Home > Windows > Analysts Question Move to .Net Server Analysts Question Move to .Net Server Eugenia Loli 2002-07-26 Windows 8 Comments “Are the software giant’s customers hungry for the next version of its server operating system? The company is banking on it, but industry watchers aren’t so sure.” Read the article at ZDNews. About The Author Eugenia Loli Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker. Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 8 Comments 2002-07-26 9:44 pm I think most are waiting to see how the Mono Project turns out. http://www.go-mono.com/ “According to de Icaza, the Mono project has already considered porting the .Net tools to the Mac. ‘We’re planning on supporting Mac OS X as soon as we’re done with the Linux port.'” http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/4163/IDG020110dotnetnearyou/ Or maybe they are waiting for iNet which should run on all Java enabled platforms? http://www.stryon.com/products.asp?s=4 2002-07-27 3:11 pm Some people just don’t get it, I guess. Win.NET Server has nothing to do with .NET at all, other than the fact that the framework is included in it, and that’s it. 2002-07-27 5:06 pm Uh, if you think that the .Net framework is a possible compelling reason to use Windows.NET Server then you might be interested in other options for using similar framework. If you don’t think the .NET framework is a compelling reason to use Windows.NET then that would further explain disinterest. Is there some reason other than the .NET framework to use Windows.NET? 2002-07-27 5:44 pm The services, AD enhancements, new stuff in RRAS, easier configuration, PoP3 Server, IIS6 (completely rebuilt), Windows Media Server 9, lots of reasons. Some nice new things done to the kernel, like when you install drivers you no longer need to reboot (even video drivers), support for headless environments (no local interface, configuration via TS clients only, which means no GUI overhead), the list goes on for what is new. Of course, don’t upgrade unless there is something compelling to you (and you would have to use it to know). 2002-07-27 6:57 pm I have used build 3621 and did not find much that isn’t better elsewhere. After seeing, on the same hardware, Win2K Advanced Server work faster in the machine’s current application, I pretty much lost interest. Microsoft has made changes to components which were essentially faulty in previous products or made an attempt to compete with third-party products that are superior to their Microsoft bundled component. AD, for example, is a chunk of poo, enhancing it doesn’t suddenly make it good any more than 38 coats of hand rubbed nitrocellulose lacquer (paint) fixes the shortcomings of a Yugo. If you are in love with Microsoft, and their marketing claims are your mantra, I guess the new product is the best thing for your self esteem. If you are interested in best of breed features or performance, Microsoft comes up short in my experience. 2002-07-27 8:29 pm Bay: No, I’m actually quite objective when it comes to matters such as these. Just when people who think they know it all, such as you, start spreading FUD about something that pisses me off. Simply, you must not have used much with .NET Server, as it has quite a bit of enhancements. 2002-07-27 9:49 pm What you call enhancements I call embelishments and I’ve never spread an ounce of F.U.D.. No, I didn’t use .NET server much because I quickly discovered that the functionality important to the particular deployment of the system would realize a DECREASE in performance and there were no new widgets that provided a reason to “upgrade”. Primarily, the machine generated a lot of additional (above and beyond Win2K) useless network traffic which greatly slowed client/server transactions. “Enhanced” Active Directory, for example, is of absolutely no use to me. I use NDS because it seems to be massively superior. I couldn’t care less about IIS6 (completely rebuilt, because there was no way to fix it), I use Apache. Windows Media Server is of absolutely no use to me at all. For me, easier configuration would mean I could choose to have it work exactly like NT or Win2K, with which I am already familiar. To Microsoft, “easier configuration” means to someone who has never used a computer before. 2002-07-27 10:00 pm After the last reply I made, I went and actually read the article at ZDNews. Hmm, a bunch of analysts reporting that people might have experiences just like mine. CPUGuy, why don’t you read the article too and tell all those analysts how much their FUD pisses you off?