It had been announced a while ago already, but today Microsoft finally took the wraps off its latest server offering: Windows Server 2008 Foundation. Foundation is a cut-down version of the Server 2008 family, but Microsoft uncharacteristically did not remove all that much. It won't be sold as a stand-alone product; rather, OEMs get to sell it pre-installed.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-13
I am waiting till it has a comparison against standard on the site. over all this is something that needed to be implimented years ago! I am glad they finally got around to doing it though. though now that MS has been making tools like the microsoft web platform ( http://www.microsoft.com/web/downloads/platform.aspx ) and other things avalible, you can pretty much turn any Vista business edition or XP pro box into a web or file server roll server. the only advantage this has is AD and slightly less overhead (though a vista box can be cut down to run as a server once you turn off a lot of stuff, disable aero, and set the system to favor system processes and not programs, etc...)
Though if you ever wanted to run a Win server from your new netbook, this is the one 
Member since:
2006-10-31
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-24
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-24
You don't even need the 64 bit apps. My servers' apps don't use a huge amount of per process memory. But they are distributed among a lot of processes. (Typically, I have between 3000 and 4000 procs running.) My apps are 64 bit, but they really needn't be. In fact, I'd save some memory if they weren't (at the expense of a little processor time).
Artificial limitations are for wannabe slaves.
Edited 2009-04-01 20:01 UTC
Member since:2006-07-14
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-07-14
No SQL Server server is more of a joke than anything serious 
But seriously 8 gigs isn't a lot of memory these days. I would have trouble finding use for such a limited server, other than a file server or small office domain controller. I guess that's the point of the OS, and the point I'm trying to emphasize.
Member since:2006-08-02
Member since:2005-07-06
You don't even need the 64 bit apps. My servers' apps don't use a huge amount of per process memory. But they are distributed among a lot of processes. (Typically, I have between 3000 and 4000 procs running.) My apps are 64 bit, but they really needn't be. In fact, I'd save some memory if they weren't (at the expense of a little processor time).
Artificial limitations are for wannabe slaves. "
Well thanks for telling me what I need
Our databases definitely like running in 64-bit, thank you very much.
Member since:2005-07-24
It was an impersonal "you". Often I use the word "one" but when one does that too much one begins to start sounding monotonous.
The point is that while people rarely think about running a 64 bit kernel with a 32 bit user space, it *can* be a win. The advantages of being able to handle a lot of memory well system wide, but with the relative memory efficiency of 32 bit apps can be attractive. Of course, in the x86_32/x86_64 world, you give up all those extra registers for the user space code. But still. My workloads tend to be XDMCP servers handing a bunch of users. I go 64 bit all the way, because "that's what people do". But I've always suspected I'd do better to install a 32 bit distro and then just add a 64 bit kernel.
I would be interested in other people's comments on this. BTW, it was actually one of google_ninja's posts that got me thinking along these lines.
Edited 2009-04-02 14:30 UTC
Member since:
2006-07-16
Everyone knows that the Server versions of Windows perform better as Workstations for serious users. I give this "OEM only" mini Server 2008 about 48 hours after its initial release to hit the pirate channels where highly optimized custom variants will soon appear. All the power of Server 2008 without a lot of bloat. Thanks Microshaft!
Member since:2007-07-12
"Everyone knows that the Server versions of Windows perform better as Workstations for serious users. I give this "OEM only" mini Server 2008 about 48 hours after its initial release to hit the pirate channels where highly optimized custom variants will soon appear. All the power of Server 2008 without a lot of bloat. Thanks Microshaft!"
That's because their server versions ARE based on workstations. Server 2003 shares it's code base with XP, which is why there are tons of useless, client based applications on Server 2003 which need constant patching, necessitating restarts almost weekly 
At least 2008 can be installed headless, which is how a server should be.
Member since:
2005-07-06
This is going nowhere fast, and as usual, it comes with all the restrictions that are designed to ring-fence this from damaging Microsoft's cash cows of Client Access Licensing and the symbiotic relationship of Exchange, Windows Server and AD CAL licensing all depending on each other. Communicate without e-mail or the internet? I have no clue what organisation does that, and even if they don't they will very quickly. It sounds like Microsoft from the mid-nineties. A leopard doesn't change its spots.
Microsoft believes this will provide an upgrade path to Windows Server proper netting them more money, but they're mistaken. Those wanting a cheap full-featured server with the wherewithall to run one will run Linux and open source software, and those really wanting to run Windows Server but don't want the expense will probably just pirate it. Even more worrying for Microsoft, businesses can just get an internet connection and use GMail and Google Apps without faffing about with buying a server.
Member since:2006-04-22
Microsoft believes this will provide an upgrade path to Windows Server proper netting them more money, but they're mistaken. Those wanting a cheap full-featured server with the wherewithall to run one will run Linux and open source software, and those really wanting to run Windows Server but don't want the expense will probably just pirate it. Even more worrying for Microsoft, businesses can just get an internet connection and use GMail and Google Apps without faffing about with buying a server.
Except the businesses targeted with this product are not using Linux. Obvious to me, don't understand why not for you, but this is not for SMBs even. If you looked at the user limit you would easily see who this is targeting, and why. Maybe ask yourself what these businesses are usually running currently? Don't know? Obviously, so I will tell you. Most either have XP, a desktop OS, or SBS which is not really geared to their needs. Happens to be a very decently large segment of businesses that run XP as a desktop server for shared applications for these small businesses. SBS is a few grades above their needs.
Member since:2006-01-28
Or they could just get ebox, an ubuntu-based server released that allows you to configure everything through a nice little web page.
Easier to maintain, more powerful and a hell of a lot cheaper: i.e., about an hour or two of your time.
http://ebox-platform.com/
Or if you prefer to go the CentOS/Red Hat route and need an easy GUI, go here:
http://wiki.contribs.org/Main_Page
Most small and some very large organizations (as there are no artificial limitiations) will be superbly served by one of the two options I offer above.
Member since:
2009-04-02
I think the real threat to Microsoft is not so much Linux but appliances built on Linux. Interestingly enough IBM has an appliance with the same name called IBM Foundations that does the same thing as Small Business Server but at a fraction of the price. Apparently this is an appliance where you do no even need to know anything about Linux to run it. Anyone have any experience with it?
Member since:2009-04-02
Hi,
I work for a IBM Lotus Business Partner, and we received the first Foundation appliance for testing purposes.
It contains Lotus Domino Server software, file server, vpn-solution, and backup-solution. I think it also contains an apache webserver, but I'm not 100% certain of this. The appliance runs a custom Linux distribution.
The entire setup and configuration is web-based, and their is no need for Lotus Notes client software.
Member since:
2005-10-11