A Run Through Windows Server 2008

amcdiarmid writes "Tom's Hardware has a review of Windows Server 2008 RC0 up on their site. It has a few good points, and at 19 pages is certainly 'in-depth'. From the article's conclusion: 'Microsoft has used the time since the release of Windows Server 2003 very well. The new Server Manager simplifies system administration immensely. Unlike Windows Vista, whose new dialogues still confuse even experienced users, Windows Server 2008 makes the admin feel right at home and in control ... However, it's not all sunshine, either. Although our test system used a beefy Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 with generous 2 GB of RAM, the Server's user interface felt sluggish with Windows being drawn very slowly ... Microsoft also gets low marks for failing to include SSH support in the operating system. On Linux servers, working without SSH is simply unthinkable. At least the Redmond company includes its encrypted remote shell WinRS. However, secure FTP is still a missing feature. The FTP client is being treated like an unloved stepchild, to the point where it is not even included in the Server Manager.'"

Comments

Wall building?

[ktappe]

Without SSH and SFTP, does it seem as if Microsoft is trying to build a wall between itself and Linux? To what end I'm not sure, but this is starting to seem deliberate.

Re:Wall building?

[jollyreaper]

They want to differentiate themselves from Unix, in that you should never need such things. Historically, Windows hasn't been command line oriented anyway, and remote access is done with Remote Desktop. Things aren't really character stream oriented in Windows, and for security you are supposed to use IPSec. That's their model of "a better Unix than Unix," if I can be so bold as to reference my own handle. Right, Windows has never seemed to be CLI-oriented, there are a few tricks you use in there but for the most part they want you clicking windows. HOWEVER, I've also heard that Exchange 2008 has gone all CLI-happy. Now I know that you can create some super-duper admin scripts with Exchange 2003, using it to do mass import/export of addresses and other tasks that would be input-intensive if you had to do it by hand. You also have tools like that for dealing with user creation at the domain controller as well. But as I was told, even routine tasks are supposed to be handled from the dos box with no GUI equivalent means of invoking the commands. That all seems to be going dead against what's seemed to be the typical Windows design philosophy. Can anyone with experience confirm or debunk?

Double standards?

[mrjb]

Now it is a problem if MS is not bundling software? Last time I checked, that was a good thing. At least it allows excellent third party products such as putty and pscp to thrive.

Re:Understandable.

[RKThoadan]

What's really strange is that the MS PowerShell is actually pretty impressive. It's a lot like most *nix shells except that it passes objects around instead of strings. It feels vaguely similar to Interactive Ruby to me. There are actually tasks in Exchange 2007 that can only be done in the shell (not in the gui) and many tasks are easier in the shell. They've even mimicked most of your standard bash commands. It knows what ls, ps and man are (among others).

It appears to me that MS is quite committed to letting people run gui-less servers now, and their doing a pretty decent job of it so far. They're doing a lot better job of that than they are with Vista.

Re:Of course it's slow

[tshak]

Believe it or not, many people use the server version as a desktop OS.

Yup. I run Win 2008 RC0 for development and it's great. As an aside, I dunno what was wrong with their setup to cause a "sluggish" UI. My setup only has 1GB and a single core. It is running in Virtual PC which is hosted on Windows Vista. Not exactly a setup for speed, but it's very snappy.

Re:Of course it's slow

[tlhIngan]

Believe it or not, many people use the server version as a desktop OS.
Usually this is people with too much money who want as many toys as possible in setting up their home network... seriously...

Actually, I've heard of *gamers* running Server 2003 because it's even faster than XP at a lot of things. Of course, installing DirectX is a tiny bit of a challenge, but once that's done, they manage to get performance boosts (small ones, I believe) over regular XP.

Maybe what will happen is when Server 2008 comes out, people migrate to that instead of the horrific mess that is Vista (I used it) just because it's more familiar than the new locations where Vista puts crap. Might be interesting to see how many people do the XP->2008 transistion over XP->Vista.