Windows Server 2003 makes strides toward putting storage control back inside the OS, InfoWorld says. Microsoft plans several enhancements to Windows Server 2003: an iSCSI release in June, a NAS 3.0 release in the second quarter; an ADS release in the third quarter; a Small Business Server release “in a few months”, and a virtual server release in the fourth quarter. Read the article at ExtremeTech.
Microsoft Catches Up on Storage in Windows Server 2003
2003-05-08 Windows 8 Comments
wow, now IT people don’t have to do anything. Intelligent machines I see. Very cool stuff over at http://www.microsoft.com/presspass, read the Gates presentation about the new technologies. Maybe the starship will be running Microsoft afterall.
This will be really helpful… even for the end user. I can just see it now… windows will support my SAN chocked full of Kazaa DVDs….
Isn’t Windows great
My office partner tried it (he knows who he is) and I watched a bit of it. Wow its windows 2000 looking, guess MS knows XP is visually and user stupid….
Anyway first thing: Internet Explorer stopped letting us click into the google search bar on about the 5th search. Yep just wouldnt let us click there and type something anymore! YAY! Way to go MS!
He played around with it and was annoyed as hell with it. As a linux and MS admin, it really seems pretty dismal on the face of it compared to linux, at least for admin work.
Well in the end, a few days later he found a use for it.
He burned it. Literally, it went up in flames, a nice shot of lighter fluid and it was over. Seems it doesnt come with a decent firewall.
If you think I am trolling and inventing a story to MS bash, indeed I am not. This is what really happened, and I share the sentiments. It may have some revamped networking code, OK, but as we know everything (practically) running on it will need an upgrade.
As for admin work, why is IE set to not even allow you to view most web pages (and yes you can downgrade the security) but COME ON: If its a server and you are admin, you shouldnt have to worry about how you use IE unless IE and MS software is buggy anyway! I dont recall getting all that worried when I fire up a web-browser on my linux server.
The admin tools are none better then they were with 2000 so whats the point? If some lines of code make the underlying functions better it should have been an upgrade, not a whole new system.
“He played around with it and was annoyed as hell with it. As a linux and MS admin, it really seems pretty dismal on the face of it compared to linux, *at least for admin work.*” [italics mine.]
I have a long, long history with Microsoft. Every time they come out with something new, it’s always the flash and dazzle first; then, people who really need to *work hard* with their products get hold of them, and we’re back to the rough sanding on the inside, smooth on the outside again.
The sad part is, this tends to promote a “point and click” culture in the operations/system programming/admin area; i.e., “If there’s no tool, we can’t do it,” or, “figure a way to point-and-click, even if it takes 50 times as long to do your work.”
As I see it, this points up a basic need in our contemporary society; people should learn to take deeper views of what they do, rather than simply act like consumers. And if it’s an issue of time, then people should at least hold their producers accountable for *all* the product, not just the part that can be seen from the outside.
I see tv show after tv show where some journalist documents the shoddy workmanship on a house, and tries to call the contractor to account for it. This ought to apply to computer software as well.
That’s why I believe that *all* source code for purchased (pay-licensed) software should be either open or placed in escrow. That includes software embedded in hardware.
Before saying that a product is flawed, and this and that, try to learn how to work with it before making such assumptions. Windows Server 2003 is a new beast and people need to be acquainted to it first. How many people have fainted the first time they used *nix command on a console that was over 130 chars? I saw and heard people say “it’s too crazy, it’s too complicated, it stupid how long it is”. Today, they are senior sysadmin and they feel at ease with those same commands.
But when Microsoft (finally) delivers an OS that is good, powerful and easier to use, the same people that told it was too complicated back then are saying “it’s moronic, you just have to point-and-click”. Please, don’t bother the rest of us with your institutionalized view of the world and how an OS must be administrated. People evolves, OS too. If you don’t like this new OS, don’t bash it before you know what you’re talking about. And no, you’re prior Windows NT knowledge can not be taken into account since it’s, by far, not the same OS we are now facing.
It doesn’t use the XP theme simply because it’s a server, it doesn’t need the eyecandy. The eyecandy would just take up extra resources that could be dedicated to other things.
Did you try restarting IE? Perhaps there was just some quirky thing happening. Did you do anything, any sort of research and try and fix your problem? It doesn’t look like it.
You give no examples of actual administration, just browsing the internet.
You shoudln’t really be doing any browsing on the server anyway, so what do you care if the security on IE is high? The Server is often used as a TS Server, clients connect to it to do their work, including possibly browsing. It was a good idea to have the software in there.
Some of the admin tools have been updates slightly, others have been revamped. It’s not about the interface (the interface is already pretty good), it’s about the underlying server software that you are configuring.
From the sounds of it, you don’t even sound like an admin. You have given NO examples of actually using the software other than browsing the internet with IE (or trying to, at least), you haven’t used the software.
Last week wasn’t there an interview or something where a MS rep said they weren’t adding new abilities after shipping for stability/security reasons? Oh well MS like any corporation talks out of both sides of its mouth…
“Before saying that a product is flawed, and this and that, try to learn how to work with it before making such assumptions. Windows Server 2003 is a new beast and people need to be acquainted to it first.”
Yeah…that’s exactly what I do; when it’s new, I assume that apparent flaws might actually be pilot error.
Doesn’t matter; I’m a very long-time veteran of the computer industry, and I have been all the way from the Bare Metal (assembly language) to VB, Python, Perl, etc etc etc….and admin, and install machines, and all sorts of stuff, and I stand by my statement.
….which is precisely why all source-code for commercial software should be referred, either publicly or in escrow.
In fact, I’d say any source code that involves life-critical activities should be auditable by some watchdog group who can recompile it to binary to verify that it works, and then test it to make sure nobody gets killed because of a software error.
Wonder if MS would stand for that?