Anyone else see the similarity - Sylar kills people and steals their powers........... Oh wait - my bad - Microsoft are more like Bob - They can turn any c**p into gold...........

For the love of an omnipotent entity ( should one exist ) ..... No

So we'll all have migrated Linux in 5 years time then, due to lack of options and a real world effort to reduce carbon emissions.

Twice as many servers to do the same thing we did on yesterday's operating systems with a single brick of Iron, using twice as much power, costing twice as much to support. But hey, you get 'virtualisation' ( ooohhh )

This is making an unqualified assumption that 2008 will be pants, just like its desktop variant(s).

If I were M$, I'd solve the Vista ecosystem first and ensure take-up, then release Server 2008 ( basic, home, home premium, business, business premium, business premium extra, enterprise basic, enterprise standard, enterprise business, enterprise premium, Ultimate Server ) to avoid any 'sh1t by association' issues with IT managers reluctant to use the new OS's bells and whistles based on historic Vista performance evaluations.

I'm starting to sound like AManFromMars now, damn ! !

I thought we all ready are... I migrated 4 years ago - best decision i ever made...

Wow - slow day at Microsoft HQ?

2003 is stable and works well, the only problems I have had has been when running it on under powered machines, I havent looked at 2008 since beta 1, dunno what its on now but I liked the look of it.

Vista does suck balls and am hoping that it will be the wakeup call that M$ need to realise they cant just give the consumer the sh!t that they tried to foist on us, but in truth I have never really had a lot of problems with windows server platforms at all.

QUOTE :

"Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 originally began as part of a single development project, and as such they share a number of new technologies across networking, storage, security and management."

If Server 2008 is anything like Vista, then either none of our clients will ever upgrade again, or simply move over to Linux.

Vista is the biggest pile of crap I seen, I know many said XP were like this when first out, or ME or 98, but nowhere near.

"year 4: Next Gen Workstation : R2 Server Release"

Year 6: genuinely out of beta - just in time for it's "end-of-life" statement and another hardware-upgrade-cycle milking.

I really don't get it. When I want a server, I want to serve data strangely enough. My Linux & FreeBSD boxes don't have X Windows on them. Everything is done on via a terminal & SSH.

The features of Vista appear to be Eye candy & UAC. Eye candy on a server is pointless, and as not too many people tend to log onto the machine you don't really need a dialog popping up saying "Are you really sure you want to stop that service? It may do something bad".

I also use Windows Server 2003, and it's not too bad, though I do curse it a hell of a more than it's Open Source alternatives. I mean, who ships a server with a scheduling service that doesn't have a mechanism to tell you when a job fails. If I have to log on just to check if a job has run I may not as well schedule the job (ok, they do tend to be run during the witching hour).

Basically, if Server 2008 is as hungry as Vista it'll be useless. The OS is there to allow applications to run, not to take away valuable CPU cycles & Memory.

@ John Bayly, I agree with you there, Windows has, and always will have, bloat beyond reason, including the server versions.

However.............

In 2008, we will see a cut down, high performance, stripped server OS that will only be accessed by a command line. This will mainly run file and print servers etc, and all other goodies that don't need a GUI.

However, we can't run server core as a web server, as IIS depends on .NET and ASP, which when I attended the fascist propaganda that was a M$ Technet event, Server Core does not support .NET (but its expected to be added before full release).

Anyone else think that M$ are now moving back the way in their server systems, or are they just realising that a command line server is really a good thing???

M

Another turkey

Somehow I suspect it'll take until SP8 for it to get rid of the Shanti virus. And immediately after the server will probably explode in one big arc of lightning, kill everyone in a 50m radius, or travel back in time to 'save' the world from linux.

Anyway, the association scares the petrelli out of me

Thanks for correcting me about that CLI. It does sound like MS have finally realised what a server is supposed to do, and is quite possibly a positive sign.

Agree with you Paul.

Why do we have to change our OS every 4 years or so. It makes no sense, we have stable platforms now. Businesses are running fairly smoothly on XP/2003 even 2000 platfoms so why, why do Microsoft have to throw a spanner in the works EVERY 4 years or so.

It's not like the hardware now is vastly different than 4 years ago. Surely it makes more sense to build on the strengths and eliminate the weaknesses of the current platform without having to rip it out and start from scratch dealing gods only knoiws how many faults, bugs, "features" and vulnerabilities.

If it's a money issue, then surely the Suits can work something out, or is that too much like hard work for their shiny arses?

Lastly, why aren't 64bit OS and apps mainstream yet? Someone seriously dropped the ball on that one.

K, so like there is no Avatar picture for either Hexley or for the BSD Daemon that makes me sad.

Note, I probably will never read this thread again. So all you antagonists that don't like my opinion, this is the internet.. it's free, click your close button, don't waste your time replying to me when I won't ever read it.

I do not write code, I am not a SysAdmin/Op, "I'm just this guy I know!"

On to the subject at hand...

Command Line for a File & Print Server is enough, even for most web servers and chat servers it's perfectly fine. Microsoft already screwed up their chances on POSIX compliance many times over esp with cygwin. I've been using computers since the age of the Commodore 64 and Coherent UNIX i386. I do agree the 64-bit ball was dropped and it was dropped hard. Most of it is the OS's fault 64-bit XP could have been marketed more heavily. I do agree with you folks regarding the differences between Microsoft workstation and server products. I remember when NT 4.0 Server was new, it was so much nicer than NT 4.0 Workstation and those products came out almost at the same time. Then again the majority of clients for NT 4.0 Server's first half of life was Win95 & 98 with most business users just using NT workstation because it was much more stable. That trend continued with 2k and XP/2k3. Yes some people run the Server product as their workstation and re-do the priorities on the Services. really doesn't matter. I think Microsoft could have done a better job of Vista for Business in this regards to make it more Workstation and less "consumer" or "pro-sumer" Could you imagine people paying an extra $200 just to not have Aero 3D and all the other crap? it'd be a boon to marketing "Ultimate" stature Business products, but it wouldn't make the AOL, MSNBC and other "partner" folks happy. Someone answer me this. Microsoft used to have some good products like Xenix (it was ok for what it as) and Word for DOS. How long is it going to take them to figure out it's time for something other than Windows to be their primary Operating System or product? They're a software company not an Operating System company. How long is it going to take them to figure out that Office needs to be trashed and start over from scratch with something new and more streamlined and creative?

Yeah I know I'm a Mac user but I've been using all kinds of computers and platforms and interfaces long enough to know when a horse is dead. Windows Server has never been a extremely successful or exciting product. I'm tired of software that has a bajillion features that a consumer or server admin might not use. How about a more streamlined set of product families with maybe game-like "expansion packs" that add features you need? Then people that don't need them buy more of your products because your more service-able to the (L)user or Admin.

Thanks for reading.

I find this thread quite interesting. I have been using Server 2003 for 4 years now as all my main desktop OS, because it doesn't have the bloat of XP, and it doesn't have the Fisher-Price GUI, either. Or at least I can turn it off.

It's easily the most bulletproof thing ever to come out of Redmond. One server box has gone more than 14 months without a reboot.

From what I've read here, I don't think there is any need whatsoever for Server 2008, other than that it's five years since the last release, so, gee, it must be time for a new one.

Releasing the Vista monster into the real world of servers would be a frightful wrongdoing. Anyway, the IT community is far too awake to let anything like that happen. Isn't it?