Post a Comment
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
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 ?
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
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
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.
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
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.




