Linked by Drumhellar on Thu 6th Sep 2012 02:43 UTC
Windows "Windows Server 2012 probably won't have the adoption lag in the enterprise that Windows 8 is bound to face. That's because, aside from the Metro GUI, Server 2012's biggest changes are in substance rather than style, building upon what the company delivered with Windows Server 2008 Release 2 three years ago. In particular, Server 2012 takes two management features Server 2008 R2 admins will be familiar with - Server Manager and PowerShell - and expands on them considerably."
Order by: Score:
PowerShell
by Lennie on Thu 6th Sep 2012 13:24 UTC
Lennie
Member since:
2007-09-22

Actually, I'm not a fan of PowerShell. It's freaking slow.

Reply Score: 4

RE: PowerShell
by n4cer on Fri 7th Sep 2012 01:00 UTC in reply to "PowerShell"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, I'm not a fan of PowerShell. It's freaking slow.


In startup time, runtime performance, or your workflow (i.e., using the language)?

The startup time for PowerShell 3.0, at least on Windows 8/Server 2012 (haven't tried it down-level, but it should be similar) is near instant (on par with opening Command Prompt).

Runtime performance should be faster over prior versions as well, in part, due to the new, DLR-based engine, .NET 4.5 optimizations, and general optimizations to PowerShell itself.

The language has gained a few shortcuts and simplifications for some scenarios, but their value it's largely subjective if the language is what you're criticizing.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/powershell/archive/2012/06/14/new-v3-langua...

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh857339

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: PowerShell
by Lennie on Fri 7th Sep 2012 08:15 UTC in reply to "RE: PowerShell"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I haven't checked all the other properties of the langauge or runtime, but this is a scripting language.

Startup time is really, really important. Without good startup time a scripting language is almost useless from the start.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: PowerShell
by lucas_maximus on Fri 7th Sep 2012 08:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: PowerShell"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

lol, what?

Just checked on my PC, I ain't even using Powershell 3.0, 1 second after the Window was displayed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: PowerShell
by Lennie on Fri 7th Sep 2012 08:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: PowerShell"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Try installing some PowerShell modules.

Take any server with Microsoft software installed, it installs lots of modules.

That is when it gets slow, by default it loads all the modules installed.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: PowerShell
by lucas_maximus on Fri 7th Sep 2012 08:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: PowerShell"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Just tried Nuget Package Manager in VS2010 ... which would be something equivalent ... 4 seconds.

I have a HP Z600 sitting under my desk, which would the similar to

In any case, I have no idea why startup time of a few seconds would be that critical.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: PowerShell
by Lennie on Fri 7th Sep 2012 09:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: PowerShell"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Scripting is about iterative development, fast iterative development. Change, run/test, done.

I think Linus Torvalds said it best in his Google tech talk about Git:

When something is fast, you use it differently.

If it takes less time to build, thus it is cheaper.

You don't have to use cheap programmers/cheap labor to do it. Actually I would recommend not do so.

When making larger things, you want some programmers to take time to investigate and think before they start. You want to make some proper choices about structurale/architecture. Lay a good foundation and stick to that.

Where should PowerShell be used ? System administration ?

When something isn't working a busy sysadmin just wants to do a quick fix to a script to keep the systems running. And probably come up with a proper solution later.

First priority: keep systems running.

The perfect example of an environment that asks for for quick iterative development ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: PowerShell
by lucas_maximus on Fri 7th Sep 2012 11:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: PowerShell"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

No not really. Quick fixes and bodges ends up with un-maintainable scripts.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: PowerShell
by n4cer on Fri 7th Sep 2012 13:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: PowerShell"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Try installing some PowerShell modules.

Take any server with Microsoft software installed, it installs lots of modules.

That is when it gets slow, by default it loads all the modules installed.


One of the changes with v3 is that modules are now loaded on-demand. You can enumerate cmdlets for all available modules without actually loading the module into the session. They are only loaded when one of the cmdlets they contain is called.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh857339#BKMK_AutoLoad

Reply Score: 3

Comment by TBPrince
by TBPrince on Thu 6th Sep 2012 14:56 UTC
TBPrince
Member since:
2005-07-06

There's a lot more in W2012 than ServerManager and Powershell only (even if both has expanded). Storage, virtualization, performance and scalability improvements... you name it.

Great release.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by TBPrince
by j-kidd on Thu 6th Sep 2012 21:14 UTC in reply to "Comment by TBPrince"
j-kidd Member since:
2005-07-06

And hopefully we will finally have a released version of Windows that can be up for more than 497 days: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2553549

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by TBPrince
by TBPrince on Fri 7th Sep 2012 19:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by TBPrince"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

lol good point.

However 400+ days without rebooting means more than one year of missed patches... not exactly an ideal situation..

Reply Score: 2

Home Server
by quackalist on Thu 6th Sep 2012 16:41 UTC
quackalist
Member since:
2007-08-27

OK, I'm just a home user so this 'Cloud' thing just goes over my head....bit disappointed Home Server went AWOL, which is my limit/need for a server.

Back to the more important server stuff, thank you

Reply Score: 1

RE: Home Server
by MOS6510 on Thu 6th Sep 2012 18:29 UTC in reply to "Home Server"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

The article mentions:

"Two other versions of Server 2012 will be available. The first, Foundation edition, will only be sold through OEMs, and is intended as a totally bare-bones server with no virtualization support."

I think this version is most suited for home use.

P.S.
It's a bit strange they mention that they went from 6 to 2 versions of Windows Server and then 2 more appear, pushing the total back up to 4.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Home Server
by Drumhellar on Thu 6th Sep 2012 19:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Home Server"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

There were more like 14 different SKUs for Sersver 2008 (If you include Home Server 2011, which was built on 2008 R2). This includes Server + HPC packs, also, since the HPC packs used to cost extra.

2012 has 5 SKUs, including the upcoming Windows Storage Server.

http://www.aidanfinn.com/?p=13042

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Home Server
by quackalist on Thu 6th Sep 2012 21:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Home Server"
quackalist Member since:
2007-08-27

Hardly, Windows Server Essentials is the closest to HS but that'll be ten times the price of HS, presently £32.

Can't imagine many rolling their own Home Server for that sort of cost. Course, there's always NAT boxen and I'm told Windows 8 can stand in, though don't know if it runs headless.

Reply Score: 1