By Mark W. Kaelin
Mark Kaelin is a CBS Interactive Senior Editor for TechRepublic. He is the host for the Microsoft Windows and Office blog, the Google in the Enterprise blog, the Five Apps blog and the Big Data Analytics blog.
Seems to be more configurable\options as well as more wizards. Looking forward to it but the question remains, how stable is it, how can these servers be managed from HF updates and monitoring prospective. How does it compliment applications and with Citrix\Terminal services. How can it managed via GP and what are the AD changes? Lots of questions.
Look at all those graphics and n00b tools. this is like creating a server for dummies. can imagine a very slow rdp session during support. which i am already experiencing on vista
Image 14 is the funniest one! It says "Windows Vista... Please wait while Windows starts for the first time". At least they could have said "Longhorn" or something... So, now we know that really it's just "Windows Vista Server".
I felt like I was reading something a twelve-year-old wrote, or at least someone who hadn't configured many servers. The author also aparently is not aware of how many users run Windows Server 2003 on their workstations. I believe that's why there are still music and games folders.
Look at all those noob comments. It's like talking without knowing what one is talking about. Can imagine a very fast RDP session during support using SERVERENTERPRISECORE and/or PowerShell. Which is not something a workstation OS is supposed to do well.
The "benefit" is that you can continue to run on a supported OS. Business users can only put it off for so long.
It would be good if you could elaborate on why you think that. At first glance, the same could be said of server 03 in reference to xp. Just because it appears to be on the surface doesn't mean it isn't vastly different under the hood.
you happen to need an enterprise web or forms application that costs less than a million dollars to build and can be done in less than 6 months. You give unix people a bad name, perhaps you could make a valid business argument rather than simply throwing out your supposed product affiliation like a tag spraypainted on the side of a passing train.
Talking with the guys at Microsoft revealed that the final name for Longhorn is Windows Server 2007. However, they all laughed because they don't think it will be out in 2007, so it may end up being called Windows Server 2008.
the administration GUI is pretty cool BUT I see some trouble in that the GUI is like a wizard and people who don't have a solid understanding will use it as a crutch. want to make a longhorn server a DC? use the GUI does everything like a wizard.
I have to agree with Jusovsky in his comments. I personally will be sticking with 2003 until I am forced off. That being said, there are some new "features" that look tempting. I know that server releases go hand and hand with desktop releases as far as the GUI is concerned but maybe they could make it look a little more professional? The same can be said for WSUS 3.0 - or MMC 3.0 GUI's in general. Things look like they are written for a very naive user. It's a shame.
What kind of web apps are you writing and who are you working for that can afford that? I'd like a piece of that action :) In reality, though, that kind of argument doesn't relate to a specific OS, but reflects the needs of the project itself. You could build a project that cost a million on UNIX/Linux, or on Windows. You can put up a quick website on either platform just as well (done it). The notion that either system is inherently better than the other depends on your organization, including: existing skillsets, existing infrastructure, nature of task, government regulations, privacy/security concerns, and more. Only a proper assessment of all this (not a knee-jerk OS rant) is going to answer the question.
I just came from an all Linux shop to my current all Windows shop and (now this is coming from a former Linux fanboi) it is GOOD to be back in an environment where things *just work* and you can deploy things in 1/10th of the time. I am glad that I don't have to write scripts to watch my processes and code my own *everything*. Nuff said.
I hear people say things like they want it to look more professional, and that seems to often translate to "make it look like NT 4." In my opinion, that crap is UGLY. I don't see why anyone would be turned off by the introduction of nicer icons and a smoother UI.
Someone with enough sense to look at all the needs of the project and decide which OS is best for purpose. At our site we use both UNIX and Windows Server (Various flavours of both)Each does its own job well