I uninstalled .NET Server before I remembered that I read there are tons of CLI commands in .NET Server now and that you can pretty much admin the whole thing via telnet.

I read something about them hiring some old UNIX programmers to write like 400 new command line proggies for .NET Server.

Can someone confirm or deny this? And if there are more commands, how much of a copy from FreeBSD are they?

I do recall reading that they was new command line stuff, don't remember what they are.

A lot of people have misunderstood this feature enhancement. It is NOT a collection of Unix-style commands and utilities, and there was NOT any sort of mass recruitment of Unix programmers for them. Microsoft has been selling a separate $99 product called Services for Unix which provides KornShell, C Shell, awk, sed, Perl, etc. SFU is based on Interix, which Microsoft acquired.

Windows .NET Server does include a number of new command-line oriented tools, but they consist of extensions to CMD.EXE, utilities which were previously in the NT4/W2K Resource Kits, tools based on WSH (Windows Scripting Host) including enhancements of the WSH-based scripts which previously came with IIS 4 & 5, and a small number of new command-line utilities which cover functions that were considered difficult for the typical Windows admin to script with WSH (mostly dealing with Active Directory administration and WMI but also with FAQ like scheduled task administration, etc).

The new commands are all documented in a help file located at Start > Help and Support > Tools > Administration Tools > Command line Reference A-Z. If you don't have Windows .NET Server, here is a sampling of the command names/filenames to give you an idea of how non-Unix they are:

bitsadmin, bootcfg, choice, clip, driverquery, dsadd, dsmod, dsrm, dsmove, dsquery, dsget, eventtriggers, eventquery.vbs, eventcreate, forfiles, freedisk, gettype, gpresult, inuse, netdom, netsh, openfiles, pagefileconfig.vbs, powercfg, prncfg.vbs, prnjobs.vbs, reg, sc, schtasks, setx, shutdown, systeminfo, takeown, taskkill, tasklist, timeout, tsecimp, waitfor, whoami, where, wmic

whoami sure looks like a *nix command ;)

Thanks for the information.

Yeah Windows XP Pro has lot of new CLI programs (home as some also) such as "shutdown.exe" and "systeminfo.exe" just to name the 2 i use most. I have used applications similar to it before from teh Microsoft Resource Kits however it is nice to finally see them implamented OOTB

Has anyone got the email from MS that gives their CDKEY and where to download? I haven't yet, though I think I was near the beginning of the pile.

I just started playing around with Enterprise Server and there are a couple things that really stand out as big improvments.
1)The new "Configure Your Server" that launches on startup is very nice and configuring roles is extremely straightforward.
2)All windows with icons default to a list view, and one thing I noticed is that one of the colums is pre-configured to show permissions. Nice move.
3)Although it booted more slowly than XP, once I was in the OS it was very fast.

Something that was odd: the system defaults to a standard video driver, but this one seems to have hardware 2D acceleration, which is hard to believe. Shadows and dragging windows behaved very smoothly. Very nice job on that standard driver.

Something that suprised me is that it doesn't come with WMP9, instead it just has 8. I wonder if they're going to add Corona at a later time. It would make sense that the client would match the server.

Well, it boots SIGNIFICANTLY faster than Win2k Server.

The standard video driver is there simply because one of the biggest causes for crashes in Windows is the video driver.

It doesn't come with WMP9 because it's not made for the consumer, and will probably be out before WMP9 is out.... it does have Corona, which is the Windows Media Server 9.
Again, it's not made for a client, and thus doesn't have WMP9.

Oh yeah, it definitely boots faster than Windows2000. I installed the Web Server version and it boots about the same speed as XP.

I understand .NET Server isn't for clients, but it seems odd that the thing would serve video that it couldn't play itself.

I wasn't complaining about the default video driver, I was suprised that they included 2D acceleration in it.

Yeah, I was just giving info on the video driver.

Somewhere I saw some info on it, might have been the release notes, it uses some sort of vesa thing, I don't remember exactly.

This is mostly aimed at CPUGuy, who has used it, but answers from anyone with experience is appreciated.

I was just wondering how suitable .NET Server or WebServer would be for use on the desktop. I mean, Windows 2000 Server was just like Professional in that it has DirectX, WMP, IE and all the apps you would use on the desktop.

Will .NET Server/Webserver be a good desktop OS compared to XP? If it is faster, comes with the standard Windows applications, and supports all the software XP does, I may just make the switch to .NET.

So, how would .NET Server be on the desktop?

.NET Server does not have DirectX, which is the biggest thing.

Two thoughts come to mind:
1) Finally they are making a server os without the non-server stuff.
2) I wonder if they'll find a way to hack in DirectX so I can still use .NET :)

Actually DX is included but is disabled by default.

Drivers are another thing.

You have to use drivers that are made for .NET Server, that means no Win2k, no XP, etc... and there is very little support for legacy hardware... it doesn't even support my Linksys 10/100 adapter (it was the first iteration, and they are now up to 5, I think).

One thing that's nice is it has generic video drivers that run in high color and such, so you do don't have to deal with buggy video drivers from the manufacturers, instead you get just a basic driver that has a limited amount of bug possibilities (for lack of a better term).

This was true for Win2k when it was in the beta & RC phases. Give it time and drivers will slowly get out. You probably won't see as much support for consumer hardware. i.e. Don't expect to get amazing performance out of a GeForce 4. But, I expect things such as NICs will be nearly universally supported (at least relatively new models, couple of years old or so).

Not all software will run on .NET Server which runs on Windows 2000/XP. You will need to by new version of several system software, for example Norton AntiVirus will only run on Workstation/Home User OS from Windows 98 to Windows XP Pro. It will not install on Windows 2000 Server Family/.NET Server Family. This is true for alot of other software. Check if there are Enterprise or Corporate versions of the software you use most, if there is i doubt the regular versions will run on a Server OS.

I have found .NET Web and Standard Server to be very fast however not any faster than Windows XP with all the fancy bits turned off. Also the prices are a little different ;)

Well, yeah, of course.

I'm just saying that Win2k and XP drivers don't work on it.

This is very true, I actually went to the VS.NET launch here, and subsequently, MS mailed me a bunch of CD's of trial server software, I think maybe one thing installed on Win.NET Server.

So?

How comes the 2K/XP NVidia drivers run here on .NET? Same for my 2K/XP Promise FastTrak and my Audigy? I'm using the manufacturer drivers, not the MS supplied ones.

How new are they, and what build are you using?

Build 3657.

Audigy drivers are the oldass ones which come from CD + Update which is dated Jan 2002.

Geforce3 runs Detonator 29.40.

And my FastTrak runs the drivers from CD, which are September 2001 or so.

To go into more detail, 'not all software' means software that hooks into system, like defraggers, disk tools or other system specific software that usually breaks on kernel changes. Normal apps or games will continue to work, even NAV works fine for me.

I've been running Enterprise Server rc3 for the last couple of months on my Laptop and have not had any problems running any type of software applications. From CA Diskeeper and on. Drivers for XP also works well with .net server. You guys seemed to have forgotten that .net server is mostly a mere copy of XP with service pack 1.

Well, first, there is no rc3.

Second, I've already named many things that don't work (mostly server applications).

Me and a friend of mine "aquired" a copy of Windows .Net Enterprise Server, back when it was just popping out in beta, and when he installed it he used the driver base from the installed copy of XP. He dual booted it on his personal machine. He told me that he didn't have any problems with any drivers or any devices.

I also thought that 2K/XP drivers would not work however i have had no problems with my XP Graphics/Sound and DVD Decoder card drives working on .NET Standard Server.

Also whoever said .NET is just XP with SP1 isnt exactly correct, yes .NET has alot of the features of XP however it has a different kernel, it has been changed alot to run more background tasks etc. However they are right if they are stating it is based on the NT5.1 technology.

Personally i find .NET ALOT faster, smoother and more stable than Windows XP running beta versions of XPSP1 (it is beta though). Also having no Luna themes speeds up the system alot as it means more free memory.

Well, XPSP1 kind of sucks at this point.

I dont agree with your there, i have found the beta's of XPSP1 to improve stability of XP and the smoothness of the UI has improved loads. Security updates are security updates, the end user (unless they actually try to exploit them) never really notice that they are there, but every user should see the difference the betas have made. My XP is running faster, things like Computer Management load faster, the UI feels better as before it felt like it was "sticking" buttons not removing the mouseover the second you removed the mouse etc, that has all been fixed. I hope the final is good. Still not a reason to move over the XP though, in my opinion it doesnt offer much more than Windows 2000 does unless you are after pretty screens.

Just the opposite for me.

Browsing directories sometimes takes a few seconds to load, the taskbar freezes up when I exit a game (as well as other times), I know GameSpy doesn't work well with it (wish America's Army had a built-in server browser), and a couple of other things.

I run RC1 build 3663 now, installed Detonator 30.82, installed Audigy drivers posted on Warp2Search 5th July, installed Promise Fasttrak drivers from march 2002. All works fine. No special Win.NET drivers, just the generic 2000/XP ones.

I guess it is just different system setups causing the difference in opinions.

Yep, and unfortunately, my bug reports keep getting marked as non-repro.

I don't think it says on their website when they will start sending out emails. Has anyone here heard of the date they will start giving us download instructions?

Does anyone have any details on the prices of different releases. I want to know how much the Web Server and Stand=ard Server versions will be.

I was very excited to have the opportunity to Public{ly} Preview Windows XP, and it was a very good experience. This opportunity to use .NET server for free is even better. I hope it turns out nicely!

I hope their transition at betaplace.com, to mandatory Passport sign-in, is not a way 'backing up' their claim.

"You were recently sent an email informing you of a mandatory .NET Passport Single Sign-in Service for www.betaplace.com. We encountered some issues while implementing this new process and as a result this update has been postponed. BetaPlace is once again available for you to access via your BetaID and 14 character Password. Once we have resolved the issues we will send another notification informing you of the steps you need to take to log-in and associate your Passport. We apologize for the inconvenience this has caused you."

I'm really happy they are letting people evaluate it for free, that's a good move IMO.

BTW: Are those links broken or will they not come online until tomorrow?

Those links seem to work fine to me... I just signed up, and I'll be interested to see what improvement have been made over the previous betas.

Yeah, they started working now.

I read some interesting things over at www.winsupersite.com. It says that Microsoft has been running pre-RC1 builds of .NET Server on 240 of its 250 Domain controllers.

Also, they say it is faster than Windows2000 on similar hardware. I'll have to see this to believe it but since they disable everything by default for security purposes, it could very well be true.

Forgot to mention that you won't have to reboot for updates and patches. Also, IIS won't have to be restarted when you make configuration changes and its settings are stored in XML so you can edit them with 3rd party apps or whatnot.

Back when Win2k was in the RC phases, they would give out free CDs of Win2k Pro & Server (RC2, at least) at some of the TechNet meetings (which are free). That's how I got my hands on Win2k during testing. I couldn't believe the improvement over Win98....made the occasional BSOD seem not so bad.

Yes, it is faster, much faster, even with the different things enabled, like AD, IIS, Pop3, Corona Media Server, RRAS, DNS, DHCP, etc...

I've even had it so I didn't have to reboot upon changing video drivers!

Bulls*** ... really? That's pretty awesome. I can't wait to get my hands on RC1.

DAMN! us linux users will never be able to do thoes things, updating drivers, updating video drivers, ect. Linux has been able to do this for 7 + years, and windows is just know starting to do that ? hell it was just windows 2000 that you could change network settings without rebooting, from the begining linux was able to change all network settings without rebooting. I have yet to reboot any of my linux machines due to software updates(except kernel updates) my firewall has over a 100 day uptime. if X locks up or something in linux, simple just restart it, in windows you have to reboot your damn computer to just to use it. I have to reboot XP dayly doto its not knowing how to share IRQ's. Please people when are you going to see that linux is the fare supriour OS to anything microsoft will EVER produce! if you disagree with that, you have to be stupid.

There are some things that Linux can do that Windows can not, true, but there are MANY things that Windows is good for.

And by the way, X flat out sucks, big time.

If you can't see that you need to use what's best for the job, then you, my friend, shouldn't be even touching a computer.

Right, that's why the Linux companies are doing so well and MS is not hiring 5,000 new employees. Linux is a joke, hardly anyone in business takes it seriously.

Amazon, Ford Motor (http://www.fortune.com/lists/F500/snap_529.html), Verizon (http://www.fortune.com/lists/F500/snap_1525.html) (HP's invent tour said that most of Verizon's development work is done on Linux w/ HP), Dreamworks, BP, Walmart (http://www.fortune.com/lists/F500/snap_1551.html), and Home Depot all use Linux, some even on the desktop! They must know *SOMETHING* about business. F00L! LOL Every other job app in the paper for IT stats you need linux experence, I can't remember the name, but some paint store is switching to all linux machines, companys that use linux are smart, they have less upfront costs then all windows shops. X has its limitions so does windows, with linux i'm not forced to update my OS every day, i still see poeple supporting redhat 6.2, unfortually, if you run windows 95, you are no longer supported, I don't know about you, but i like to save money where every possible. why should i have to buy a OS that will no longer be supported ? atleast with outdated hardware i can run low-level linux OS's on it and do everything i can do, that you can do with your windows much, but i will be supported.

I can see why certain businesses are running Linux on their workstations. They can set up a very customized GUI that does what needs to be done and no more ... and for free.

However, there are a lot of businesses buying thin clients and running Terminal Services too.

Oh yeah and with Linux you don't have to worry about your employees playing games on the job, because they're can't LOL :)

The only reason I think that is happening is because the Tech Sector is in the crapper. Given the choice between using Windows 2000 for free or Linux for free I guarantee you the vast majority would choose Windows.

Well let's see, Win95 came out in 95, Redhat 5.0 came out AFTER Win95.... think about it for a second there.

Sure the upfront costs are cheaper, heck, you can't beat free, but support costs and such are more.

I don't know about you, but I don't have to update Windows everyday. And at least with Windows, the apps that come with it are from one company, and thus, the updates are in one repository.

fubar101, a few web sites running Linux does not equate to wide-spread use in business and let's not even waste time talking about the desktop. Have you walked through a corporate data center lately? If you have, you will see that the vast majority of servers are running either NT/2000 or Solaris. You obviously have very limited experience in the real world.

You know it is comments like this that give the linux community a bad name. Don't get me wrong, i LOVE linux, it is my desktop of choice..it gives me exactly what i want and no more.

However, it is not for everyone, that's the point of linux...CHOICE.

Don't go around trying to force linux down peoples throats. The reality is that MS is on top because they have a history of making good EASY TO USE products. Linux may do many things better and cheaper, but Windows does other things better and cheaper.

Personally, I run half Windows 2000 Server and Linux Servers and work (I run the IT department) and it works beutifully, I run the Databases, Web, Mail servers on Linux and all File, Print, Domain, etc is handled by Windows with it's spectacular Active Directory.

Use the right tool for the right job and it's a win/win.

The point is, that both Windows and Linux have it's flaws, Linux may be more stable, but windows is just about as easy as it gets.

About those "support costs", sorry I dont buy that, that's 101% BS. My linux boxes are free to setup and I maintain them with zero support. It may not be as friendly as Windows's "stupid friendly" point and click, but if you know what you are doing it aint hard either. Learn how the use the product before you deploy it and the costs are $0.00

just my $0.02

proxy

are you implying someday, microsoft might give away there products ? because if not, I’m not sure companies would like having to pay the fine's involved in running illegal software. Linux is the more cost effective way for a business to do the things it does. no viruses, no worrying about employee's installing unnecessary things, not having to worry about paying a guy just to apply the latest Microsoft patches to there boxes, there is SMS, but, look at the price, look at the price of all Microsoft’s products, now look at *nix products, they offer the same thing, and more then likely it will be better then what is being offered from Microsoft.

I simply don't understand you people, do you realize microsoft has over 90% of the market share ? do you realize HOW microsoft got that share, not from making good products, not from reliablity, not from easy of use, from the bullie tackics toward OEM's who wanted to support something OTHER then microsoft.

"Don't go around trying to force linux down peoples throats. The reality is that MS is on top because they have a history of making good EASY TO USE products. Linux may do many things better and cheaper, but Windows does other things better and cheaper."

"Don't go around trying to force linux down peoples throats. The reality is that MS is on top because they have a history of making good EASY TO USE products. Linux may do many things better and cheaper, but Windows does other things better and cheaper."

so your saying windows is cheaper then linux ? Lay off the peace pipe dude. at what ? windows is far more expensive to maintain then *nix distro out there today. sence when has microsoft made good products ? windows 3.1 was decent, dos was decent, after that (besides NT and 2000) it just plain sucked, 2000 was better then NT, but, XP is worse then 2000 and NT. Maybe you are forgetting about code red ? do you remember how most of the internet was unreachable due to security flaws discovered in Internet Information services ?
Here's a animated graphic showing you how bad it was.
http://www.missingleftso...ds/CodeRedSpreading.gif

Do you realize how many companys lost money due to microsoft's careless ness ? Microsoft is the wrong choice for any company expecting to make a profit.

want to bet ? maybe you should install a default install of mandrake..... threes some games there, no the employee can't play quake at work over the corporate network, but they aren’t supposed to be there to play games.

right so your saying in order to get the job done, I need to be running a unstable, sometimes to dumbed down for its not useable operating system ? last time I checked, it was exactly productive to reboot your computer atleast twice a day to make sure you are up to date with security problems.

Yup, sounds like a productive work environment to me

As soon as I can go down to the store and buy the video card as well as the game that was released yesterday and install both without problem on Linux is the day I will convert. Until then I'll stick with XP, if only for the sake of Light Saber Duels.

Coming from the perspective of a former Redhat 5 & 6 as well as OpenLinux 2 user, i can say that WindowsXP is easier to use for most things. Yes, Linux can be better for some things, but to generalize and say that Linux is better for everything and call Windows users stupid is a bit naive.

And yes, I know that this is a server OS discussion, but the thread seems to have wandered a bit.

Pardon the information lapse, but I do remember seeing a /. article about Linux vs IIS in security and the conclusion that Linux has more flaws pound for pound. The sheer number of IIS installations is what makes the holes much more visible.

Do you have data on the number of IIS vs Apache installations?

much of in what you take solace is created by the minority status of linux

Viruses exist for Linux- you have to admit that.

If I were a virus creator, would I attack 10% of the market, or the more appealing 90%? I would have to assume that if Linux were to become dominant it would have just as many problems as Windows.

Does the default install of Mandrake include ispell in the distribution? I think that spell checking is an important feature of any product suite. Correct spelling allows individuals to express their views intelligently.

"I’m not sure companies would like having to pay the fine's involved in running illegal software."

Illegal software? Give me a break.

"no worrying about employee's installing unnecessary things"

Installing things like the programs that the company relies on to do business ... thier WINDOWS applications. Businesses' primary focus is GOOD software that gets the job done fastest. Linux cannot offer this. Hell, LInux STILL doesn't have an office suite anywhere close to Microsoft Office.

"now look at *nix products, they offer the same thing, and more then likely it will be better then what is being offered from Microsoft."

Let's just forget how crappy X and all its window managers are.

"I simply don't understand you people, do you realize microsoft has over 90% of the market share ?"

Yeah, because they make the better product and market it better. It's called capitalism, maybe one day you'll understand it.

"from the bullie tackics toward OEM's who wanted to support something OTHER then microsoft."

I'm sorry, I never heard anything about them holding a gun to the OEM's head (figuratively) and making them agree to it. Blame the OEMs for signing into obviously well crafted agreements. That's like signing something without reading it and then b****ing when you find out what you signed yourself into.

oh man, that was cold :)

Yeah it will install some games, along with 5 office suites, 4 browsers, and 10 email clients. I'll never do a install of a popular Linux because all of them think I want to load up gigs and gigs of crap programs.

Why can't one distro come out and install *THE BEST* programs only? Oh yeah that would be like a Windows install ... which we all know is evil

fubar: Go home. If you can't say anything that isn't complete lies, then I don't want to see you posting here, and I'm sure no one else does.

Windows isn't unstable, and it doesn't need to be rebooted twice a day for secuirty updates, hell, I had beta 2 of .NET Server up for over 100 days before I even needed to reboot for anything. And this was before it was even called Win.NET Server, before MS delayed it, etc....
You really don't even need to reboot for security fixes anymore for Win.NET Server.

Same goes for Win2k Server (as far as stability goes, although, you still had to reboot for certain things).

Ummm, the TCO for Windows (Total Cost of Ownership) is quite a bit cheaper than any *nix system.

The fact that you say that Win 3.1 was decent and that NT sucks shows how little you actually know.

XP is built upon Win2000, it's a point release after 2000, and in fact, as MANY MANY improvments over Win2000.

And I'm sorry, but if you look at *nix distros, nearly ALL of them have more security issues than Windows does by the end of the year.

As I said earlier, it seems you really have no clue about anything that we are speaking of here.

If you know how to setup a Windows Server, you know that you aren't supposed to give users access to install things... but oh yeah, we are on an MS bashing thread, aren't we?

Lets see, either way you have to pay for an administrator, the administrator is the one that takes care of patching things, and believe it or not, you do have to patch Linux.
Heck, everytime a security issue in with a Linux distro comes up, the defense is always "Well the patch was out awhile ago, if the admin knows what they are doing, it would have been patched right away."

Let's look at the price. I hate to tell you this, but in general, MS Server software is CHEAPER (both in TCO and upfront cash) than it's competitors.
And again, the TCO of *nix is quite a bit higher than Windows TCO.

But yuou aren't supposed to do a default Linux install on a corporate network, you customize it to how you like.

Try 1-2%, Apple has a much greater market share than Linux.

i dont really understand.... how can windows have lower costs then linux throw out its life ? *unix admins sit on there a** playing games most of the day, you will have less *unix admins in a department then windows admin's, less things to do with *unix then windows. *unix admins can be playing golf the same afternoon they patched 1,000 or so boxes due to a software bug discovered the night before, *unix admins also have the luxuary of writing automated scripts to do the job that used to take hours, the less people you have in the IT department the less costs the company will have. I have a feeling companys are staying away from linux because employee's might need additional training, but, then again, new employee's require some training, so why not train them with linux, and not windows ?

Microsoft even said it self, linux is a treat to its taking over the world.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-944342.html
"Hell even Steve Balmer admits that Linux has a lower TCO!"
""We haven't figured how to
be lower cost than Linux,"
Ballmer joked.'
and closer to home
http://microsoft.com/pre.../2002/07-15fusion02.asp

If you try to bash this comment i made, you need professional help, I didn't try to bash windows, it might come out like that, but I didn't mean for it to.

there is, it's called gentoo :)

it gives you absolutely nothing you didnt ask for. it is source based so everything on your computer is optimized for your hardware. The only downside I see is that it is very much a "do it yourself" kinda distro, you really must truely know what you are doing.

However, it is perfect for servers because the install is very minimal (the ISO is a 16 MB download)

proxy

Why, because Unix admins cost more, because there are fewer of them, it actually takes longer to configure anything in Unix than it does in Windows.

Windows admins can be playing golf too, the same afternoon they patched 1000 boxes, big deal, I don't see your point.
You can run those same type of "automated scripts" in Windows.

Steve Balmer didn't say that the TCO of Linux is lower, he said that MS can't compete with free (with regaurd to the upfront cost).

Right, as if other companies never tried these "tackics"? All businesses try to dominate the market they're in, the difference with MS is that they've been very successful at it. Once again, you've shown you have very limited experience in the real world.

I think it is funny how Fubar's comments match his user name. :)

Hahahahahahaha. that was pretty good.. I don't normally post here, as many of my opinions are about 50/50 with what's going on in here.

Look. Linux has it's place. If you know what you're doing, then linux is fine. It's sometimes fine even for people that don't know what they're doing, as far as the server side goes.

The way linux is moving, if you take the time to look closely.... is in a windows type direction. Making linux easier and easier to install, setup, manage. Sounds mighty windowish to me... and quite frankly, that's what users want.

With proper administration, windows doesn't crash. If you buy good hardware, that IS ON THE WHCL(windows hardware compatibility list), then you will almost never have problems. I have windows boxes that have been up for hundreds of days at a time. My philosophy is, if it ain't broke, dont' fix it. For example.. if you never ever use windows media player, and it's a server, there's no need to download the patch to wmp that makes you have to reboot your computer. Same thing for service packs, etc.... if you actually read the "readme", you'll see that they always say "if this patch doesn't address one of your problems, then don't install it".

To finish... users dont' really care what system they're using, as long as they can get things done that they need to. If a company needs to just set up a database system with a simple gui.. you know what.. it doesn't matter what system you use.. cause they're both equally easy to develop for.

I only have one last thing to say... if you can install perl on it, it can't be all that bad... :)

Aaron
www.got-ram.com

oops, forgot... all your *nix references, dont' include linux.... that would be *nUx...

It was mentioned the Direct X is included in .Net Server, but disabled by default. Does anyone know of a procedure to enable it?