- Getting into the Groove: mentioned on Microsoft blog site
- Getting into the Groove, Part 1: Outsource or in-house?
- Windows Vista: Another Windows ME? I hope so!
- Clarification Of My "Don't Blame Vista" Posting
- Don't blame Vista for "Vista (In)Capable" lawsuit
- Windows Live SkyDrive
- Microsoft PerformancePoint: BI or BS?
- Exchangepedia Blog Author calls "Save XP Campaign" Childish!
- You must move to Windows Server 2008
- 5 cool -- and helpful -- companies
February 27, 2008 | Comments: (0)
You must move to Windows Server 2008
The place: Continental Airlines secondary hub site in Newark, N.J.
Location: Something of a basement with wires coming down from the above check-in terminals.
The problem: Change.
On my left were a bunch of yellow, 386 systems with 5.5-inch floppy drives running the majority of the software on black screens with green text. On my right were servers running Windows Server 2000, waiting to take over. New software running on brand-new hardware -- there would be challenges ahead. Though Continental Airlines was (and is) a leader in pushing through the changes, this was not an exciting moment for all involved. Some prefer "the devil they know" over change.
Is that how you feel? Then perhaps you've already decided you're not going to touch Windows Server 2008. In fact, the title of this post may have already set your blood boiling. But I urge you to keep an open mind and read on before clicking the Comment button.
Windows Server 2008 is absolutely awesome. There, I've said it. Now let me tell you why. First off, it is based on the same architecture as Windows Vista (also an awesome product from an architectural perspective). Improvements in Vista are in Server 2008, such as Address Space Load Randomization (ASLR), a better firewall, and BitLocker. There's also enhanced management, a rewritten networking stack that includes IPv6, and so forth. Add to that enhanced diagnostics and monitoring, memory, and file-system improvements such as self-healing NTFS. I can go on and on and talk about hot-swappable processors and memory and dynamic drive partitioning -- but the point is made.
For all you Linux lovers: Server 2008 now has the Server Core flavor. Why install all that jazzy graphic stuff when you can work from the command line? That's what people have been saying for years! Sure, the GUI is pretty. Sure, it's easier for most people to work with. But it's resource-intensive and doesn't satisfy many admins' desire to rough it a bit. We have five-star hotels -- yet some people (even if they have the money stay at such a hotel) prefer camping. So the baggage in a Windows server is being left behind with Server Core.
PowerShell will be automatically included as the new extensible command-line shell and task-based scripting technology. Any admins who have had a chance to see it demonstrated or to work with it in Exchange 2007 will attest to how incredible (or "Power"-ful) it is. The developers took everything you can do from the GUI and made it possible from the shell.
Hyper-V virtualizes servers at the kernel level of the OS. In fact, if you want to learn more about all of this directly from Mark Russinovich, you can watch his incredible (40-minute) discussion of Windows Server 2008, MinWin versus Server Core, and Hyper-V.
Beyond the big sellers of Server 2008, there are enhancements to the Active Directory, Group Policy improvements (in fact, Greg Shields, the famous tech guru, announced that the new improvements are "mostly" down-level compatible), Terminal Services, and IIS 7 -- the list goes on and on. (For more insight on -- and praise of -- Windows Server 2008, check out the InfoWorld Test Center review by Tom Yager and Longhorn secrets by Sean McCown.)
Continental Airlines made the change to Server 2000. Planes didn't fall out of the sky, and the company didn't fold. In fact, Continental continues to be the first to roll out Microsoft products on the enterprise level. You can read about its transition to Vista. Although many have complained that Vista is not the way to go, the powers that be at Continental disagree. Server 2008 will obviously be next for the airline.
Now, if there are logical reasons why you should not, or can not, move to Server 2008. What are they? We'd like to know.
Posted by J. Peter Bruzzese on February 27, 2008 03:00 AM
RATE THIS ARTICLE:
-
- COMMENTS
Didn't Microsoft remove the notification piece that emails designated staff when needed?
Posted by: David White, Montgomery, Alabama at February 27, 2008 10:35 AMI am a GP (general practitioner) at a school who has always loved MS servers BECAUSE of the GUI. If I want to become a command line expert I'll move to Linux and save my school $$$. In fact I was looking at ubuntu and untangle when your post arrived!
Posted by: Ed at February 27, 2008 11:01 AM#1 Reason: Can't go until my application vendors support it.
#2 Reason: Would probably prefer to wait for the first post-release SP.
Same reason I wouldn't replace a 2003 Camry with a 2008, no matter how awesome it is. Server 2003 isn't broken and it's working just fine.
Posted by: Chip at February 27, 2008 01:25 PMMy question is, did they do it properly and ONLY release a 64 bit version or are they going to make a mess of things and release a 32 bit version?
Posted by: Peter at February 27, 2008 02:00 PMI hope Continental realizes in advance that they can't just upgrade Windows 2000 to 2008 and have budgeted for new hardware and such. Planes won't fall out of the sky, they just may never leave the ground.
You need reasons not to upgrade?
1. In-place upgrade only supported with Windows 2003. I still have Windows 2000 server(s).
2. Questionable 3rd party application support.
3. My smaller server(s) don't all meet hardware specs.
4. Exchange 2007 issues.
5. Will wait for SP1.
Not everything that shines is gold. In enterprise computing, you don't need to be the first kid on the block to have the newest toy.
Funny how Microsoft has started copying Linux and other open-source products (i.e. command line boot, aka "Server Core".) More examples: tabs in IE (Firefox), built-in firewall (iptables), compiling to bytecode (Java), etc. Why not just follow the leaders, save your money, and avoid lock-in?
1. don't fix it if it ain't broke - W2K3 (and W2K Server for that matter) are very adequate.
2. Perhaps Continental would be better off financially if they focused on improving customer service and reducing prices instead of implementing expensive over-engineered and patently unproven technologies.
Much of the rest of the world is avoiding VISTA, etc., for many good reasons (cost, rollout disruption, new hardware requirements, software incompatibilities, retraining, and minimal benefits after the fact).
Personally, I even refuse to run IE7 -- forget about Vista, Exchange 2007, Office 2007, SQL 2005 or 2008, or W2K8 --
I don't have the time to waste or inclination to learn another UI just for the heck of it - If I am going to invest that kind of time, it will be on learning MAC or Linux.
If MS had done it right, the transition to VISTA would be painless and invisible. Ditto for other products.
Also, why is a 32bit CPU all of a sudden not adequate for Exchange? (Ex2007 requires a 64bit server).
Not many of MS's customers have MS bank accounts.
Posted by: Richard at March 1, 2008 06:02 AMTOP STORIES
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
- Virtualization: A Step by Step Approach to Success
- Dialing up Agility with Business Transformation
- 5 Things You Need to Know About Storage Virtualization
- Need to Secure Your Virtualized Environments?
- When you need backup will it be there?
- Is your storage capacity holding you back?
