Linux. Especially given the fact that it used to be a Windows-only-no-matter-what shop.

- Gilboa

Sadly enough, there's no way of knowing who voted my comment down (and why.)

I shouldn't be bitching about it, but I does say a lot about the current level of discussions in OSNews, though. *

- Gilboa
* We're officially sub-slash-dot now.

And the site editors are leading the way. :-(

Though I'm a Microsoft (Server) user, I appreaciate someone pointing to facts, and better, from his/her real personal everyday experience.

Yes, there are fields where Linux shines and there are places where Windows shines. I could say that Windows is still rather a teenage for some of those scenarios (though someone might consider that blasphemy since Windows server versions are out since middle of 90s) though is improving very quickly.

All in all, I think one could say that Windows Server is now a very serious competitor (as sales prove) to Unix systems. Those days where stability and performance were a tiny fraction of other systems are rather far now.

I have to say I've seen scenarios where multi-TB data were involved and performance were good, though I didn't work in those scenarios myself, actually.

When big institutions like banks, mail delivery companies and so forth start to migrate to Windows, you can be sure there's a way to handle those huge workloads and huge datasets in a efficient way.

So, you are comparing a 40k/cpu DB to a 23k/cpu DB? The fact that SQL Server is in the same class as Oracle is impressive considering the massive difference in price. Even if you installed it on CentOS instead of paying redhat, you are still only talking 3-5k/machine for the beefier windows 2k8 skus.

You are right that if you need the highest class of hardware you can buy, it makes a hell of alot more sense to go UNIX. Most people dont need that though.

Given the price of the hardware (server and storage) the price difference between a RHEL/Oracle and Win2Kx/SQL was nothing more than a mere statistical error.

- Gilboa

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Before you write off these supposed fanboys- you should consider that some people hold this opinion from having supported enterprise class mission critical systems running both OSes.

While I would not say Windows Server is a 'bad' operating system, that does not mean I have to accept that a less feature-full variant can stand toe to toe with Linux or Open Solaris when I don't believe it's big brother can do so in terms of performance, security, stability or TCO.

Sometimes these 'fanboys' are just people who don't feel like getting another page at 3:30 AM.

Thom, it's a stripped down version of Windows. Even Ballmer says it's about low cost, low price, and low functionality.

Hating on Windows != Linux fanboyism. You spoil your entire argument by calling names.
Next time you might want to say: ‘Maybe if you Windows-mocking fanboys shout that out often enough…’ or just stfu, k?

any BSD flavour. for free.

Yeah, I think I'd also even prefer to get the high priced windows. Given Microsoft's history of lower functionality software ... you might be limited to some stupid limitations like three simultaneous external connections, or limit the amount of memory it can access to 2 gigs.

Good article.

It has a super-valid point: in a period of economic slowdown, price will be a even more important key factor. I understand that MS thinks that some shops which were on the edge of accepting Microsoft will prefer Linux because of lower price. See, that lower price will allow you to concentrate on deployment rather than licensing. That's a very important factor.

MS has a Web version of its Server Win2008 and the big difference is those versions will allow you not to be driven crazy by the CAL stuff. I agree that they deliver too many versions with an insane problem in understanding licensing terms. I think 2 versions would be more than enough.

Microsoft will need to work on its prices a lot now as many companies have to face money constrains. There's a big difference between 0$ and 250$ / month, and that difference is even bigger now...