2012 Essentials rant

T

twwabw

Gawd
Joined
Apr 21, 2001
Messages
716
Wow- what a mess this is. You know, the Win8 love/hate thing- desktop OS vs. Tablet... I get it. Trying to make things easier for Joe Average user. No Problem. But this stupified, dumbed-down interface on Essentials is a joke. They have emasculated Small Business Server. I've been deploying SBS since the old 4.5 days. It evolved into what a lot of us feel was the best- 2011. Great product, served a HUGE need, and by 2011 they really fixed most everything that was ever wrong with it.

So of course, MS has to f**k it up. First, by removing Exchange, then by applying this moronic Win8 interface... to a server! It's truly pathetic. It has been sad to watch MS abandon the small business community- both its customers and the people like us who support it. This one is the worst yet.
 
They arn't abandoning them per say, just making the poor decision of trying to force everyone to hosted exchange and office 365.

SBS2011 was a good product and had its place in deployments, I tried to stay away from it though, I honestly don't like small companies having Exchange servers in their office.
 
Yeah it sure is sad, the cloud is not the answer for small businesses, not yet anyway. SBS 2011 is great and Exchange is so problem free, I've got probably half a dozen deployments out there, not a single problem with Exchange, it just runs.
 
Having Microsoft host your Exchange and integration of cloud backup into the newer server is good for small businesses. It just cost a pretty penny.
 
Microsoft Greed. Essentials sucks donkey dicks. SBS 2011 was great. Forcing people to go the cloud is Back firing. Selling O365 you just can't make any money. Given the choice most pople say fucking we will buy exchange or an alternative like Zimbra. Microsoft has lost touch completely they are in lala lan.
 
Wrench00 said:
Microsoft Greed. Essentials sucks donkey dicks. SBS 2011 was great. Forcing people to go the cloud is Back firing. Selling O365 you just can't make any money. Given the choice most pople say fucking we will buy exchange or an alternative like Zimbra. Microsoft has lost touch completely they are in lala lan.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I migrated a couple small offices to 365- and yes, it blows. Juvenile interface, little to no control over spam. No whitelisting (except IP, which is next to worthless). I even have one client (on 365) that has a vendor that just migrated a few months ago to 365 Ent, that cannot receive emails from them. And their support, as suspected is India based, impossible to understand, takes forever to answer your calls, and hasn't a clue. It is a farse.

Yes- SBS 2011 is great. Have a couple dozen sites with it. Literally trouble free, and Exchange 2010 is great. The benefit of the cloud is for the provider's revenue stream.
 
twwabw said:
And their support, as suspected is India based, impossible to understand, takes forever to answer your calls, and hasn't a clue.
Click to expand...

This would be enough to turn me off. I don't mind India rep's, and face to face they are easy to work with and understand, but on the phone - no. Even when dealing with those that I've met and worked with face to face, once you get on the phone, things change. Difficult to understand or explain things. There is a communication barrier. You can explain something and they understand it one way, whereas we understand it a different way. Just the meaning of certain things can be different between the two.

I use Server 2012 (Standard, not Essentials) and dislike the Metro interface on the server. It has no place there. I used to use SBS, but Essentials wasn't fitting the bill. So, I upgraded....
 
Ur_Mom said:
I use Server 2012 (Standard, not Essentials) and dislike the Metro interface on the server. It has no place there. .
Click to expand...

Yeah- it's pretty ridiculous. I cure it quickly with ClassicShell, but yes- metro has no place there. Ever. Make your points for the desktop if you want, but what does it bring to a party on a server?
 
I agree that Metro should not be in the server environment, but with a single GUI and the rest Core installs, who gives a shit. I spend most of my time in a shell or in the management console anyway.
 
If you install the GUI on the server it's because it's a Terminal Server and you're serving the desktop to regular users. If you are serving a Windows 2012 desktop to users, it should be the same as the Windows 8 desktop. Makes much more sense to have Modern on Server 2012 than it does to present all remote users a gimped experience that won't run their Windows Store apps.
 
MS is just laying the groundwork for ARM based tablet small business servers. Makes a lot more sense if you look at it that way. :D
 
They are trying to cut out the huge community of resellers and service providers, and hope that people sign up for cloud services which makes MS more money.

You just need to read the blog posts over the last year, there have been vocal complaints and outrage, and they don't listen.
 
I really prefer the new mmc, and I never see metro on a server, since I log into the desktop and everything is already in the mmc...
 
pxc said:
MS is just laying the groundwork for ARM based tablet small business servers. Makes a lot more sense if you look at it that way. :D
Click to expand...

lol. Non-touch servers are a declining market. :p
 
I still don't get all the bitching about the Start Screen (stop calling it metro) on windows server. There are no live tiles/store apps, and it defaults to the desktop. It is literally JUST a start screen instead of a menu. You shouldn't be using the start screen/menu for anything but searching for uncommonly used apps. Anything you use a lot should be pinned on the taskbar. Search works on the start screen just like it does on the start menu.

So someone please explain how the start screen negatively affects your work/slows you down, because I'm calling bullshit. Until I hear a reasonable explanation, it's just more crying because it's different than what you are used to.

Also, if you are using the start menu and rolling down through the nested menus to get to the app you are looking for instead of searching, your whining is completely irrelevant.
 
Biznatch said:
I still don't get all the bitching about the Start Screen (stop calling it metro) on windows server. There are no live tiles/store apps, and it defaults to the desktop. It is literally JUST a start screen instead of a menu. You shouldn't be using the start screen/menu for anything but searching for uncommonly used apps. Anything you use a lot should be pinned on the taskbar. Search works on the start screen just like it does on the start menu.

So someone please explain how the start screen negatively affects your work/slows you down, because I'm calling bullshit. Until I hear a reasonable explanation, it's just more crying because it's different than what you are used to.

Also, if you are using the start menu and rolling down through the nested menus to get to the app you are looking for instead of searching, your whining is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...
You are trolling. I am sick of people like you derailing stuff.
 
Any experiences as a server? I'm planning to upgrade my home server to WSE 2012 R2. Does the client backup work reliably? How about the remote desktop feature - that could be very useful.
 
MrCrispy said:
Any experiences as a server? I'm planning to upgrade my home server to WSE 2012 R2. Does the client backup work reliably? How about the remote desktop feature - that could be very useful.
Click to expand...

If you mean Remote Web Workplace, that has always been a great SBS feature. Only kicker is now you HAVE to get a 3rd party cert- no more self-signed. Not necessarily a bad thing- but another step and something to prepare for.
 
bigdogchris said:
Having Microsoft host your Exchange and integration of cloud backup into the newer server is good for small businesses. It just cost a pretty penny.
Click to expand...

Stuff that costs a pretty penny isn't good for small business. They don't want to pay monthly fees running into the hundreds for cloud services and then have to depend on India for support. Having things local with a relatively automated backup that can be taken offsite is much preferable.
 
0365 is expensive. I have lots of small business that have exchange setups that are just not that easy to configure with 0365 and are just to damn expensive. I calculated the costs of an average life span of a SBS network being 8 years with 25+ users the average costs of 0365 are 70% higher then the initial project with in 4 years. All to save what? cost of hardware and maintenance? (Hardware is cheap, Most larger organizations already have

Any Admin or MSP worth their salt has backups that are automated, and fairly straight forward.

Office 365 sucks nuts if
1. You have bad internet connectivity
2. Have complicated integration of programs. Such as Sharepoint or CRM of sorts.
3. Have Government funding.
4. Don't trust Microsoft.
5. Don't want to deal with MS tech support that's based in India/Offshore. (I am a silver partner I refuse to even talk to them half the time because I can't understand them)

Essentials is a disaster, I know a lot of SMBs and belong to a large IT circle and Not a single one of them said they like essentials nor deployed it.
Only users of 0365 that I have come across is Education, and that's because its free (for a while) The TCO of O365 is not any less then being on premise. In fact it is way more if you compare it to SPLA.
 
MrCrispy said:
They are trying to cut out the huge community of resellers and service providers, and hope that people sign up for cloud services which makes MS more money.

You just need to read the blog posts over the last year, there have been vocal complaints and outrage, and they don't listen.
Click to expand...

Its Microsoft arrogance, the more they push the more people will push back. Its a matter of time before some one starts really dumping into Open Source alternatives.

O365 is bullshit because you can't make money from it.

My biggest complaint I got from the customers that have o365 is the constant changes in UI.
I can''t stand 2013 look myself, its beyond fugly most of my clients agreed. They wanted to stick with 2010. But no that's not happening and MS selection of Themes just sucks donkey dicks.
 
Why all the hate? MS knows what is good for you and what you want! :rolleyes:

I agree on the metro and corner popup thing should not be on server, other then that 2012 has really nice features.
 
Almost every install I have come across with SBS should not have been running email. Not enough redundancy, improper backups, no cleanup jobs, lack of common practice things in larger environments to keep a critical system (email) up and running.

Frankly I think this was a good decision, at least it will prevent a lot of the crappy IT consultants out there from setting up kludgy email setup for people that have no idea how on the edge of loosing everything vital to their business they are.

Just because consultants cant charge the crap out of someone to setup O365 is not a good reason to say it is not a decent product. They have also really only had 1 major change in UI in the last 4years, the switch to 2013 which has been across all MS products.

I am not standing up for MS, but standing up for the shit installs I have had to cleanup so many times for customers. If you did it right, great, but I can tell you that you were the rare exception. Personally I prefer to either go no-limited server or full blown.

Essentials is actually pretty damn slick how it integrates (federates) accounts with O365 and gives so much of the enterprise goodness in an easy to setup, relatively low cost package.
 
Wrench00 said:
Office 365 sucks nuts if
1. You have bad internet connectivity
2. Have complicated integration of programs. Such as Sharepoint or CRM of sorts.
3. Have Government funding.
4. Don't trust Microsoft.
5. Don't want to deal with MS tech support that's based in India/Offshore. (I am a silver partner I refuse to even talk to them half the time because I can't understand them)

Essentials is a disaster, I know a lot of SMBs and belong to a large IT circle and Not a single one of them said they like essentials nor deployed it.
Click to expand...


All of those reasons also apply to why you should never deploy SBS...

Your last line is also hilarious to me, I know a lot of SMBs as well and have a large IT network. Most of them would not touch SBS with a 20ft pole, let alone essentials.
 
Grentz said:
All of those reasons also apply to why you should never deploy SBS...

Your last line is also hilarious to me, I know a lot of SMBs as well and have a large IT network. Most of them would not touch SBS with a 20ft pole, let alone essentials.
Click to expand...

I have never had an issue with SBS 2011 or any sbs installs. I honestly only had issues once some fucking moron broke them.

SBS was a great product because it was an excellent PRICE. You honestly couldn't beat the features for the price you were paying.
Just look at licensing. 400 dollars for 5 users vs now 670 for 5.

Yes I would always like full versions of servers except that that's usually out of the budgetary question.
 
twwabw said:
then by applying this moronic Win8 interface...
Click to expand...

Anybody capable of doing anything of any sort of importance using Windows Server is capable of using the new interface just as well as the old interface, since nothing important is any different. If the interface is your complaint with the new Windows Server, then I can't take you seriously. Other complaints would be understandable, as there are some valid ones, but the UI is not. If the small difference in the UI creates a barrier for you, you have no business being an IT professional.
 
Dogs said:
Anybody capable of doing anything of any sort of importance using Windows Server is capable of using the new interface just as well as the old interface, since nothing important is any different. If the interface is your complaint with the new Windows Server, then I can't take you seriously. Other complaints would be understandable, as there are some valid ones, but the UI is not. If the small difference in the UI creates a barrier for you, you have no business being an IT professional.
Click to expand...

Assuming a lot there aren't you? Did I ever say it created a "barrier"? No. I said I didn't like it. Why WOULD I like a pseudo touchscreen interface on a server? It brings nothing to the party. Zero. Yes- I am capable of figuring it out. Just like I was capable of using NT; 2000; 2003; 2008; and now 2012. The fact remains it is a juvenile interface for a business purpose. I won't be losing sleep that you can't take me seriously.
 
twwabw said:
No. I said I didn't like it.
Click to expand...

...Even though it boils down to something nearly identical to Windows Server of olde once you realize that you don't ever really have to use the touch screen interface if you don't want to. Just go to the desktop interface and suddenly everything is exactly the same. Clearly it's nothing to throw a giant 'rant' over.
 
Dogs said:
...Even though it boils down to something nearly identical to Windows Server of olde once you realize that you don't ever really have to use the touch screen interface if you don't want to. Just go to the desktop interface and suddenly everything is exactly the same. Clearly it's nothing to throw a giant 'rant' over.
Click to expand...
Yes, even though. And, as has been pointed out millions of times, then rebuted by the fanboys, no- the desktop is NOT the same. It is a stripped desktop. Cascading menus are logical, compact, and sensible. The tiled interface of the Apps screen is scattered, unorganized, and a mess. If you like it- that's great. I don't. Many others don't. And I don't wish to spend time re-arranging it. Time is money.
 
twwabw said:
Yes, even though. And, as has been pointed out millions of times, then rebuted by the fanboys, no- the desktop is NOT the same. It is a stripped desktop. Cascading menus are logical, compact, and sensible. The tiled interface of the Apps screen is scattered, unorganized, and a mess. If you like it- that's great. I don't. Many others don't. And I don't wish to spend time re-arranging it. Time is money.
Click to expand...

The tiled interface is NOT part of the desktop interface. Please read my post before responding to it. Notice that I clearly specified desktop, not modern UI.
 
No sh*t Shrelock. I did read- did you? Multiple comments about multiple things. Seperate sentences. You can try to dissect my opinions anyway you wish, and be a martyr to the cause, but the fact remains it is not an efficient layout. And, no- the desktop is not the same as it has been in prior Windows releases. It is stripped without the start menu. Yes- I can clutter it with masses of icons and shortcuts, but I have no desire to do that on a server any more than I do on a PC.

And please refrain from any inferences of my competence as an IT professional. I have been doing it for many years.
 
twwabw said:
And, no- the desktop is not the same as it has been in prior Windows releases. It is stripped without the start menu. Yes- I can clutter it with masses of icons and shortcuts, but I have no desire to do that on a server any more than I do on a PC.
Click to expand...

The sole difference is the lack of the start menu, a useless tree of mousable shortcuts buried within menu nodes, which nobody uses because it's much slower than using the search functionality or other means of opening things. Regardless of which OS you're using, the efficient way of doing things is to utilize the expressiveness of the keyboard. You may be in the small minority who would rather waste time clicking through a start menu, but that is an old style of GUI and will remain in old operating systems only. Sometimes to move things forward, you have to leave legacy behind. Microsoft kept the desktop the same sans its one dated shortcoming, and if you're not concerned with the old world start menu, the desktop interface on both operating systems is the same.
 
Well, then we agree to disagree. In my experience out in the marketplace of SMB, amongst end users of all levels of experience and in all sorts of business scenarios, from engineering firms to architects to medical offices to general business sales offices, I have met one single person who said they liked the new interface. One. Without exception, the rest detest it. I do give you credit though for the best fanboy line I've heard yet... "the expressiveness of the keyboard".
 
The fact of the matter is the ONLY reason Server shares Metro UI/hot corners etc is to enforce consistency in the Win 8 family. Its not about 'this is not hard to figure out', its about 'why was this needed?', and the answer is because Win 8 on desktop has it, so server must too. This was all Sinofsky's insistence.
 
Wrench00 said:
Thats nice for you, its a home server not a business server 25+ users.
Click to expand...


Can you clarify what exactly you're looking for in responses? It might help you get the kind of thread you're clearly going for.

2012 Essentials worked fine running in a VMware environment managing 8-10 machines at any given time. It's not great but it's not that bad, the addins from WHS make it quite useful in small scale environments. Frankly most of the small businesses I see should probably be running thin clients to an AWS or Azure infrastructure anyway with how poorly they're setup.
 
twwabw said:
No sh*t Shrelock. I did read- did you? Multiple comments about multiple things. Seperate sentences. You can try to dissect my opinions anyway you wish, and be a martyr to the cause, but the fact remains it is not an efficient layout. And, no- the desktop is not the same as it has been in prior Windows releases. It is stripped without the start menu. Yes- I can clutter it with masses of icons and shortcuts, but I have no desire to do that on a server any more than I do on a PC.

And please refrain from any inferences of my competence as an IT professional. I have been doing it for many years.
Click to expand...


Sorry but there is nothing efficient about scrolling through nested menus to find the shortcut you are looking for. With some minor customization, the new UI can be much more efficient, regardless of how ugly you think it is. And like mouse said, nothing is more efficient than hitting windows key and starting to type. Works the same on 2012 as it does on 2008.
 
Biznatch said:
Sorry but there is nothing efficient about scrolling through nested menus to find the shortcut you are looking for. With some minor customization, the new UI can be much more efficient, regardless of how ugly you think it is. And like mouse said, nothing is more efficient than hitting windows key and starting to type. Works the same on 2012 as it does on 2008.
Click to expand...

100% truth.

The same people whined about the XP start menu.

The great thing about win8/srv2012 is that I can literally never leave the kybd. I love it. I barely use my mouse anymore when working.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top