Microsoft: Im irked

Ok.  Question.  Charles Torres and Hinrich acknowledge in that Windows Server 2k8 video that some people, your included, use Windows Server as their client.  Several advantages to doing so but anyhow.  Why does Microsoft constantly make their client software unusable on Windows Server.  A lot of times its just a change in the .msi database that needs to be performed.  Microsoft knows these people exist, we are paying customers.  I know I payed for Server 2003.  So why do you want to alienate people you know are out there.  I personally love the Zune, I am excited about the new launch but the software doesnt work on Windows Server.  So whats the point?  Throw us a bone here.

The Zune was a test for the future Gadget Ownership Aboloshment Liscense also known as G.O.A.L. The microsoft police will come barcode you forearm shortly, so you can stop supporting silly gadgets.

Zune is all about design without cause. Just ask yourself:
1)Why design your own thick client when your company owns a widely used and supported one? crickets
2)Brown was one of the originial colors. Why not Khahki ?
3)Wireless cool! Can you synch to your computer wirelessly? crickets

odujosh wrote:

3)Wireless cool! Can you synch to your computer wirelessly? crickets

Yes?

To make a gross assumption, I'd think it comes down to not wanting to incur the support costs of people using a server OS as a desktop one. By not making various installations work on the server OS it re-inforces the point, so they don't get into a silly "it's windows, it installs, it's broken, do something about it." arguments.

Plus there's the whole "installing random apps on a server" is a bad idea, so clueless admins which are tempted to install X, Y or Z on their server box may think twice when it doesn't work.

Plus, how many customers use the server OS as their workstation OS? 100? 1000? I'm sure MS would much rather put effort into making the consumer OS so good you won't feel the peculiar need to use things as they weren't originally intended.

Anyway, why would you want to do that. I've never understood people who do that. Now vista's got the volume shadow copying I can't see a good reason to want to use the server OS as a client.

But, to each his own I suppose.

Also, isn't the server OS license horribly expensive compared to the client OS?

This Post irks me. Let me start by saying my goal is not to attack the poster but the idea. (And I am always open to have someone enlighten me) But why? Why pay the money to run server as a client. Server is supposed to be streamlined not to be a client. In fact most IT want something even more slimmed down than it is. I don't think I have ever seen a production server used locally. At most one usually remotes into a server to install applications. Usually health is monitored vis an app on an IT guys desktop. Please I don't understand why we would want to support server like that. Zune is a home product as well, why would anyone but confused gamers install server as their main home desktop.

I guess I am just confused. I need a reason that microsoft should support client apps on a server. It just doesn't make sense.

Ladies and Gentelemen Chewbacca is a Wookie.

Jonathan

But thats different. Thats a dev machine. this post is talking about running things like zune. I have my main work desktop but have several servers setup for development.

Yes but I don't need Zune software to do that.  Visual Studio works fine on Windows Server.

blowdart wrote:


So you don't dev on your main machine? At all? Remote deploys and remote debugging are too painful some times, it simply makes sense to run the same OS as you're deploying to./

Not so much these days when you can do all of that using VPC and get the added benefit of rolling back the machine to a known state easily.

I run server 2003 as my desktop and soon to be Server 2008 because it is rock solid, it can take more of a beating than Windows XP and being as I test and develop at home as well as at work its a good fit.  I know several people that run Server 2003 at home as a client OS a bunch of people at my job do as well.  Some laptops at work have Server 2003 standard installed.  If its worthy, if it works why not use it.  Its been over a year since I have had to redo my home system with Windows Server 2003 installed as the main OS.  How many times a year do you have to reinstall XP so far? Obviously enough people use it as Microsoft has made the Desktop Experience an option in Windows Server 2008.  So by your logic, people would be silly to run Linux at home since *nix is a server oriented system.  As for the comments that say admins would install it, no they wouldnt.  People dont normally screw around, they want to use what they want painlessly.  If they cant get the Zune to work why not go with another device that they know will work.  Same principal with the live apps.  I cant get them to work on my client OS of choice Im going to use the alternatives.

JonnyRocks wrote:

But thats different. Thats a dev machine. this post is talking about running things like zune. I have my main work desktop but have several servers setup for development.

VPC is way to slow. I like to test in real world scenario and speed.

AndyC wrote:



blowdart wrote:  So you don't dev on your main machine? At all? Remote deploys and remote debugging are too painful some times, it simply makes sense to run the same OS as you're deploying to./

Not so much these days when you can do all of that using VPC and get the added benefit of rolling back the machine to a known state easily.

rjdohnert wrote:

VPC is way to slow. I like to test in real world scenario and speed.

Not that I don't agree with your original post (it irks me too) but your comment above...

That sounds like someone who either hasn't actually tried running VPC or doesn't have the memory needed to support it.

And increasingly your "real world scenario" is to run on a virtual pc platform.

I seem to recall someone (Hanselman) actually finding his apps ran FASTER inside VPC, crazy as that sounds! Certainly once I made the move (forced to by a client environment) I was so impressed I switched to it as my main environment on my home PCs and my main laptop (which admittedly has 4GB memory). I have to say that against expectations I have noticed no performance problems at all.

Try it - you might be pleasantly surprised.

irascian wrote:



That sounds like someone who either hasn't actually tried running VPC or doesn't have the memory needed to support it.

And increasingly your "real world scenario" is to run on a virtual pc platform.

Couldn't agree more, VPC is the way to go to get a good, clean test environment. And I'd add that a real-world scenario is never going to be a server box with Zune software installed on it anyway....

It's an anomaly when someone who can run Windows Server as a client doesn't have a second, third or even a forth PC.

I think the reason they limit the MSIs of some packages to client SKUs of Windows is simply a matter of testing.  Installing Zune software (and I'm not sure what else) is not a real user scenario on a TerminalServer or any other kind of Server in a server role.  Thus the Zune team doesn't bother to test it and makes it impossible to do so that the few people who try it can't complain about it breaking mysteriously on them.

I'd like to run Server on my laptop, though.  Are all the expected drivers and features there to make it work (i.e. batt.sys and all the expected PM stuff?).   I've always thought that Microsoft should make a Windows Developer Edition based on the server image, but with Business-level pricing.