Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Cloud Operating Systems Windows IT

Microsoft Releases Windows Server 2012 249

Posted by Soulskill
from the apocalypse-edition dept.
Barence writes "Microsoft has released Windows Server 2012, letting businesses test it for 90 days on the Azure cloud platform for free. There are two versions of the main edition of Windows Server 2012: one with virtualization support and one without. The former, the Data Center version, costs $4,809, while the Standard edition will cost $882. There's also an Essentials version, which replaces Small Business Server, for $501 per server, and Windows Server 2012 Foundation, which will only be available pre-installed on hardware." Ars has a detailed look at the new edition.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Releases Windows Server 2012

Comments Filter:
  • WHAT!? (Score:2, Informative)

    by X0563511 (793323)

    $4k to enable visualization support (that the code already is there for?)

    Yet MS wonders why they have such a comparatively tiny market share of the server market...

    • Re:WHAT!? (Score:5, Funny)

      by X0563511 (793323) on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @04:23PM (#41227801) Homepage Journal

      Dammit, VIRTUALIZATION.

      When the hell is Mozilla going to put that in the default en_US dictionary already?

      • by hairyfeet (841228)

        Thank the FSM that I don't do corporate anymore but frankly that doesn't surprise me one little bit. If there is one sentence that would describe MSFT as a company under Ballmer its "doesn't get it".

        I mean here they are, already behind the ball when it comes to server deployments (last numbers I saw had MSFT doing well with SMBs but large corporate deployments are down with Linux growing) and dealing with a more well known and popular product with VMWare so what do they do? Play a game of "let's gouge" and

        • Lots of this "depends". Microsoft has lots of SQL Server going, and owns the Exchange turf. There are lots of MS "business partners", developers, and so forth. They've come along way. No, there is no UI formerly known as Metro. They've updated lots of stuff, including Hyper-V. Is VMware an equal? VMware has egalitarian support for OS versions; MS is kinda sort trying to do better about that, but most organizations walk around Microsoft, rather than trying to make it play with other stuff.

          You can script the

          • Every so-called "partner" of MS walks around with their fingers crossed that they don't get big enough to be noticed by MS. Because once you get noticed, you are more likely to be wiped out by a vaporware announcement by MS than you are to even be bought out by them...

      • Dammit, VIRTUALIZATION.

        When the hell is Mozilla going to put that in the default en_US dictionary already?

        I dunno (that word "dunno" is in the dictionary), having to add words to the dictionary is a double edged sword: On the one hand, I have to resort to a google search with define: [word] [google.com] to check the spelling before adding a word. On the other hand it artificially inflates my vocabulary ego.

        You can tell a lot about a person from their personal dictionary (in your profile directory as persdict.dat). Here's a random sampling from mine:

        offline, Ouya, uncorrectably, favorable, strategize, captcha, aggregator, greebles, overridable, Zaphod, fairytales, reimplementations, unpublishing, vortices, public's, transducing, Occam, something's, Youtube, Higgs, loathesome, Transducing, melee, QoS, deduplication, everything's, malware, Centauri, programmatically, automata, reductio, unpatched, apps, Davlik, chronologic, emissive, phishing, Online, contacter, interoperate, patentability, unaffordability, Kinect, discoverability, transdimensional, Orbiter, comedically, indie, stateful, Assange, Ubuntu's, infringers, Compize, templating, aggregators, modders, unsubscribe, C'thulhu, virtualization, cyber, hacktivist, Endorphins, Eldritch, Terabyte, transduced, versioning, exaflop, Hitchhiker's, programming's, Transcoding, burrito, melatonin, Occam's, draggable, rebranding, Caffeinated, Comcast, platformer, miscommunications, destructors, immersive, begets, Modders, caffeinated, dirigible's, explodability, terraforming, Desynchronisation, noninfringing, netizens, all-nighter, microtransaction, transduce, microtransactions, unaffordable, Encephelon, eldritch, Moore's, defacto, endorphin, serivce, Netflix, prococol, Slashdot, Schooler's, vertices, rebranded, dystopian, Theora, leapt, reimplement, signedness, droids, millennia, gameplay, virtualized, exascale, incentivized, duopolies, conflagrate, Beeblebrox, strategizing, Cyberneticists, hitchhiker's, Icarus, debacle, desynchronization, absurdum, Wikipedia, loosers, cyberneticist, machinima, shaders, endorphins, ISP, rebrand, searchable, offline, Virgon, Vertices, Wasabi, Collider, Zombified, voxel, vortices, vertices, renderable, teleport, voxels, creational, Centauri, octupled, programmatically, Modder, admin, immediately, Schrödinger, dreamt, everything's, spelunking, mancubus, modding, Mobius, griefers, modders, Octree's, scriptable, Wolfensein's, Automasanti, versioning, thermite, teleporter, minification, platformer, sexualize, Tourette's, infringers, Automata, theremins, unobtainium, Encephelon, deconstruct, Reznor, modder, Machinima, Renderable, verifiably, online, octree, Torvalds, Octrees, teleportation, programatically, Virtualized, platformers, antumbra, Szechuan, gameplay, antihydrogen, Rijndael, tessellator, Nonillion, teleporters, plugins, tetromino, Cyberneticist

    • Re:WHAT!? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @04:24PM (#41227811)

      $4k to enable visualization support (that the code already is there for?)

      Yet MS wonders why they have such a comparatively tiny market share of the server market...

      It also allows for unlimtied virtualised Windows 2k12 installs under that one license...

      • by X0563511 (793323)

        OK, that makes more sense then. My mistake...

        • Re:WHAT!? (Score:4, Informative)

          by LordLimecat (1103839) on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @07:46PM (#41229859)

          Its also not new. 2008 had this licensing clause. They also allow you to use a single Enterprise license ($2k) to cover up to 4 instances, though unless you really need the enterprise features it doesnt save you any money over the $500 license (though I believe it comes with more CALs).

      • by sjames (1099)

        My Debian workstation with KVM allows unlimited virtualized Linux installs (any flavor) and cost nothing. I am free to run other OS under it as well, but have to license those separately. I was not forced to agree to be audited by the BSA commandos.

        It would be a good idea for MS to offer something between all or nothing, such as a lesser cost for virtualization support without the included Windows licensing if (for example) you want to run Linux instances.

    • Isn't that true of pretty much every software with multiple versions? The code already exists. However, I would hope the virtualization support isn't actually installed unless it's needed.

      • Virtualization (Hyper-V) is a role which is not installed by default. Has been that way with all Windows versions with Hyper-V .
    • Re:WHAT!? (Score:5, Informative)

      by alphatel (1450715) * on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @04:37PM (#41227999)
      Each copy of Windows Standard includes TWO virtual instances for $800. Under the old agreement it was 1 License = 1 Copy.
      Each copy of Datacenter includes UNLIMITED copies of Windows for $4800.
      Or buy Essentials with NO virtualization for $500 (you can still run it on a virtual machine, but only ONE copy)
      • If you buy Standard and wish to run it under another hyper-visor, such as KVM or ESXi, are you entitled to run three instances, two, or one?
        • The license granted to allow you to run Hyper-V is a fake license-- you cant re-use it if you use a different hypervisor. It can ONLY be used for a host that ONLY does Hyper-V, and nothing else.

        • by Pinhedd (1661735)
          Depends on what you bought. Standard editions of Server 2008 and Server 2008 R2 granted two licences. One which could only be used as a Hyper-V host (for any number of licensed VMs) and one which could be used as a virtual guest on that same host. Enterprise editions allowed for one host and 4 guests on the same hardware, datacenter and Itanium allowed for unlimited on the same hardware. Web does not include Hyper-V and as such does not grant this licence. It seems that they've done away with the Enterpris
    • Re:WHAT!? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by bloodhawk (813939) on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @06:10PM (#41229061)

      Yet MS wonders why they have such a comparatively tiny market share of the server market...

      You're kidding right??? Their server market share would have to be at or close to an all time high with a majority share.

    • Re:WHAT!? (Score:5, Informative)

      by CrashNBrn (1143981) on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @07:21PM (#41229657)
      Server Market Share, based on hardware sales [wikipedia.org] (excluding software licensing)
      2012 Q1: Windows: 50.2%, Unix +Linux: 38.9% --- IDC
    • Re:WHAT!? Indeed... (Score:5, Informative)

      by LordLimecat (1103839) on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @07:44PM (#41229837)

      Yet MS wonders why they have such a comparatively tiny market share of the server market...

      According to this arstechnica article [arstechnica.com] (2011), Microsoft had a 25% webserver market share (IIS) as of 2010, and 15% as of 2011. For standard servers, they accounted for 71% of all quarterly server shipments (original source [idc.com], IDC). According to a survey in 2010 [securityspace.com] (the only one I could find on smtp market share, and was linked in Wikipedia), Exchange is the third most popular SMTP server (17%-- behind exim @ 34% and postfix @ 21%, and just ahead of sendmail).

      You can call that many things, but "comparitively tiny" it isnt. Microsoft server is remarkably popular in SMB situations, and even in larger companies, and trying to write it off as irrelevant or whatever your angle was is silly.

      Also silly is the comment about "code already there"-- EVERYONE does this, from RedHat to VMWare to Adobe any other company that sells multiple tiers of its software product.

      • That ars technical article makes the same mistake so many others do. It confuses hostnames with servers. It assumes a 1:1 ratio of servers to host names, and that is nowhere near the case. It also confuses "apache" and "iis" with windows and non-windows. There are lots of apache servers running on Windows out there (mostly because they have apps that require a java application server like tomcat and apache is typically used on the front end of tomcat, although IIS can be used as well).

        The fact is, Windo

        • Seems to me the issue you mentioned would skew it in favor of apache (it would over-estimate the number of apache installs), but honestly I disagree-- I think its reasonable to look at "number of webdomain instances" rather than fussing about the number of underlying OSes, which have become largely irrelevant in these days of "virtualize everything".

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      $4k to enable visualization support (that the code already is there for?)

      Yet MS wonders why they have such a comparatively tiny market share of the server market...

      This is incorrect the virtualization is free. (Hyper-V server anyone?)
      4k is for unlimited license on that server.
      If you run only 2 cores and less than 10 virtual servers, you will save money by licensing the standard version.

    • by oztiks (921504)

      Provided it offers the same scope of features as VMWare it could in some ways be much cheaper.

  • by Atti K. (1169503) on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @04:24PM (#41227805)
    ... it will need Metro-style management tools!
    • You might be joking, but ive tried the RC. Some manager must have thought the same thing you did, and thought it was a wonderful idea.

      My analysis of Server 2012: Some new features that are mildly interesting, and the worlds most infuriating and confusing UI ever conceived.

  • by bmo (77928)

    > The former, the Data Center version, costs $4,809, while the Standard edition will cost $882.

    Virtualization and incresed processor count is worth nearly $4,000?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M [youtube.com]

    --
    BMO

    • Re:Bender. (Score:4, Informative)

      by FaxeTheCat (1394763) on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @04:29PM (#41227901)
      That is up to you.
      There is no increased CPU count. Both Standard and Datacenter support 2 CPUs per license.
      With Datacenter you get unlimited (Windows) VMs, so if you run more than 10 Windows VMs on a (2 CPU) box, it is cheaper.
      For less dense virtualization, use Standard licenses, as each give right to two VMs.
      • by zlives (2009072)

        License is also CPU (socket) based not core.
        so technically you can have 2x10 core (40 threads) to run lets say 5-40 vm's with the 4k license.
        no functionality is disabled from standard to datacenter aside from VM licensing.

  • Incorrect abstract. (Score:5, Informative)

    by FaxeTheCat (1394763) on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @04:26PM (#41227845)
    The abstract is incorrect. Standard and Datacenter are now the same release with exactly the same functionality. The only difference is in the licensing. From the referenced article:

    Functionally, Standard and Datacenter are the same. Even things like clustering, which used to be the sole preserve of the higher-end Windows Server SKUs, are found in Standard. The only difference is the number of Windows Server virtual machines supported per license.

    So again: The only difference between the Standard and Datacenter is the licensing. Same software, two licenses.

    • by alphatel (1450715) *

      The abstract is incorrect. Standard and Datacenter are now the same release with exactly the same functionality. The only difference is in the licensing. From the referenced article:

      Functionally, Standard and Datacenter are the same. Even things like clustering, which used to be the sole preserve of the higher-end Windows Server SKUs, are found in Standard. The only difference is the number of Windows Server virtual machines supported per license.

      So again: The only difference between the Standard and Datacenter is the licensing. Same software, two licenses.

      Or more specifically, Standard = 2 copies of Windows per proc pair, Datacenter = Unlimited copies of Windows per physical server
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_2012#Editions [wikipedia.org]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @04:50PM (#41228187)

    1) You are unable to grow a neckbeard.
    2) You've had sex without having to pay for it.

  • by Crudely_Indecent (739699) on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @05:03PM (#41228313) Journal

    there will be a disaster in 2012

  • by Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) on Tuesday September 04, 2012 @05:20PM (#41228503)
    It's probably time to seriously consider moving from 2003 to 2007.
    • It's probably time to seriously consider moving from 2003 to 2007.

      Why not be a little more bold and go to like 2009? So then you are only 3 years behind...

    • by jader3rd (2222716)

      It's probably time to seriously consider moving from 2003 to 2007.

      There is no Windows Server 2007.

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...