“Windows .NET Server is a surprisingly full-featured release, but because it builds on the strong base of Windows 2000 Server, it will be a simplein-place upgrade for those customers. Thanks to its new upgrade features, it should also prove to be a simpler upgrade for the large crowd of NT 4.0 Server holdouts, though we’ll have to test that functionality before passing final judgement.” Read the preview at WinSuperSite. On a related note, Microsoft has posted the long-awaited RC 1 version (Build 3663) of Windows .NET Server on MSDN Subscriber Downloads. Here is the good stuff available:Windows .NET Web Server RC 1 ISO CD Image: 481.15 MB (English Only)
Windows .NET Standard Server RC 1 ISO CD Image: 532.17 MB (English/German)
Windows .NET Enterprise Server 64 Bit RC1 (English/German) ISO CD Image: 570.36 MB
Windows .NET Enterprise Server RC1 (English/German) ISO CD Image: 532.44 MB
Windows .NET Enterprise Server Checked/Debug 64 Bit RC1 (English) ISO CD Image: 636.60 MB
Windows .NET Enterprise Server Checked/Debug RC1 (English) ISO CD Image: 565.35 MB
Windows .NET Server RC 1 Reviewed (Part I)
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
As I said in the last article about .Net server, this is really just XP Pro with limitations removed (which are really some registry change) and a bunch of daemons thrown in, all of them being available separatly either from other vendors or open source projects. Get XP Pro, install Apache binaries for windows and you get a shiny Windows .Net Web server for a fraction of the cost… as for supporting more CPUs or RAM, they are really limitations added to the OS that are usually very easy to remove thru a registry change (if you know which key to edit).
Well, there are a lot of registry settings changed that affect general performance tho, noone knows them all.
But try to make someone believe what you just said about Pro and Server being the same OS. I keep doing that for ages and 95% don’t believe it.
Both of you, I suggest you read the two comments here:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=1418#27019
No, I do not believe that XP PRO and .NET Server are the same. Because they are not.
OMG that is lame. They all are gonna comeback and tell these Microsoft drones: It’s been working right for soo long that we don’t need to downgrade. lol
They have been the same since NT 3.1 and I don’t think it’s different now. They use the same code except a couple of clustering and load balancing DLLs and licensing related ones, so how are they different?
The .NET Server beta time period is about testing the server stuff, nothing more. The other code is in sync with SP1 and pre-SP2.
Enable richer administrative control and flexibility – “We wanted to give administrators more control,” said Michael Dennis, the Lead Program Manager of the Windows Server Management Group. “There was just a lot of stuff we didn’t think of originally. But customers were asking for more command line tools, headless server mode, task-based administration tools, command line access to WMI (Windows Management Infrastructure), and emergency server access, which lets you access the server when the keyboard and mouse won’t work. We implemented all of this in Windows .NET Server.”
At a recent MS TechNet conference that I attended I was told by one of the MS techs there that the Unix programmers that were hired from the buyout of Softway Systems (who created the original Interix/Services for Unix 3.0 add-on package) have had a very big impact on the project in the sense that they demanded and made their case for creating extensive CLI capability throughout the .NET Server line and made many converts to the idea. As a result, Microsoft has become very serious about giving admins full control of the OS from the command line with this version and if you add Interix/SFU to the base OS you will be able to do virtually any admin task from the CLI now, just like on a Unix box. They just went wild and created something like 700 new command-line tools for .NET Server.
“But try to make someone believe what you just said about Pro and Server being the same OS. I keep doing that for ages and 95% don’t believe it.”
That is good. Here is just a partial list of some .NET Server capabilities that XP Pro will never have (mostly)…
– Terminal Services
– Storage Management Services (for SANs)
– Windows Media Services (Corona)
– PKI Certificate Services
– Metadirectory Services (?)
– Non-Uniform Memory Access (NUMA) and Hyperthreading
– Clustering Services
– Memory Mirroring Support (for fault tolerance)
– Hot Plug PCI Capability
– Hot Add Memory (Hot Remove Memory will be in Longhorn)
– Load Balancing and Failover
– Multi-Path IO for Storage
– Windows Resource Manager
– Secure VPN Gateway
– Routing Services
– Volume Shadow Copies (i.e. network-based system restore)
If you think your little registry hack is going to cut it, you are out of your mind. Why not maybe read the article and learn something?
There used to be registry hacks to turn NT 4 workstation into server as well as 2000 Pro into servers available for a while. The limitation on CPUs, RAM or the granulity of time in the kernel isn’t harcoded into the kernel code, it is set up at installation time in the registry. You don’t think MS rewrote the whole kernel for .Net server while they have been using the NT one for almost a decade ?
No, I don’t think MS rewrote the whole kernel for .Net Server while they have been using the NT one for almost a decade. It is a newer version of the same NT kernel. The differences between the desktop and server versions of Windows at the kernel level are probably relatively few, agreed. But the differences in services capabilities and how each OS is tuned for performance in its specialized role are huge though.
I wasn’t talking about the service caps, I was talking about the core OS. Most of the stuff you mentioned can be tagged as optional. The rest like hyperthreading, NUMA, memory mirroring, hotplug PCI and all will be prolly in XP ‘codebase’ too coming with SP1, just being deactivated. It may be possible that they will exclude it explicitely for XP during compilation (frankly, I hope it will be), but regarding how MS handled Pro/Workstation and Server before, I wouldn’t be surprised if the new files in SP1 will carry that functionality, just deactivated.
In the Subject you say “reviewed” but in the body you say preview.
The difference between a review and a preview is that a review is critical but a preview is more of a PR piece.
The subject says “reviewed” because that is what their subject is at WinSuperSite.
However, *I* consider a review of an unreleased final product, a preview of what is coming.
In my view, a review is an article about the final product, not the beta. A preview is a review of the unfinished product. That’s how I see it.
From the very first sentence:
“Joining several colleges from Windows & .NET Magazine at a late June Reviewer’s Workshop for Windows .NET Server near Microsoft’s Redmond headquarters, I received an almost mind-numbingly technical overview to the vast array of new features in the company’s next server operating system.”
I would imagine almost anything is mind-numbing to a person who incorrectly spells “colleague.” Although, that must have been one heck of a preview if several colleges did show up.
I have seen many previews of products that are out and many reviews of products that are not yet. That is whay it all depends on the amount of access and weather its critical or not.
Sorry Gil, but XP pro already has support for Hyperthreading, and Armari are selling workstations here in Europe with 2 Xeon processors in them, but which due to Hyperthreading appear to the OS as 4 processors.
Many of you are agreeing to disagree.
I see it as this:
The Home, Pro, and Server kernels are extremely similar, but tuned. But the Server versions have tools which exist OUTSIDE OF THE KERNEL that are a benefit to people who manage servers. In other words, you’ve got the core and NOTHING MORE. You will still have to somehow GET all those utilities and tools that Server has. Also, someone spoke of many changes and improvements to .NET Server over Win XP. SOME of these may show up in WinXP SP1. Actually, if Ms continues their tradition of consolidated service packs, then ALL of the improvements are there, assuming you have the complete original version to patch. Otherwise, more useless stuff. So, the big question is… Do these transformed versions of Windows actually work as well as their real counterparts? Any benchmarks?
Oh, doesn’t Apple sell the same old kernel with MacOS X and MacOS X Server? Isn’t Linux just the same old kernel, but tuned for desktops, and servers? People still pay Apple and RedHat, though.
–JM
PS. By the way, removing the limits from WinXP and getting Apache is a great idea, I think. It would be especially good for VERY SMALL companies and groups who don’t need a REAL web server just yet. Otherwise, I’d suggest learning to use FreeBSD, then getting Apache anyway
.