OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/26503/Review_Windows_Server_2012_RTM Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2013, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Thu, 23 May 2013 15:31:50 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com Comment by Luminair http://www.osnews.com/thread?540204 http://www.osnews.com/thread?540204 server 2012 is a gem, even despite the comedic shoehorning-in of the metro start screen

bad review, good OS Sat, 27 Oct 2012 02:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Luminair) Comments RE: Comment by Luminair http://www.osnews.com/thread?540241 http://www.osnews.com/thread?540241 you can make server 2012 boot to the desktop. Sat, 27 Oct 2012 13:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (modmans2ndcoming) Comments RE: Comment by Luminair http://www.osnews.com/thread?540242 http://www.osnews.com/thread?540242 Does it matter? The desktop itself was already a joke for a server OS. Sat, 27 Oct 2012 13:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Ford Prefect) Comments RE[2]: Comment by Luminair http://www.osnews.com/thread?540266 http://www.osnews.com/thread?540266 Then don't install the desktop. It is completely unnecessary. Sat, 27 Oct 2012 18:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Drumhellar) Comments RE[3]: Comment by Luminair http://www.osnews.com/thread?540273 http://www.osnews.com/thread?540273 Then don't install the desktop. It is completely unnecessary in a some situations

There fixed it for you.

Oh, and not everything can be done via powershell. Sat, 27 Oct 2012 19:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (shotsman) Comments RE[2]: Comment by Luminair http://www.osnews.com/thread?540282 http://www.osnews.com/thread?540282
Does it matter? The desktop itself was already a joke for a server OS.


Maybe in 1999 when the GUI resource argument was actually worth considering.

I definitely wouldn't run X on a server because it is a POS that can't be trusted on production servers.

The Win GUI is plenty stable but Microsoft has definitely ruined it with Metro. The way they integrated it looks like a practical joke. Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ze_jerkface) Comments RE[2]: Comment by Luminair http://www.osnews.com/thread?540287 http://www.osnews.com/thread?540287 server 2012 boots to the desktop automatically. but eventually you'll have to run something, and metro is still the new start menu. Sat, 27 Oct 2012 20:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Luminair) Comments RE[4]: Comment by Luminair http://www.osnews.com/thread?540299 http://www.osnews.com/thread?540299 You'd be hard pressed to find something you need the GUI for.
And, in the rare circumstance you need a graphical tool, you can install just that, and not the whole desktop. Sat, 27 Oct 2012 21:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Drumhellar) Comments RE[3]: Comment by Luminair http://www.osnews.com/thread?540305 http://www.osnews.com/thread?540305
server 2012 boots to the desktop automatically. but eventually you'll have to run something, and metro is still the new start menu.


If it's anything like Windows 8, there's plenty of Start menu replacements to be had. Or just use a launcher. In all honesty, it's a lot of bitching about nothing. Sun, 28 Oct 2012 00:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (WorknMan) Comments RE[3]: Comment by Luminair http://www.osnews.com/thread?540308 http://www.osnews.com/thread?540308
and metro is still the new start menu.


Does it really matter?

The Server 2012 Start Screen is nearly blank initially, with and only the snap-ins for the service you add populate it afterwards. It ends up being nicer than the start menu, with large text and icons making things easier to find.

I have yet to see anybody give a plausible situation where you need the rest of the desktop available when the start menu is open The Start Screen displays more icons and is easier to read, compared to the old Start Menu.

Apart from the Start Screen, Metro absent 2012 (Though, I do believe you have the option of going back and installing everything).Edited 2012-10-28 02:22 UTC Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Drumhellar) Comments Cloud http://www.osnews.com/thread?540330 http://www.osnews.com/thread?540330 It is beyond me why anyone would want to use a cloud and put their and their company's data at risk. Microsoft is embracing some very dangerous concepts. Sun, 28 Oct 2012 10:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lorin) Comments RE: Cloud http://www.osnews.com/thread?540340 http://www.osnews.com/thread?540340 Why?

Because a whole slew of consultants are getting huge great wads of cash from compaines all over the place for preaching the mantra 'Cloud is where it's at and if you want to be cool, that is where you will put your data'.

Then they'll be off to the next suckers leaving many of us here to pick up the pieces when it all goes horribly wrong. Sun, 28 Oct 2012 17:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (shotsman) Comments