Microsoft Releases Windows Server 2012

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.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

We run a heterogeneous shop split about 50/50 between Linux (Debian) and Windows (2003/2008). Windows excels at certain things, Active DIrectory, and running .net apps delivered to us by various contractors. Our Linux systems run mission critical services as well as file-servers, and virtualization via VMWare's ESXi products (horribly overpriced but it's the situation that I inherited). I poke fun at the Windows guys fairly often and I get joked at in return, but the reality is that we all realize that it's about the right tool for the job. I don't have a single metal Windows install at home and I don't feel at all left out of the commercial loop, but like everything in life your own mileage will vary.

Re:What exactly does it do?

[Nerdfest]

So basically, Windows is the right tool for things that only run on Windows ... otherwise, use Linux.

Re:frist

[MightyMartian]

For server functionality pure bullshit. I have a decade's experience running Windows and *nix servers, often in the same networks and while Windows has AD and GPOs to its benefit, in other respects it is horribly backwards and painful to use. Just backing up the system config in Windows is appallingly difficult compared to *nix.

Re:CALs?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct, and the two replies to you are lies. Datacenter gives you UNLIMITED guest OS CALs.

This site is pathetic. The amount of linux shilling that goes on here is sad.

Re:To match Windows 8...

[danomac]

What's wrong with option boxes?

As someone that uses both the shell and GUI config options, what's wrong with a choice? Sometimes configuring things through a GUI is faster. I'm all for that, especially if it can take less of my time.

For running scripted stuff, obviously the shell is better. Both are made for specific purposes.

Re:Finally tried real pay-for-it microsoft support

[LordLimecat]

Wait, every single other client works, IOS doesnt, and your analysis is "Must be Microsoft's fault"? And you asked MS support for IOS details, and then wondered why they gave you the cold shoulder?

Seems to me youre better off bringing apple support in on this, or focusing on the "what is IOS doing wacky" rather than "what is IIS doing wacky".

Re:frist

[MightyMartian]

The thing with *nix, or at least any version I've worked with, the functionality is already there. Configurations are almost always in human-readable text files, and I have a toolset that has been around in one form or another for decades to work with those files. I can easily make backups of daemon configurations, and indeed have been able to restore a server with the contents of /etc and the data files.

Re:frist

[LordLimecat]

Last time I looked at it was when Server 2008 was released. This isnt an issue of "didnt take the time to learn it"-- at that time, the official stance as given on the official Exchange team blog was "it was crippled it so that noone would make the mistake of using it for business". To reiterate-- this was the OFFICIAL exchange blog, ie microsoft employees.

Its entirely possible that in the time since they have corrected the issues I mentioned, or brought it back as something new-- but they definately DID cripple the built in backup on the release of 2008. Im not sure how possible it would be to find that article as it was a blog entry and it was 5 or so years ago, but Ill give it a shot and post it here if I do manage to find it.