| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Comparing Versions of Windows .NET Server Beta 3 | |
|
||
| Time: 16:05 EST/21:05 GMT | News Source: Microsoft | Posted By: Adrian Latinak | ||
|
The Microsoft Windows .NET Server product family includes four versions: Windows .NET Web Server - For Web serving and hosting, providing a platform for rapidly developing and deploying Web services and applications. Windows .NET Standard Server - For the everyday needs of businesses of all sizes, providing a solution for file and printer sharing, secure Internet connectivity, centralized desktop application deployment and rich collaboration between employees, partners and customers. Windows .NET Enterprise Server - For medium to large businesses, enabling enterprise infrastructure, line-of-business applications, and e-commerce transactions. Windows .NET Datacenter Server - For enabling business-critical solutions that require the most scalable databases and high volume transaction processing. It is also an ideal platform for server consolidation. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 154 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:31:11 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/12/2001 4:59:53 PM |
|
I believe that was one of Intel's goals with the Itanium. It may be a few more years before they have machines available like that.
|
| #2 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 11/12/2001 5:01:38 PM |
| Good stuff. I'm especially happy to see the Web Server edition. |
| #3 By 992 (195.92.168.171) at 11/12/2001 5:46:06 PM |
|
There really wasn't a major difference with Windows XP home and Pro edition. Pro differences were:
Dual Processor Support IIS support Enhanced sercurity Enhanced Network Support What is the actual difference software wise will each of the version of Windows.NET OS have? |
| #4 By 1658 (128.255.174.108) at 11/12/2001 6:43:51 PM |
|
Right #4... and MS really focuses on scale UP as opposed to scale OUT. NOT! Shows what you understand about their goals. Microsoft has always been a staunch proponent of scale out architectures. Scale up puts more eggs in one basket, generally costs at least twice the price more for the same enterprise system, and usually doesn't perform as well as a clustered configuration. The TPC benchmarks speak for themselves there. Not to mention Windows' supreme performance when it comes to SMP structures. Typically with 1/3 - 1/2 the processors, Windows outperforms the best of the best in the unix world.
It's not even worth posting empirical data here, there's definitely enough of it to go around to solidify these points. This post was edited by aamendala on Monday, November 12, 2001 at 18:45. |
| #5 By 1845 (65.0.207.79) at 11/12/2001 6:51:34 PM |
| You could add SAP benchmarks to the TPC benchmarks too #7. As you said, more isn't always better. |
| #6 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 11/12/2001 7:29:02 PM |
|
#4 - HP-UX is some good stuff, yes, but as #7 and #8 have explained, scaling out is typically better than scaling up.
One COULD argue that scaling up is more reliable because while there is a single point of failure, the total chance of failure is considerably less than many individual machines, each with lots of components of their own. That, plus the less administrational overhead required by a single machine. It's not an argument I would make because I've had to deal with scale up vs. scale out, and scale out is preferably in almost all cases. With Active Directory, it's almost as if it's all one machine. :-) And, as was mentioned, Datacenter has proven itself as the fastest beast out there in both TPC and SAP benchmarks. (Virtual and REAL in other words. :-) |
| #7 By 1845 (65.0.207.79) at 11/12/2001 9:04:32 PM |
| I'm afraid that doesn't make too much sense to me #10. If it beats the benchmarks, then it can perform. As for realiablity, I assume that's what you mean by "hasn't proven itself", there are case studies for that (not that I remember specifics right now). |
| #8 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 11/12/2001 9:25:57 PM |
|
I don't see any previous posters who said they were impressed by 64 processor support, just a confirmation as to whether it was accurate or not.
I agree with the scale out strategy. Over the past 3 months we've had 4 major failures of our database servers. What causes these to be all the more painful is that about 80% of our data is housed on one database. It used to be 100%, but we've been making an effort this past year to split off data areas and run them on seperate servers, using replication across for shared areas. That strategy is going to be accelerated because of these failures. I have never been a proponent of single point of failure architecture such as the scale-up strategy. Although at least with IBM mainframes they build such redundancy into the hardware that they can take a massive failure and still keep going. But as another poster said, you pay for that. It's the same principle behind RAID-5. Use lot's of inexpensive servers and you can get more done with a lower price point and just as great of overall reliability. BTW... before #10 get's all snooty on me. Our production database runs Oracle 8i on a HP N-Class Unix server. The last two crashes were the result of HP-UX rebooting spontaneously, the first two were Oracle issues. |
| #9 By 931 (24.88.45.192) at 11/13/2001 4:07:49 AM |
|
Am i the only guy that really thinks we dont need 4 version of the same basic product..
I can totally see 2 versions, even 3... but 4 seperate version of server.. not to mention the embedded version. call me crasy. This post was edited by KnightHawk on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 at 04:08. |
| #10 By 1845 (207.173.73.201) at 11/13/2001 10:14:19 AM |
| Who can afford it and would use it? Dell, Barnes and Noble, the United Kingdom federal government, to name a few. Also, if what else would you run on a 1/2 million dollar 64 proc system? Other than Windows, what would still cost only 1/2 million? |
| #11 By 1658 (128.255.174.108) at 11/13/2001 11:18:47 AM |
|
We do need 4 versions of the product KnightHawk. Regardless of what Microsoft does, you can't win it seems with the public. People complain they charge too much for their software, so they've come out with multiple versions of their server software for more specific enterprise applications. This yields lower overall total cost of ownership and in the end saves an enormous amount of money. The most popular seller will most likely by the web server version. It doesn't make much sense for people to by Windows 2000 Server only for basic IIS functions which is truly what most businesses use. Many don't take advantage of all the deeply embedded awesome features of 2000 Server so why not pair it down a little bit into something simpler.
In a nutshell, 4 versions yields lower cost, period. Especially since you can deploy all 4 versions on the same network and they'll get along swell. |
| #12 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 11/13/2001 10:02:46 PM |
|
Whether or not there is wide adoption of Windows 2000 Datacenter is a pretty poor basis to determine whether or not it's actually a good choice.
It's been out for all of 1.5 years. Not even I'm that impatient. As for it not proving it self as far as reliability, you are mistaken. Win2k Datacenter is the ONLY OS to guarantee (as in your money back kind of guarantee) 99.999% uptime. (That's about 8 hours and 45 minutes of downtime a year.) Why would vendors like Compaq and Dell sign up to be OEMs for Datacenter if they were afraid they would end up paying back the money they make because of downtime? Datacenter is a beast. Reliable, scalable, and easy to administer. This post was edited by RMD on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 at 22:04. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 154 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:31:11 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
