| 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 |
 |
Server Core: Windows Without Windows | |
|
||
| Time: 21:52 EST/02:52 GMT | News Source: *Linked Within Post* | Posted By: Chris Hedlund | ||
|
The new Server Core is a stripped-down, rock-solid version of Longhorn. 
One of the most innovative features coming in Windows "Longhorn" Server isn't really a feature as much as a whole new version of Windows. It's called Server Core, and it will only take one-sixth of the disk space of a normal Longhorn installation. It's not expected to need anywhere near as many patches and hotfixes as Windows 2000. It's a version of Windows that does not, in fact, use windows. It's breaking Microsoft's long-standing reliance on graphical interfaces and shaking things up in several of Microsoft's product groups. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 158 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:20:17 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 53756 (67.86.67.13) at 10/5/2006 10:27:54 PM |
|
This post was edited by brien86 on Thursday, October 05, 2006 at 22:28. |
| #2 By 53756 (67.86.67.13) at 10/5/2006 10:28:07 PM |
| OMG! has microsoft finally heard the cries of the ENTIRE software industry? this is EXACTLY what we wanted! i was already excited about some of Microsoft OS configuration building apps, but this sounds like an out-of-the-box solution for many users. I LOVE IT! |
| #3 By 1401 (65.255.137.20) at 10/5/2006 10:47:21 PM |
| I think Brien86 just left a big stain on his keyboard... |
| #4 By 53756 (67.86.67.13) at 10/5/2006 11:51:59 PM |
|
i think chrishedlund can't get it up or he'd have stained his too. This post was edited by brien86 on Thursday, October 05, 2006 at 23:52. |
| #5 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 10/6/2006 3:54:25 AM |
|
Ummm.... how many admins out there are saying to themselves, "What... you mean you didn't know, or in practice, run your enterprises that way to begin with???"
Here's what I mean... for a long while, it has been understood that Longhorn Server and subsequent servers would be run this way, because as intended, a server was never supposed to be logged into, directly [or at least very rarely] in the first place. In good shops, admins build a series of snap-in's, or they use some of the more sophisticated pre-built consoles [E2K3, and SQL05, for example]. They also use the W2K3 Admin Pak, which provides quite a lot of pre-built snap-in's. As they work their enterprises, admins access their enterprise's library of consoles and simply connect to the servers and specific services on that server that they require. They only "touch" the server in the areas that need to be serviced. In our shop, I will lose my patience [actually, intentionally appear to], if an engineer does not quickly pick up on how to efficiently and properly run a network and systems. Efficiency is one thing, but "doing it right" and only as needed and according to a policy of least privileged is what has to be maintained as the only methods used to run an enterprise. It may sound "out there" but I swear, servers, especially those one builds themselves, seem to know when a noob is messing with them - they don't like it and they run best when they are allowed to run and administration is applied only to those areas that need attention. This stuff is not new - it's been as intended for a very long time. I mean how many of you out there have had a customer call and say that a server they bought at x, y, or z place.... was "locked up?" You remote into a host for them, or head out and the bewildered become the amazed as you access the "locked up" server from another system via a snap-in or two, and voil'a, the server comes back to life, or is safely subjected to a remote restart rather than being dropped like a stone. As you leave, the new customer is happy and impressed, and in the background you swear you can hear that poor server calling, "no, no... please don't go; don't leave me with these people...." I know... kind of silly, but the point it, we shold all be running our shops in this way - it was designed that way. |
| #6 By 1401 (69.27.196.125) at 10/6/2006 8:47:41 AM |
| #6 If you lost your temper with me, I'd take my $100 Linux laptop and smash it over your head. |
| #7 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 10/6/2006 10:06:52 AM |
|
Server Core also recognizes -- based on painful experience -- that fewer "moving parts" in an operating system equates to fewer vulnerabilities, stability issues and maintenance points. Reducing the amount of code can help reduce the amount of bugs. That's what Server Core is all about.
There's no Internet Explorer, no Outlook Express, Calculator or Windows Paint, no Wordpad, Windows Messenger or Media Player -- just the basics. These things are not necessary nor appropriate for a server. I remember many of the MS zealots here arguing otherwise. |
| #8 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 10/6/2006 11:00:11 AM |
|
#8 "These things are not necessary nor appropriate for a server. I remember many of the MS zealots here arguing otherwise. "
You never pay attention. I argue that Linux isn't necessary or appropriate for a server. :) |
| #9 By 2459 (69.22.124.202) at 10/6/2006 12:59:11 PM |
|
These things are not necessary nor appropriate for a server. I remember many of the MS zealots here arguing otherwise.
Never heard of an application server (see Terminal Services/Remote Applications)? |
| #10 By 7390 (24.188.166.243) at 10/6/2006 2:13:12 PM |
|
actually this is bad new for MS
this will only lead to more bundling litigations. "why can't my desktop be this way?" and competitors will run to the court system screeming: "see, windows can run without bundling, why is MS extending it's monopoly" |
| #11 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 10/6/2006 3:35:30 PM |
|
#9: I always pay attention--more than should to be honest. Given the choice, I too would install Windows Server over Linux on a server. Oh, and are you ready to accept the challenge yet?
And, as expected, someone (#10) speaks up to prove why you need media player on a server. I suspect that the majority of Windows Server installations would be served just fine by the Server Core product. |
| #12 By 2459 (69.22.124.202) at 10/6/2006 4:15:14 PM |
|
#11, that may occur, but it'd be just as ignorant as competitors previous efforts sighting Windows Embedded and expecting MS to distribute 67 CD images.
The debate isn't whether Windows can be componentized, but whether you can strip out MS' code while still providing end-users and ISVs with a functional system in which their applications continue to work. Even with Server Core, this will not be possible, and on the desktop, the average application has a lot more dependencies. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 158 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:20:17 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
