Windows Server 2012 Powers the Cloud OS

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Today in a global online launch event Satya Nadella, president of Microsoft Server and Tools Business, announced the general availability of Windows Server 2012. In his keynote speech, Nadella described how Windows Server 2012 is a cornerstone of the Cloud OS, which provides one consistent platform across private, hosted and public clouds.

“The operating system has always been the heartbeat of IT and is now undergoing a renaissance in the new world of continuous cloud services, connected devices and big data,” Nadella said. “Microsoft’s unique legacy in the most widely used operating systems, applications and cloud services positions us to deliver the Cloud OS, based on Windows Server and Windows Azure, helping customers achieve a datacenter without boundaries.”
 
The Cloud thing aside, woot! Server 2012 final is now available in Technet!
 
Checkout the desktop:
Windows_8_server_start_screen.png


I think the IT people here are going to rage.
 
Hunghhh...I can't edit. Was supposed to be link instead of image.
 
Ihaveworms said:
Checkout the desktop:
Windows_8_server_start_screen.png


I think the IT people here are going to rage.
Click to expand...

For the 10000000000th time, if you're running Windows server at the machine, you do not deserve to be in IT.

Powershell or remote desktop.
 
Azhar said:
For the 10000000000th time, if you're running Windows server at the machine, you do not deserve to be in IT.

Powershell or remote desktop.
Click to expand...
Are you sure that isn't what remote desktop will be presented with?
 
Damn, you girls sound just like when we went from DOS shell to the Windows NT GUI. CLI for life, if you can't do CLI you don't deserve to be in IT... Get with the program, and move forward with technology. I've never seen so many people that didn't want to move forward and learn new things. That's usually what IT people are good at until they get old. Then, they just want things to stay the same and not move forward. If you can't adapt and learn a simple new UI, then you're just not cut out for IT. Even something as simple as that interface. Sure, it's very simple, but WTF!? I'm sure tons of people will work with it just fine and not have any problems.

I'm glad it's finally out so I can update my "aging" Windows Server 2008R2 install at home.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Damn, you girls sound just like when we went from DOS shell to the Windows NT GUI. CLI for life, if you can't do CLI you don't deserve to be in IT... Get with the program, and move forward with technology. I've never seen so many people that didn't want to move forward and learn new things. That's usually what IT people are good at until they get old. Then, they just want things to stay the same and not move forward. If you can't adapt and learn a simple new UI, then you're just not cut out for IT. Even something as simple as that interface. Sure, it's very simple, but WTF!? I'm sure tons of people will work with it just fine and not have any problems.

I'm glad it's finally out so I can update my "aging" Windows Server 2008R2 install at home.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you made girls plural when I'm arguing against needing to use the GUI on Windows Server desktop. I offer options other than needing to deal with the server proper, but remote control in various ways - remote desktop, powershell, or PWA.
 
Azhar said:
For the 10000000000th time, if you're running Windows server at the machine, you do not deserve to be in IT.

Powershell or remote desktop.
Click to expand...

Guess what you get on remote desktop? That's right, the start screen. There's no start menu, so you have to go to the lower left corner of your session, which isn't the easiest thing in the world when you are running it in a window, and open up the start screen. Since I guess we are all supposed to run servers on tablets or something.

Plus there's the minor concept of "installing" the server. Turns out they don't shit fully configured, you need to configure their IP, if nothing else, from the console.

Stop trying to excuse this shit. There's no good reason for a tablet interface on a server OS.
 
Ihaveworms said:
Checkout the desktop:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/Windows_8_server_start_screen.png[/IMG]

I think the IT people here are going to rage.
Click to expand...

what's there to hate about it? links to all the things you'd need to use plus a tile that goes directly to the desktop (not to mention the windows key takes you there too).

You people are ridiculous.

And like someone else said, the PRO pros are gonna be using PowerShell or Server Core or something.
 
Sycraft said:
There's no good reason for a tablet interface on a server OS.
Click to expand...

Unless you happen to use a tablet as a server. :p

It looks like 2012's minimum system requirements mean I can install and run it on my netbook too! Yaay for an unnecessary OS on a client device!

On a serious note, I have nothing against walking to a physical server to acess the system through a rack-mounted KVM switch. Of course, if you're virtualized, Hyper-V and VMware make that mostly a pointless venture.

PowerShell and Remote Desktop, I don't think, are the totality of administration. They're both excellent tools which complement other means of server control including standing next to the machine itself to shriek at it in person. :) They know I mean business when I insult their mothers and I'm standing right there. It just doesn't seem to have as much impact when there's more physical distance between me and the machine in question.
 
Sycraft said:
Guess what you get on remote desktop? That's right, the start screen. There's no start menu, so you have to go to the lower left corner of your session, which isn't the easiest thing in the world when you are running it in a window, and open up the start screen. Since I guess we are all supposed to run servers on tablets or something.

Plus there's the minor concept of "installing" the server. Turns out they don't shit fully configured, you need to configure their IP, if nothing else, from the console.

Stop trying to excuse this shit. There's no good reason for a tablet interface on a server OS.
Click to expand...

Server 2012 has a group policy option to disable Start Screen - at least it did when I played with the release candidate. Here's the instructions:

http://4sysops.com/archives/windows-8-metro-disable-in-windows-server-2012/

Scroll down to "Disable Metro UI by using Group Policy (theoretically)"
 
I see a lot of people posting opinions about how things are or should be done in IT, but at the same time, they say things that make me think they don't personally have any experience in IT outside this forum or a lab in their basement.
 
Monkey God said:
I see a lot of people posting opinions about how things are or should be done in IT, but at the same time, they say things that make me think they don't personally have any experience in IT outside this forum or a lab in their basement.
Click to expand...

Plenty of experiences here, I assure you. I have 7 servers colocated at datacenters and 5 servers here in my office all running 2003 R2 and 2008 R2. I've worked here a little over 7 years and I can count the days on my fingers how often I've had to go to the servers physically. I do all of my server maintenance from my workstation at my desk.

I know my experience is purely anecdotal and that everyone runs their IT department differently, but from where I'm sitting, I see no need to touch servers physically unless you're working for a datacenter.
 
Why did you think I was talking about you? I never said anything about touching servers physically.
 
IT guy here, run over 250 servers (me and one other guy).

A. You'll still get the metro gui over RDP (unless you disable it apparently, albeit I read that it couldn't be disabled, but I could be wrong there, hopefully I am).
B. Plenty of reasons to do a console login to a server (this can be done remotely too). If you think you can't do this, you've apparently never heard of iDRAC or VMware vSphere... Both have out-of-band management consoles to present the "desktop GUI" remotely.
C. Personally, and this is my opinion, I'm staying on Server 2008/R2 for most purposes unless given a compelling reason to upgrade, or Microsoft allows us to revert the UI. We've discussing moving our file servers to Server 2012 once they hit SP1 because of WinFS/ReFS, albeit our migration is going to be slow. Server 2008/R2 are getting to the point of being stable and their ASLR capabilities give them reasonable security (especially when you couple then with Palo Alto firewalls, and revoke their internet access). This is just my environment though, some other IT guys might see some additional capabilities they want, but there's really not any compelling reason for me to upgrade short of seeing the EOL date for Server 2008/R2 support.
 
colinstu said:
And like someone else said, the PRO pros are gonna be using PowerShell or Server Core or something.
Click to expand...

Server Core just doesn't fill all of the roles that another version can. It's got a lot of limits that make it unappealing in quite a few situations. There's a list of stuff it can do (the 2008 version) here:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd184075.aspx

That's not to say it's worthless because there are many cases when Server Core makes more sense than a full Server install, but there are situations in which it just doesn't suit certain needs and you can see that from the checkbox list under the heading "Supported Server Roles" in the article.
 
All this talk of physical touching is making my trousers swell up.

Glad to see a new Server OS.

Was saddened by the fact METRO was even there.

Still installing eventually, even though mine only does file server and VM duties.
 
The new hot corners feature is a pain when your RDP'd in or have it up in a VM guest window, other then that, it'll just take some getting used to.
 
Honestly, on a server, the UI is probably at the most unintrusive place possible. Once the server is up and doing its thing, how often do most people really see the UI? I much prefer not messing with them unless it's super-duper necessary.
 
Its very unintrusive, until you're at work until 2am trying to get something fixed and having to deal with that UI, then end up clicking the wrong button because the metro menu is so hard to launch and end up causing the server to reboot, or worse...

Recompute base encryption hash key (props if you get this)
 
thewebsiteisdown.com

In one of the videos they deal with the single sign-on app (its the "Sales Demolition" video I think its called), and this one little button that's placed in a VERY inconvenient place renders an entire enterprise completely unable to operate.
 
ND40oz said:
The new hot corners feature is a pain when your RDP'd in or have it up in a VM guest window, other then that, it'll just take some getting used to.
Click to expand...

Really don't like the hot corners on the desktop, especially when trying to work remotely.

Looks like I'll be staying with 2008R2 for a while, besides I still have 2003 servers I'll be running for a few more years (due to old software) :)
 
Ihaveworms said:
Checkout the desktop:
Windows_8_server_start_screen.png


I think the IT people here are going to rage.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I'm torn.

Standard does not do client backup.

Essentials requires a domain.

I don't know what the hell foundation has. I can't find any documentation anywhere on it.

So.... I'm not quite sure what I'm going to do yet for my home network. I want to retire WHS 2011, but the choices all have caveats. Essentials would be perfect except they put that !#!@#$ Domain requirement in there.
 
Let me guess. Former Novell Geek, right?

:)

Ur_Mom said:
Damn, you girls sound just like when we went from DOS shell to the Windows NT GUI. CLI for life, if you can't do CLI you don't deserve to be in IT... Get with the program, and move forward with technology. I've never seen so many people that didn't want to move forward and learn new things. That's usually what IT people are good at until they get old. Then, they just want things to stay the same and not move forward. If you can't adapt and learn a simple new UI, then you're just not cut out for IT. Even something as simple as that interface. Sure, it's very simple, but WTF!? I'm sure tons of people will work with it just fine and not have any problems.

I'm glad it's finally out so I can update my "aging" Windows Server 2008R2 install at home.
Click to expand...
 
TechLarry said:
Yeah, but I'm torn.

Standard does not do client backup.

Essentials requires a domain.

I don't know what the hell foundation has. I can't find any documentation anywhere on it.

So.... I'm not quite sure what I'm going to do yet for my home network. I want to retire WHS 2011, but the choices all have caveats. Essentials would be perfect except they put that !#!@#$ Domain requirement in there.
Click to expand...

Have you looked at Windows SBS (Small Business Server)? Relatively inexpensive and it bills itself to build a lot of things, like AD, Exchange, and TMG, all into one box.
 
Oh boy, here we go with the if you're not using the CLI/Anything other than the GUI you're doing it wrong argument. I script and use the CLI for most things. There are applications that I can't script or manage reliably via the command line so the GUI wins in those cases. I find it hard to preach CLI or the highway to folks because I'm finding that a lot of so called admins aren't really up to speed or even think logically enough to automate their processes. Forget about error handling.

In any event, I'm cautiously looking forward to Windows 2012. I have to setup some test servers AGAIN and get back to playing with the new features. The Start screen won't be keeping me from using Windows 2012.
 
CLI versus GUI is an old and tired argument. Use whatever works for your particular environment. I just wish MS would spend more time on functionality under the hood, rather than painting the car a different color and moving all the vehicles controls around every new model year because they feel like it.
 
TechLarry said:
Let me guess. Former Novell Geek, right?

:)
Click to expand...

Guilty. From Netware Lite to full Netware.

But, the UI is there for a while. After it's set up, rarely do I need to log into the machine itself. I can do a lot of stuff remotely with client side tools. If I need to log in remotely, that Desktop icon is right there in plain sight. I had to plug a monitor into my server once. Done after 15 minutes. If I have to log into a server, it's for a good reason, and a rare reason.

And, I see a lot of people skipping Win8 or Server 2012 because of the UI. They mention nothing about the other features. If an upgrade isn't worth it because you wouldn't benefit from any of the new features, fine. But, if they would help but the UI is the problem, I don't get it.
 
Monkey God said:
CLI versus GUI is an old and tired argument.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. But, I prefer Windows (all GUI) on desktop, but when I use a Mac or Linux, I'm mostly doing things on the CLI. I'm learning Powershell now, but was a damn good DOS guy back in the day. It's all about what you are comfortable with. But, a change in the UI shouldn't be that big of a deal like some are making it. People are just giving up and playing dead. If you don't adapt and evolve and build your skills in this industry, you'll be left behind. Sure, I have some problems with the new UI, but I'm learning it. It does get easier. But, to just say "screw it" as an admin, you're basically just calling it quits...
 
This is the server 2012 Desktop:
desktop.png


This is server manager, something we all ignored in the past, but is now pretty useful. It's available from the task bar by default, so you're just one click away from it. You can see it in the pictures; it's the first icon on the left (where the start menu used to be)
ServerManager.png



This is the tools menu in server manager. Almost everything you need is right there, and you never have to go to the start menu (which is what the original picture showed, not the desktop).

ServerManager_Tools.png


I don't like the changes, but I'm going to suck it up and use the OS because of the new features it's bringing. I've already got a 5 node (production) Hyper-V cluster running server 2012 and a handful of miscellaneous servers.
 
That UI looks like shit. It so damn inconsistent, in layout, clickable icon size and shape. Even the color choices have no discernible pattern. I look at those screens, and I cannot reliably tell what is clickable and actionable or not. How is that an improvement?
 
Monkey God said:
That UI looks like shit. It so damn inconsistent, in layout, clickable icon size and shape. Even the color choices have no discernible pattern. I look at those screens, and I cannot reliably tell what is clickable and actionable or not. How is that an improvement?
Click to expand...

I wonder if you can chose a color theme similar to SharePoint for more comfortable and custom administrative experiences.
 
It's no different than a clean layout on a web page -- you know what to click because you know what you're looking for. It's not netscape or mosaic days where every link needed to be underlined. We can figure it out, we're not beginners here...
 
Demon10000 said:
It's no different than a clean layout on a web page -- you know what to click because you know what you're looking for. It's not netscape or mosaic days where every link needed to be underlined. We can figure it out, we're not beginners here...
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing some screen captures for those of us who aren't running it yet.
 
Demon10000 said:
It's no different than a clean layout on a web page -- you know what to click because you know what you're looking for. It's not netscape or mosaic days where every link needed to be underlined. We can figure it out, we're not beginners here...
Click to expand...

From those screen shots, it looks like the drop down menu on the right (drop downs usually are actionable), and the 4 items in a groups are the left are actionable. (If one is highlighted, chances are, you can do something with this). I can't tell if anything in the middle is or not, because it looks just like regular text. Of course, the grey circle might be clickable. The orange blocks might be clickable. I can't tell, because its not intuitive. You brought up websites so, ill make a comment about that. Very rarely do I go to a website and not know what to do. I don't have to figure shit out. Stuff that is actionable is obvious. INTUITIVE. That's what it means. That steaming turd shown here is not an example of that.
 
I'm not saying this to be mean or start a eArgument, but if you can't figure out how to click a hyperlink in an application by now, then it might be time to start a career change.

Using the screenshot above:
If I want to add roles and features to my server, I'm going to move my mouse near the words Add Roles and Features. I might aim for the circle, or I might aim for the words -- either way, as soon as I hover over one of them, the words underline, the circle changes color and I get feedback that I can click. It's far from rocket science.


I'm not a fan of the UI either, but it's not going to stop me from learning and using the product. Microsoft gives me the means to make a solid living. I will provide feedback to them that the use of the product in an RDP session isn't as good as Server 2008 R2, but ffs, it's not THAT difficult.
 
colinstu said:
what's there to hate about it? links to all the things you'd need to use plus a tile that goes directly to the desktop (not to mention the windows key takes you there too).

You people are ridiculous.

And like someone else said, the PRO pros are gonna be using PowerShell or Server Core or something.
Click to expand...

No their not. If anything they will be using the BASH shell in Linux.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top