Discussion on:

An overview of what's new in Windows Server 8

metro interface on the server. Are they going mental?

graphic user interface on the server. Are they going mental?

hehe.. couldn't resist.. I figure it's like the MMC though.. when everything is a Metro module then it'll be the natural interface for the server. Since software is specifically targeting Windows Server that may happen pretty quick too.

personally, I'd like to see more work towards Windows headless.. leave the graphic interface off entirely.. remote mmc or powershell are more than enough to manage the box beyond a local text terminal for basic functions.

I recall that they'd already determined the server direction was going to be less GUI and more PowerShell. Imagine my disappointment.

Less GUI doesn't mean "GUI-free". Server core is predominantly GUI free, but it's clear that this version of server will make extensive use of Powershell. Good news for admins!

I just got done posting a comment in another thread titled "gui."

http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390353?tag=discussion-asset-thread

I had hoped Microsoft would move in the direction of "headless," the Gnu/Linux "X" system is the right model, the actual implementation of which being a nightmare notwithstanding. (it's the idea that counts)

As a 16 year Sys Admin, I'll respectfully disagree. Quality implementation counts FAR more than good iea+poor implementation.

What possible value is there in a touch interface on a server? What is this, a kiosk?

On the other hand, we'll probably roll out W8 Server before we deploy the W8 client OS. It's easier for IT types to adapt than users.

I certainly like remote desktoping to a server on my Samsung Slate and using touch to unlock users or reset passwords, or other tasks. Having more ways to do something is better than fewer ways.

To the man with a hammer the whole world looks like a nail.

Why is it that MS persists in the belief that one size (ie one UI) fits all?

I believe that's the whole point of Windows 8, that one interface isn't right for everyone and you now have choice for which UI you want to use - Metro, Desktop or Shell.

No you don't, you have to use the metro start ribbon or whatever the hell it's called, even to get to the desktop and there's no start menu anymore. Doing it on desktop computers is questionable, doing it on servers is bizarre.

I've worked as a systems admin for 16 years now, and there's one thing I've seen happen repeatedly: when the market changes, if you're the one who has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future, you're the one most likely to be replaced by the new kid with the shiny new certification.

Embrace the change, and learn what it can do for you. Will it be unilaterally better? Probably not. Will it make many kinds of tasks better? Without a doubt.

Live forward--clinging to the archaic UI's we've been living with since Apple and Microsoft ripped off Xerox Parc is futile. And frankly, kind of dumb

But in terms of business continuity, you don't mess with that which isn't broken. There's a reason people still use old-skool mainframes. Data processing has NO NEED for transparent title bars and Direct X libraries. That's time wasted that the CPU could be doing something else. (And most servers come with absolutely the worst video chipset available.)

is to replace the old-skool mainframe systems with easier to use web based applications. It isn't that the system is broken exactly, but it needs more capabilities that just aren't easily available in mainframes.

In this case, they're right. Metro works well in existing environments, and will *really* work well with servers. Think about it: your Start screen customized with Live Tiles representing status of services, CPU and memory usage, storage capacities, network utilization, error logs, admin tools, etc. There's all kinds of potential for Metro goodness on the server OS.

Through its ability to use Windows Remote Management, the server manager *can* be executed at the server, but it can *also* be executed on a client machine. You will still have all the power of the entire application, only the actual actions will be executed remotely. Indeed, any server manager on any machine (server or client) can be used to remote admin any server.

Servers can be grouped and actions can be invoked for the entire group, e.g. install IIS with certain modules. The Server Manager will then issue the commands to each server transparently and consolidate the results back to the controlling console.

Beat me to it. I think we all realize that metro is a way of getting IT departments to buy a lot of new touchscreen monitors with DisplayPorts. But on servers?

Metro may be at home on a server.

My ideal situation: Metro on the physical console with a touch screen KVM. Standard desktop through RDP.

I always hated the server KVM keyboards and trackball... a touch interface seems more intuitive.

I think the Metro-style UI could be great for a performance dashboard sort of view... give me important stats & simple drill-through navigation to get to various admin screens to affect those stats. While the core CPU, memory & disk utilization could be shown, if the server is specified for a webserver role, it should show IIS-specific KPIs.

Of course once we server admins need to start DOING things on these servers, all these pretty GUI things tend to get in the way. The more features that creep into the server OS from the desktop, the more things that power users need to turn off/disable. The disappearance of menu items like the "directory up" button tells me MS doesn't really understand their user base, at least IT professionals and those of us who actually understand the concept of nested folders, etc...

If the gui can display the PS used to actually do the work it would be a great tool. AIX has had this for years in SMIT. Do it once in the gui and script it from then on.

I cannot believe what I'm hearing. IT needs to speed up the process not go back to typing. If I recall that's why DOS went away. I know we all want to keep our jobs but why would you pay someone to sit there and waste time writing powershell scripts when we should be telling Microsoft to do it for us. We pay a lot of money for their product. If I have to do all the work using powershell then I should just go to Linux. It's atleast cheaper. Powershell is a big step backward.

Because if you're going to be performing the job on a regular basis, or if you're going to be performing the job on a large number of objects, a script is more accurate. It can also faster, even including the development time.

Because if you're operating a high-volume server, the overhead needed for the GUI is often wasted.

I'm just not sold on it. I've done some I wasn't all that thrilled with it. I guess what got me upset is in Exchange 2007 they have a gui to restore a users mail file from back ups. With Exchange 2010 you have to use powershell. I mean, that's backward. I like going forward.

When you're used to a shell, it's so much faster to pop into a box (not physically located within an Ethernet cable) and type a few commands to get what you need. It takes much less bandwidth, and usually less screen real-estate (think phone, tablet, or with reference material open) to use a text-based interface.

Also, the more code you have on a server, the more chance of it being exploited. Imagine how much fat is in Windows to support the GUI. Now imagine the OS without it. Leaner, meaner, safer.

Finally, as Palmetto alluded to, let's see how quickly you can jump into Windows explorer and delete all the log-yyyymmdd.txt files between January and April, unless they have the word "breach" in them.

For every job there is a proper tool. If you shun the command line as "old technology", you're severely limiting your options for the most efficient way to handle a task.

Oh "bandwidth" and "overhead", give me a break, what are you guys using it on, an IBM AT?

I remember when Powershell first came out, I went to a presentation for it and the whizz from Microsoft typed a page of commands in to do whatever it was he was trying to do (install a core version of 2008 iirc) and it took him ages to get it to run without an error. It was embarrassing.

Basically we came to the conclusion the objective was to make IT administration so difficult that only experts like me can do it, fair enough, then a few years later Microsoft start blathering on about the cloud which is supposed to put people like me out of business. They've lost their way.

Bandwidth is very real concern. Consider two ways to accomplish the same thing..

You've got a log filled with errors. You can do this the Linux way (or PowerShell if that's your speed, but I'm more familiar with the Unix command set), and SSH into the server and use your favorite editor or pager to display the log. You can filter out inconsequential lines using grep, and scroll through pages with very little impact on whatever connectivity you have -- be that 3G, WiFi, or Gb Ethernet to a few rooms over.

Now consider the GUI approach. You have the Windows Event Viewer open and you're navigating the filters to try and reduce it to the useful categories and services. Now, you're scrolling through the event list and browsing the details pane for the info you need. Lots of scrolling, and (e.g.) thousands of pixels of graphics to transmit as you page-down through that list. If you're NOT on a fast connection, that hurts. I know this first-hand because our company isn't contained in one building, so remote access is the norm, not the exception.

When I'm at home, with the 17000 foot loop to the telco CO, my 960Kbps DSL (if only it really were) would much rather serve me the text listing.

Hopefully they provide a Core install option

Finally there are some news (for Windows) in the server arena. All of these "new" technologies were already present 10 years ago in the Sun/Oracle Solaris OS. ReFS sounds a lot like ZFS, with the little difference that ZFS has been ironed out during 10 years or more. But, I always think that you need to be brave to put your whole business inside a Windows box using virtualization.
I agree that it will be an annoying thing to have the Metro GUI in the middle of huge server box. You don't put a noob to admin such a thing.

I could not resist from commenting...Metro interface? Really? Was the server manager of 2008 not nice enough? We as the poor end-users were happy with it? werent we? Guys at my company love it.. and now this? Some confused people must be working on the DEV team at MS....