View Full Version : Windows Server 2008
sky-knight
10-14-2008, 02:57 PM
I just got the disk out of my Action Pack dusted it off and crammed it into my ESXi box to get my feet wet...
And my first impression, WHAT THE F' IS MICROSOFT THINKING!
Now technologically it seems just like an iterative update to Server 2003, nothing major feature wise in the base OS. Sure you get IIS7, and some new toys but nothing out of the ordinary for a new Windows installation...
But technology behind the scenes isn't what smacks you, what hits you is the blasted GUI! It's Vista's, no real surprise.. but crap has been moved... again?
As I type this post on a Vista 64bit Ultimate install and staring at the Server 2008 in my VMWare Infrastruture Client window... I'm just completely floored at the lack of continuity.
Then my mind goes skeptic for a moment and thinks... there is no wonder Microsoft is going into this "core server" install mode. They've gotten their server so top heavy on the GUI with 2008 you'll be forced to drop it back to command line only just to get some performance out of it..
Ahh well, time will tell. ;)
MrxCrp
10-14-2008, 03:23 PM
Yeah, I think MS is lost at the moment. They are trying to be "cool" rather than making a great product.
And to think we used to test nuclear missiles with 32K RAM. Solitaire takes three times that now.
sky-knight
10-14-2008, 10:55 PM
I don't know if I should be proud or depressed at that... ;)
YeOldeStonecat
10-15-2008, 06:26 AM
It's Vista's, no real surprise.. but crap has been moved... again?
Yup. It's Vista if you flip Vista to the classic desktop performance theme.
Just like Server 2003 looked just like XP in classic desktop performance theme.
One thing I'll say though, it sure installs quick, like Vista. I run it one of my laptops, because it's quite faster for me than Vista was on that laptop.
MrxCrp
10-15-2008, 08:48 AM
They are making some progress in the virtual world though, I have been testing 2008's hyper-v and find it to perform quite well.
sky-knight
10-15-2008, 09:16 AM
I'm very interested in hyper-v but I need to get some licensing questions resolved first. There is no way I can justify purchasing two copies of a server license just to get that. And, I see no point is running it unless its on a core install.
As for the interface being off, I'm not complaining about it being different that 2003. I'm complaining about it being different from my Vista! Even in performance mode it's a PITA to try and relearn where they hid crap.
MrxCrp
10-15-2008, 09:49 AM
If I understand the licensing correctly, which I very well might not, you can have up to four guest OS's under one license. For ex. 2008 as host, with four guest 2008s under one license. When Server 2003 R2 came out they changed their licensing to this new model. Don't quote me on that...
I too don't mind an appearance upgrade from 2003, but when they change in a non-beneficial way, that is when I have a problem with it. When people complain about change, I think about the auto manufactures, would you want all cars to stay the same? I don’t think so, so why complain about software changes?
MrxCrp
10-15-2008, 09:55 AM
I found the reference for my previous post.
In the December 2005 PUR, Microsoft is also introducing expanded use rights for licenses for Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition and SQL Server 2005. These expanded use rights are summarized in the following table. They apply only to licenses for the specific editions described. They do not apply to licenses for previous versions of these products.
Products Impacted Expanded Use Rights
Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition · Each software license allows you to run, at any one time, one instance of the server software in a physical OS environment and up to four instances of the server software in virtual OS environments on a particular server.
Source: http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/8/9/68964284-864d-4a6d-aed9-f2c1f8f23e14/virtualization_brief.doc
I think I'll stick with Sever 2003 at the moment...
What do you guys think?
Server 2003 or 2008?
MrxCrp
10-16-2008, 01:18 PM
Depending on what you are doing with 2003 and what type of environment, I would most likely stay with 2003. I haven't been using 2008 for very long, however the main things I noticed were the user interface changes, and the hyper-v technology. I believe there are significant changes to the underlying OS, but I am not sure there is enough of a reason for an upgrade.
From my understanding there are security enhancements that integrate with Vista clients and such... so if you are using Vista then you might consider changing.
sky-knight
10-16-2008, 02:31 PM
Yeah 2008's terminal services got a huge boost in the security department.
Still it is a very iterative upgrade. The only reason I can see to make the move is if you want to play with IIS7 or Hyper-V. Everything else, just move to the new OS when you replace the equipment.
the other thing to watch for is your client access licenses. Soon as yuo move to 2008 you need to upgrade all your 2000/2003 CALs.
sky-knight
10-16-2008, 04:16 PM
Yet another reason to wait for a new server to make the jump. Most of my customers run OEM licensing anyway so they can't "upgrade." On the upside the new 2008 cals are slightly less expensive.
MrxCrp
10-16-2008, 04:25 PM
That’s a great point, and typically the deal breaker. With software assurance it is not as bad, but why spend the money if you do not need to.
It should just have the same type of improvements that Vista has compared to XP, but with better networking features etc.
sky-knight
10-16-2008, 06:22 PM
On the networking end? sure it boasts the improved IP stack that incorporates native IPv6 support... It has an iterative update to group policy, and certificate based machine authentication. But again, this stuff is all incremental, normal, and expected in the evolution of a Microsoft product. It offers no real major selling point to just go to it, unless you need the features of IIS7, or Hyper-V. Both of those two products are basically new...
Now when Windows 7 lands... support for multi-touch input systems... where the f' do I sign up...
Rick@BBM
10-17-2008, 02:46 PM
I have two production server 2008 x64 standard machines. One Hardware, and one running VMware Server 2.0 off it (and untangle vm).
I will have to say, it's the most reliable windows to date. The main box is the GC that is also running SQL 2005 x64 becides VMware. It's also our business website webserver, and we also host a few employee personal sites off it.
Yep, so one 2008 server is the domain controller, website host, sql server, and VMware server. The thing is a tank, no errors, no lock ups, no slow downs.
The VM 2008 on it is 2008 x64 running Exchange 2007 x64. It's only doing exchange mail for a personal domain for webmail and exchange activesync access. It was done to see if we could tax the host 2008 server. It doesn't even know it's there.
Untangle also runs VM on it. Runs better then our dual processor opteron HP 1u it replaced.
We have it fully turned on theme wise, with Aero. When you terminal serve into it, it's vista basic (no areo in RDP).
We have two more servers in the office, both running Server 2003. One exchange and one brooktrout fax. They are typical 2003 machines, about as many security holes as swiss cheese, and need rebooting once and a while.
My co-worker also runs Server 2008 on his workstation (not DC promoted). Loves it. Runs better and is more compatable with programs then my Vista Ultimate workstation. I randomly lock up programs, the typical vista stupid things. He never has one issue.
Go Microsoft! Finally, an O/S that works.
PS, if you guys think 2008 is confusing with it's totally different layout, wait til you use exchange 2007!
sky-knight
10-17-2008, 03:08 PM
I love Exchange 2007's new layout... makes a world more sense to me!
Rick@BBM
10-20-2008, 08:55 AM
Yeah, I like the new mailbox system, and how "secure" it is after a fresh install.
MrxCrp
10-20-2008, 11:17 AM
Rick, what type of hardware do you have for these two 2008 machines?
Rick@BBM
10-23-2008, 06:31 AM
Well server #1 running 2008, and also running VMware with another 2008 with exchange 2007 and Untangle:
SuperMicro X7DAL-E
Xeon E5410
8gb kingston fd-dimm ram (had 12gb, but different brands turned to be incompatible)
Hitachi 500gb x4 in a RAID 10
Cooler Master Real Power Pro 650W 80 plus
GeForce 8600gt (for areo ;) )
A couple more PCI gigabit nic cards
4u rack mounted
2008 server workstation:
Pentium 4 single core
2gb ram
160gb hdd
Runs beautiful, and very stable. Has the beauty of vista, but runs programs that are not vista compatible. There is programs that my vista ult work station will not open, they are not compatible, and that's the word right from the developer. The 2008 box opens them just fine. Amazing
PROACTIVENS
11-21-2008, 08:26 AM
One thing I like about 2008 is the changes to RDP. I like the way I can publish an app over RDP remoteapp, and users can run it from a web browser. It's like citrix, but its native support seems to be much better.
jonathan.penrose
12-22-2008, 06:08 PM
With the core Hyper-V services available now for free (and Hyper-V coming in Vista SP-2) it would sure be handy for running Untangle... :-)
sky-knight
12-22-2008, 06:46 PM
No more with and without Hyper-V licensing? That will certainly help...
Also, I managed to get someone in Microsoft's partner center to tell me that the Server 2008 license allows for 4 VMs to operate under one physical license. I still need to confirm this in the EULA itself, but if that is true a single 2008 standard installation could be deployed as a core install for Hyper-V and the standard again running on top in normally inside a VM. Very flexible deployment that way.
djbarnes
12-22-2008, 07:44 PM
With the core Hyper-V services available now for free (and Hyper-V coming in Vista SP-2) it would sure be handy for running Untangle... :-)
i have been trying to run the .nix ver of Untangle using a Hyper-V setup. Because Hyper-V doesn't support the mouse input in linux (without installing the support services, which i can't work out how to do) you have to do everything by keyboard, which doesn't appear to be possible, since the main ui for untangle has no keyboard shortcuts. the other solution would be remotely administrating it, but that isn't possible without first configuring it...
wharfratjoe
12-22-2008, 09:21 PM
I would consider server 2008 for IIS7 only at the moment. My 2003 IIS6 servers are running just fine..With that being said, I have never understood MS licensing. You can explain it to me until your blue in the face and I still won't get it...:lol
(i even have some win2000 servers still running IIS5 (locked down of course) and they too are running just fine).
shawnbishop
12-25-2008, 01:06 AM
Man...I have been having major problems with 2008 as a Domain Controller...sometimes users cant login, wait 5 minutes and they can???
hescominsoon
12-25-2008, 03:46 PM
I just got the disk out of my Action Pack dusted it off and crammed it into my ESXi box to get my feet wet...
And my first impression, WHAT THE F' IS MICROSOFT THINKING!
Now technologically it seems just like an iterative update to Server 2003, nothing major feature wise in the base OS. Sure you get IIS7, and some new toys but nothing out of the ordinary for a new Windows installation...
But technology behind the scenes isn't what smacks you, what hits you is the blasted GUI! It's Vista's, no real surprise.. but crap has been moved... again?
As I type this post on a Vista 64bit Ultimate install and staring at the Server 2008 in my VMWare Infrastruture Client window... I'm just completely floored at the lack of continuity.
Then my mind goes skeptic for a moment and thinks... there is no wonder Microsoft is going into this "core server" install mode. They've gotten their server so top heavy on the GUI with 2008 you'll be forced to drop it back to command line only just to get some performance out of it..
Ahh well, time will tell. ;)
I actually run the SBS2008 standard and i find it much easier to maintain(after you get past the useless console it pops up at login). I don't have to go hunting for everything they are all under administrative tools. I'm running an optie 1212 with 4 gigs of ram and it runs just fine. Server core i think is a good idea since they finally gave us a useable shell for the first time since 9x.
Rick@BBM
12-29-2008, 12:11 PM
Man...I have been having major problems with 2008 as a Domain Controller...sometimes users cant login, wait 5 minutes and they can???
Are they on wireless nic's? Is their DNS pointed to the server?
hescominsoon
12-29-2008, 12:21 PM
I think I'll stick with Sever 2003 at the moment...
What do you guys think?
Server 2003 or 2008?
I am migrating clients to 2k8 just because of server core among others. Lower system requirements plus 2k3 is heading into extended support mid 2k9.
sky-knight
12-29-2008, 03:04 PM
Yeah any new sales are 2008 now, but I'm not pushing the upgrade for upgrade sake yet.
hescominsoon
12-29-2008, 07:51 PM
I'm not replacing 2k3 with 2k8 on the same hardware only on replacements..:)
hkgonra
12-29-2008, 08:02 PM
I am migrating clients to 2k8 just because of server core among others. Lower system requirements plus 2k3 is heading into extended support mid 2k9.
I was wondering why dell was practically giving away sbs 2003.