RSSWindows Server 2008: To keep things stable, you need new hardware
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published February 29, 2008, 10:13 AM
Microsoft has a growing number of beneficiaries to whom it must simultaneously appeal. There are OEM partners who want Windows Server to drive sales, and clients who at the same time plead for no more disruptions.
LOS ANGELES (BetaNews) - The big message from Microsoft's gala launch on Wednesday had to do with changing the world, and the role information workers may play to that end. Yet Microsoft's own business customers are looking for operating systems to stop making sweeping changes to the way they work, to stop forcing them to make plans around Microsoft's itinerary...and the company's own program mangers are acknowledging this new reality.
"Both our customers and our partners don't want major changes in the operating system every two years," said Bob Visse, senior director of the Windows Server Marketing Group, in an interview with BetaNews on Wednesday, the day of Windows Server 2008's official release. "So we've committed to being on a regular cadence of doing a major release every four years, plus or minus a few months, and a minor release every two years."
It's a variation of the "tick-tock" cadence model that Intel instituted in the summer of 2006, both as a trademark for its rapid pace of progress and an annoyance for AMD: Start doing major changes on a schedule that everyone can anticipate, and don't spring surprises on customers who aren't prepared.
So during minor release periods, Visse said, little or nothing will be done that will impact the nature of running applications. But during those major release periods (set your calendars for 2012), the fact alone that device drivers must change will signal the need for the infrastructure that drives applications to change with it.
"That's something we've been communicating with customers now for awhile, and we hear positive feedback on that both from customers and partners," remarked Visse. "With a base this big, you really have to watch the cadence."
If customers prefer a smoother, calmer cadence of change -- steady, though predictable -- then would there continue to be a need for these gala launch events? Besides the obvious social purpose, Visse responded, maybe the reason for the celebration is the fact that everything is proceeding as planned...assuming, of course, that everything is proceeding as planned.
 |
| Microsoft Senior Director for Windows Server Marketing Bob Visse |
The reliance by many of Microsoft's enterprise customers on Windows Server Update Services as their primary source for incremental improvements -- "drizzled bits," as Visse calls them -- is a key indicator of that.
Meanwhile, Visse has another message to deliver that, on the surface, sounds almost completely contradictory: The arrival of Windows Server 2008 should sound the alarm that it's time for enterprises to replace their server hardware.
"First and foremost, we fully expect somewhere between 90% and 95% of Windows Server 2008 to go out on new hardware," Visse stated. "That's typically what we see, and we think we'll continue to see that. That's the vast majority of the sell-through of this product."
Providing the axle grease for this upheaval in a way that wasn't feasible for the transition from Windows 2000 (or Windows NT 4.0) to Windows Server 2003, will be virtualization. All by itself, it provides the value proposition both for the ease of migration between operating systems and the impetus for transition to new server hardware. The argument goes something like this: You can't have an easy software migration without a quick and decisive hardware transition.
"One of the things that we try to do when we architected [Windows Server 2008] was make sure that it was a good citizen, that it lived well with [Windows Server] 2003 and 2000, because we know there's still a lot of that out there," Visse told BetaNews. "But there's nothing radical in the architecture that will impact the existing infrastructure that you have in place. So if you're running 2003 R2 or even 2003 for your TNS and you don't want to change that, and there's something else that you want to take advantage of -- the new presentation virtualization, Terminal Services features -- no problem. You can still do that. Or if you wanted to take advantage of Server Core for something particular like an IIS workload, and you wanted to put up a new Web site or SharePoint site, no problem, you can still do that and keep all your old Windows Server [infrastructure], and it will work well together."
Next: Virtualization as the vehicle for both change and stability...
Well, then they will have to wait 2 to 3 years until companies decide to replace hardware and migrate their platforms. I foresee bad selling numbers then.
Score: 0
|Read the headline only and not the article, eh?
At least Scott's misleading headline weeds you folks out pretty easily.
The upgrades are required only of those who have merely been doing OS upgrades since 2000/NT and have not really upgraded any hardware during that period if they want to take full advantage of the virtualization functionality..
Reading comprehension FTW!
Score: 0
|Server 2008 is based on Vista, therefore you can expect many of the same issues. I guess Microsoft damage control is trying to pin the blame on inadequate hardware.
Score: 0
|Obviously, you have never used Windows Server 2008. Go give it a try and stop the FUD.
Score: 0
|Which (same as Vista) is exactly where the blame lies. That and inadequate users.
2008 is rock-solid in every installation I have and I have several running nicely on older servers with 1GB of RAM.
Score: 0
|2008 ran surprisingly well in a VM during the beta period. I can only assume that the gold edition will be even faster.
Score: 0
|I'm trying 2008 in VMWare Server and it's running good. And a brother of mine ran it as a desktop OS and was pleasantly surprised. Likes it way better than Vista and is thinking of using it as a daily desktop OS.
Score: 0
|Where is the "classic" Windows 2003 interface? The Vista interface sux on a server! Why include nag box for a server? Isn't everyone an administrator?
Why is shutdown the default button on the start button? How many people shutdown a server, vs just logging off? Why isn't the interface customizable?
And why in the world did they include such a dumbed down defrag tool??
Score: 0
|"Why include nag box for a server?"
If you're referring to UAC, for one thing, so you won't do something stupid (yes even Admins make mistakes) and secondly, if it works the same in Vista you CAN TURN IT OFF. Its not that hard.
"Why is shutdown the default button on the start button? How many people shutdown a server, vs just logging off?"
Again, assuming it works the same in Vista you CAN change it, in the Power Options.
Score: 0
|I'm not sure where you got that from. Server 2008 uses the classic interface by default. The Vista themes service and all of the eye candy effects are disabled out of the box.
Score: 0
|"Isn't everyone an administrator?"
Only if the actual admin who set it up is a moron. And, BTW, the interface is EXTREMELY customizable.
Re: defrag tool.
Doesn't everybody use JKdefrag?
Score: 0
|I'm not that familiar with Vista, but I have used it enough to know the default interface on Server is the Vista interface.
Why contribute to the bloat by including a worthless defragger, if they're going to recommend a 3rd party product anyway?
In my organization, I'm we administer Windows using Remote Desktop, and non-administrators do NOT have access to logon locally.
I've heard rumors of ways to hack Vista to remove UAC, but I have no idea where to find such a setting.
And I searched the power options control panel you mention and see absolutely no option to change the start menu options.
If any/all of these things are possible, then why have they made the interface so hard to use/find things?
I am not an anti-Microsoft person, in fact, I posess many certifications and use their software whenever possible, since I am an MSDN subscriber, but I am anti-Crappy software, which has been my experience with Vista.
Score: 0
|I've heard rumors of ways to hack Vista to remove UAC, but I have no idea where to find such a setting.
Still haven't figured out Google yet, eh?
Control Panel - User Accounts - Turn off UAC.
Pretty simple stuff. UAC stands for User Account Control, so the fact you didn't think to look in "User Accounts" is really more a failure on your part than on MSFTs.
Sounds like you just need to "unlearn" some of the crappy ways it *used* to be done. It's new, and like many other new things, it will take some getting used to.
Score: 0
|Numerous HP BIOS updates for their server line. No new hardware needed.
Score: 0
|Nice inflammatory title, when all they are doing is telling companies that have in the past simply upgraded the server OS and not the hardware that in order to take *full* advantage of WS2008's Virtualization features, they will need to upgrade their hardware.
Big whoop.
If you need virtualization, you've expected that anyway.
Nice one Scott "The *hit* seeking missile" Fulton, III. ;)
Score: 0
|Isn't Win2008 a bit too heavy to run virtualized machines on top of it? If I'm going to run virtual servers, I will most likely want the underlying OS to be as light as possible, not to hog the resources out of my virtual machines. That's why I'd choose to run VMWare's propriatary Unix box. :-)
Score: 0
|OWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
The STUPID!!!!!! IT BURNS!!!!!! Ignore the troll, as toolie didn't bother to read the report.
Scott Fulton is one of the best tech writers and reporters in the game today. Go back and read his past reports and check his links and facts. He doesn't skew nor does he stray from the point.
As for virtualization, it's long been mastered on the GNU/Linux platform, but with anything Windows, you take a huge performance hit all the way down the line. Heck, just network two units and see for yourself how pathetic it gets.
Score: 0
|WILL YOU QUIT IT WITH THE "OWWWWWW THE STUPID!!! IT BURNS!!!"! It makes you look like a jackass! Grow up, you simpleton! Why should we take you seriously when you carry on like a child?
Score: 0
|Sorry, PC_Tool, but I don't spot the inflammation to which you refer. This is the message Microsoft is giving businesses, and I simply condensed it into a headline.
Now, the question at this point is whether businesses will suddenly behave like consumers, in that they would overhaul millions of dollars in processing power just to take advantage of a new operating system. Typically, the bar is set very, very high with regard to that level of an overhaul. That said, virtualization may very well fit the bill here, specifically if it enables the kind of overhaul implied in the latest round of IBM ads, where an entire warehouse is compacted into one rack.
If you still think there's some inflammation involved, then you might want a little cream for that.
Scott "Desitin" Fulton III
Score: 0
|Installing just the Core version of the OS opposed to the Full version will accomplish that goal of dedicating WS2008 to supporting VMs with little overhead.
Score: 0
|You don't think the title is at all misleading, eh?
By condensing it you applied it to all servers running 2008.
That simply isn't the case.
The headline translates, as it is, to:
"If you want to run Windows Server 2008, you will need new hardware", which is pure BS.
Throw a "may" in there, or "for certain uses".
I know it's your job to defend the headlines, and the actual article does a fine job of clearing up the massively misleading headline, but seriously...
Score: 0
|Wow.
Kissing a little a** today are we, zridling?
I read the report, which was fine. I made no mention of it whatsoever in my complaint. (Ya know, the one about the headline...the one you are replying to and apparently didn't read?)
Perhaps *you* should read the posts you reply to?
Score: 0
|I'm happy with WS08. Been using it since early alpha, when it was horribly buggy. But it progressed very well. I love it. It's the best OS Microsoft has ever made IMHO. I've not seen any stability issues on old hardware and I have more than two dozen servers running it on various hardware platforms. Some are five or six years, old some newer.
Score: 0
|