Windows Server 2008 One Year On — Hit Or Miss?

magacious writes "Friday marked a year to the day since Microsoft launched Windows Server 2008, but did it have quite the impact the so-called software giant expected, or did it make more of a little squeak than a big bang? Before its arrival on 27 February 2008, it had been five long years since the release of the last major version of Windows Server. In a world that was moving on from simple client/server applications, and with server clouds on the horizon, Windows Server 2003 was looking long in the tooth. After a year of 'Vista' bashing, Microsoft needed its server project to be well received, just to relieve some pressure. After all, this time last year, the panacea of a well-received Windows 7 was still a long way off. So came the new approach: Windows Server 2008."

Comments

Re:I expected more driver support

[Colonel Korn]

Basic Open Source versus Proprietary issue. It's a lot easier for a hardware company to get drivers added to Linux distros than to Windows install disks.

They must be trying harder on Windows then, considering that the vast majority of hardware just works in Vista off the install disk but much, much more manual intervention is required in at least Debian and Ubuntu. Open source does make it technically easier for a vendor to get a driver into a distro (and cheaper), but most vendors just don't care. The GP's case is definitely the exception, not the rule.

2 things about the IP stack in VISTA/Server2k8 bad

[Anonymous Coward]

"Have you seen the new TCP/IP stack? Holy shit, it's fast." -

It can be faster, & more efficient (plus more secure via layered security which imo, has been weakened @ the IP stack level, per the URL & synopsis' points below - read on):

Take a peek here first, before you get TOO into the TCP/IP stack transferral rates (on INTERNAL networks @ least, mind you) in Windows 7 or Windows Server 2008:

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1139705&cid=26977225

There are a couple things that might need alteration that URL goes into.

TO WIT/DETAILS/QUICK SYNOPSIS/SUMMARY:

I like some TECHNICALLY VALID FEEDBACK, in regard to help in answering why a 0 blocking IP address in a HOSTS file has been removed from Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 most likely as well...

Especially when the usage of 0 as a blocking IP address faster, & more memory efficient than 0.0.0.0 (& certainly even moreso than 127.0.0.1) are (which still work in Windows 2000, Windows XP. & Windows Server 2003 just fine, & more efficiently!)

(Doing more with less is good engineering, not bloat, & that's what the 0 blocking IP address gives a user of a custom HOSTS file (for both security & speed online, big increases in both))...

Port Filtering being removed is another mistake...

As it works @ a diff. level of the IP stack drivers-wise than IPSec &/or Software Firewalls do for instance, which aids in layered security since they all work @ diff. levels of the IP stack (thus, you can't take 1 out, & take them ALL out - & it works like putting deadbolts, chain locks, & door handle locks onto a car or home, same idea - layered security: break one, another's STILL in the way (&, what's one of the 1st things spywares/viruses/malwares/rootkits do? DISABLE FIREWALLS + ANTIVIRUS, etc. et al)...

APK

P.S.=> Thanks for feedback, in case you DO have a valid reason for MS especially removing 0 as a blocking address in a HOSTS file, as well as removing PORT FILTERING (because the VISTA reskit reason is b.s. & weak imo as well as a security risk or weakening of the concept of the use of layered security in VISTA/Server 2008 & most likely Windows 7 also)... apk