OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/26345/First_look_Windows_Server_2012_brings_the_cloud_down_to_earth Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2013, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:03:15 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com PowerShell http://www.osnews.com/thread?534087 http://www.osnews.com/thread?534087 Actually, I'm not a fan of PowerShell. It's freaking slow. Thu, 06 Sep 2012 13:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lennie) Comments Comment by TBPrince http://www.osnews.com/thread?534096 http://www.osnews.com/thread?534096 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. Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (TBPrince) Comments Home Server http://www.osnews.com/thread?534102 http://www.osnews.com/thread?534102 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 Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (quackalist) Comments RE: Home Server http://www.osnews.com/thread?534109 http://www.osnews.com/thread?534109 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. Thu, 06 Sep 2012 18:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (MOS6510) Comments RE[2]: Home Server http://www.osnews.com/thread?534117 http://www.osnews.com/thread?534117 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 Thu, 06 Sep 2012 19:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Drumhellar) Comments RE[2]: Home Server http://www.osnews.com/thread?534130 http://www.osnews.com/thread?534130 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. Thu, 06 Sep 2012 21:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (quackalist) Comments RE: Comment by TBPrince http://www.osnews.com/thread?534133 http://www.osnews.com/thread?534133 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 Thu, 06 Sep 2012 21:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (j-kidd) Comments RE: PowerShell http://www.osnews.com/thread?534158 http://www.osnews.com/thread?534158
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 Fri, 07 Sep 2012 01:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (n4cer) Comments RE[2]: PowerShell http://www.osnews.com/thread?534214 http://www.osnews.com/thread?534214 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. Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lennie) Comments RE[3]: PowerShell http://www.osnews.com/thread?534215 http://www.osnews.com/thread?534215 lol, what?

Just checked on my PC, I ain't even using Powershell 3.0, 1 second after the Window was displayed. Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucas_maximus) Comments RE[4]: PowerShell http://www.osnews.com/thread?534216 http://www.osnews.com/thread?534216 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. Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lennie) Comments RE[5]: PowerShell http://www.osnews.com/thread?534220 http://www.osnews.com/thread?534220 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. Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucas_maximus) Comments RE[6]: PowerShell http://www.osnews.com/thread?534227 http://www.osnews.com/thread?534227 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 ? Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lennie) Comments RE[7]: PowerShell http://www.osnews.com/thread?534250 http://www.osnews.com/thread?534250 No not really. Quick fixes and bodges ends up with un-maintainable scripts. Fri, 07 Sep 2012 11:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucas_maximus) Comments RE[8]: PowerShell http://www.osnews.com/thread?534252 http://www.osnews.com/thread?534252 In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is. Fri, 07 Sep 2012 12:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lennie) Comments RE[5]: PowerShell http://www.osnews.com/thread?534259 http://www.osnews.com/thread?534259
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 Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (n4cer) Comments RE[2]: Comment by TBPrince http://www.osnews.com/thread?534297 http://www.osnews.com/thread?534297 lol good point.

However 400+ days without rebooting means more than one year of missed patches... not exactly an ideal situation.. Fri, 07 Sep 2012 19:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (TBPrince) Comments