Free Newsletters

   All InfoWorld Newsletters
Ahead of the Curve | Tom Yager » Windows Server 2008: Redmond's new server OS hits paydirt

February 06, 2008 | Comments: (0)

Windows Server 2008: Redmond's new server OS hits paydirt

Microsoft asked IT what it wants from a Windows server operating system. That OS is here.

Windows-Server-2008_hp.jpg
Windows Server 2008 (WS08) has been doing an excruciatingly slow public striptease for five years. Now that the last patch of linen has been peeled away, we'll have a chance to see what thousands of man-years yields in terms of innovation. WS08 is loaded with Microsoft's good ideas, almost the way commercial Linux is, and this time Microsoft added the ingredient of wide-open, real-time public engagement in the development process.

The people doing the talking in Microsoft's blogs are high-ranking types who could easily opt out of talking to the public. In a way, WS08 is a product of the collaboration between the world's largest software company and the people who use the products they make. It's pretty cool, and it goes a long way toward repairing Microsoft's reputation as an opaque, insular entity. The idea of having someone who says "I'll get back to you" actually get back to you about bug reports and feature requests is sort of a mind-blower. Microsoft's take on community isn't perfect; not all who raise their hands are called upon. That's not possible for people whose primary job functions involve getting things done, and I wonder how Microsoft manages triage on the mountain of feedback every new public beta must produce.

I have to hand it to Redmond: Windows Server 2008 gives the people what they want, albeit spread across several products. There are only so many eggs that one basket can hold, and there is more money to be made selling one egg at a time. There's nothing wrong with that business model, and it helps defray the cost of inserting buyers into the product development cycle. I think that Windows Server, once you build the essential Windows Server System components around it, is grossly overpriced. WS08's path to release is a model worthy of emulation, but it seems that Microsoft didn't get around to asking buyers what they'd like to pay for it. When it comes time for buyers to write the check for WS08, the adage "be careful what you wish for" may spring to mind.

There is one way that IT can keep Microsoft, or any vendor, from reaching into their pockets: Don't buy it. Assuming that you don't work for Microsoft or its PR network, if I asked you to name five WS08 features that have you salivating at the prospect of upgrading your Windows Server 2003 servers, I think you'd have to hit Microsoft's Web site to come up with your answers. Only the numbers will tell the tale, but despite WS08's certificate of community, it may be a victim of the Vista Effect.

Vista differs from WS08 in that it is the product of Microsoft's bad old "we'll let you know what you want" paradigm of software design. There is much goodness baked into Vista, but I'd much rather see Vista's yummiest bits back-ported to Windows XP. You see, Windows XP is everything I need in a Windows client OS. Ask me what I want and I might give you a list that puts Santa's naughty and nice scroll to shame. I like to play and discover, and Vista has a few of the kind of gems that can make a video game with an explore-and-gather theme so engrossing. But I have to say that Windows doesn't lend itself to this. Whether Microsoft was aping Apple, whose OS X reveals something new and relevant every time you sit down with it, Vista showed that Microsoft is no better at making OS presentation and management layers enjoyable to use. I'm not motivated to hunt down Vista's wonders. Move files around? Check. Connect to the Internet? Check. Launch apps? Check. That's what I need and expect from a Windows client OS, and based on that, Windows clients hit their apex with Windows 2000 Professional.

Microsoft cursed Vista by trying to move the goalposts based on internal discussion about what users would want desperately if only they knew they could have it. WS08 tries to move the goalposts, too, but Microsoft had external discussions that yielded the public's take on its fondest desires. When asked what it wants, the market is not shy about demanding the whole world and a Dove Bar. But even though WS08 is everything that buyers asked for, at the end of the day there has to be a defensible reason to reach deeply into one's pockets to upgrade to a Windows server OS that will likely be tasked to do only what Windows Server 2003 systems do now. IT will download the trialware of WS08 in record numbers. Reviews will range from good to ecstatic. In the end, if the paid-off car you're driving now is still a nice ride, you'd be foolish to take on new payments. At some point, Microsoft will force the issue by declaring the end-of-life on Windows Server 2003, but that's a story for another day.

Posted by Tom Yager on February 6, 2008 09:57 AM


RATE THIS ARTICLE:





 

  •  
  • COMMENTS




Tom -

I agree with you, the Server side of the business, especially the SQL Server gals and guys but also Windows Server as well, do a much better job of listening to what the customers want.

However, I have seen some disturbing evidence that Vista code which is tightly entwined into Windows Server 2008, is doing bad things to 2008's performance numbers.

Just do an Alexa.com on Microsoft.com and see that Microsoft's website is performing on average WORSE than 75% of all other websites tracked by Alexa.com. Then take a look at netcraft.com list of what servers are supporting microsoft.com - its a mix between Win Server 2003 and Win Server 2008.

I have yet to find a Microsoft "explanation" (or anyone else for that matter) to explain the situation.

Posted by: JBSurveyer at February 6, 2008 12:02 PM

My Windows 2000 boot time was around 2 minutes. My Windows XP boot time on the same machine was 30 seconds. Shutdown time was better, too, and the machine seemed more responsive.

W2K was close, but XP is the apex of the Windows client.

Sadly, the XP Service Packs and general cruft slowly brought boot time back up to around 2 minutes. I'd be a lot happier with Vista on my latest laptop (bought in February '07, after Vista was released) if it seemed snappier in any way.

That's the real problem with Vista. More secure? Sure. But Vista is slower, UAC is too intrusive, and compatibility is a problem.

I'm all for killing backwards compatibility--I'm doing a lot of work in XP virtual machines instead of Vista. But to break all that compatibility, I really expected *speed*.

Posted by: JonD at February 6, 2008 03:50 PM

Tom

Every time Microsoft comes up with the new product, we have to throw away our experience and start with the new one. Microsoft should have done right for almost ten years. Its product should already have been mature. Why should we repeat the same painful cycle with Windows Server 2008?

Posted by: Mark at February 8, 2008 02:21 AM

Technology White Papers

 

InfoWorld Technology Marketplace

» Technology White Papers Library

Technology White Papers by Topic

Technology White Papers E-mail Alert

Find out when the latest white paper is available:
 
 
» BUY A LINK NOW

Sponsored Technology Links