Coffeehouse Thread

50 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

What can we ask from Windows "Longhorn Server" 2006

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    smartguy

    Well to start off. I hated Windows 2000 server. I paid for something i hardly everyuse. Until Windows 2003 standard came i really thought Msoft had lost its. So why was Windows 2003 Better

    1. Stable for godsakes!
    2. Work like i setup to
    3. Lesser errors in Dll files "which i cofig myself"
    4. Started a Apache server and it ran like a dream.

    Now im waiting for Windows 2006 Server. Which has a code name of "Longhorn server". There is no beta out yet. So im hoping we can reach the programming to tell them what we are asking for. For starters

    1. Irc Server
    2. php enable on windows. "with out any extra software"
    3. leak proof memory
    4. More control over what goes in and out.
    5. Mysql db control. "editors, Controls, More"

    Post your idea if you like! ^will be update once i get more ideas^

  • User profile image
    Manip

    What the...

    So you purchased 2k server for your own personal use?! Why would you do that!

    1. Windows 2k is stable, compared at least to Win98 / ME that where both out at the time.
    2. This is a non-statement
    3. Then maybe your configuring them incorrectly?
    4. You purchased Win2k server and ran apache?!

    1. Microsoft don't support IRC, and it is not popular enough to make it worth while.. if they did it would appear in exchange server, a separate package.
    2. PHP, works in apache for windows and IIS already, Microsoft don't support it and are competing with their ASP.
    3. Possible, with new CPU's and managed code it could happen... Smiley
    4. What goes in and out of where? what?
    5. MySQL is a non-Microsoft product and worse still they are competing directly against it with their SQL2k server etc... keep dreaming...

  • User profile image
    Jaz

    manip pretty much summed it up

  • User profile image
    Jeremy W

    I'm really unaware of any stability issues with Windows 2000... Considering we have nearl 300 servers running on it you'd think I would be. The NT4 boxes are getting old and they are all having problems, though... As is our SAN-admin server, but that's mainly because it needs some more RAM (the more users we migrate to the SAN the more resources are taken up).

    While everyone's entitled to their opinion, I just don't agree that 2K is bad at all... And we haven't seen many compelling reasons to move to 2003 (we just purchased 20 licenses so we can setup a test lab and push AD/Exchange/SQL Server a little bit, so we'll see if this opinion changes).

    As far as 2006, the one thing I'd love is to not have to buy SecurePath (at a cost of 5K/server) just so we can do multi-route attachments to the SAN. I'm not really sure that's a high demand area, but if Longhorn Server wants to really move into the DC and high-end corporate area this will certainly help. It would also make it the only OS out there (that I'm aware of) besides VMS that can do this.

  • User profile image
    Manip

    Thing is, Longhorn server has to be a REALLY strong contender. By the time it is out Linux/FreeBSD will be even better than they are at the moment, it is hard to justify buying a windows server for anything other than domains; with a double hardware cost and much higher cost in general (even compared to non-free RedHat etc).

    I have nothing against samba, but managing it can be a pain.. So at the moment it is not an ideal solution but it is just getting better and better with each release and will not be too long until it is equal (or better) than Windows server. 

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    Last check, Microsoft decided to make Longhorn a desktop/workstation only OS. Blackcomb is going to be the next server OS. That is why Gartner recommended that companies switch to Windows 2003 Server.

  • User profile image
    Manip

    I am kind of mirroring what others have said, but I don't see the added value of 2003... I mean it is an improvement, but it seems they have done lots of little things but no big pull factors.

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    Manip wrote:
    I am kind of mirroring what others have said, but I don't see the added value of 2003... I mean it is an improvement, but it seems they have done lots of little things but no big pull factors.


    It is up to 11 times faster than Windows 2000 depending on the circumstance and 50-100% faster than Linux. I'd call that a big factor.

  • User profile image
    Manip

    Where did those Linux numbers come from? And what service is 50-100% faster? Boot time? web-server? Playing unreal torny?

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    Manip wrote:

    Where did those Linux numbers come from? And what service is 50-100% faster? Boot time? web-server? Playing unreal torny?



    Server performance:

    http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/7/1/0715a190-70f5-4b0d-8ced-f9d1e046aa6a/netbench.pdf

    Windows 2003 Server mops the floor with Linux.

  • User profile image
    Manip

    Are you joking? I mean you link to a study on Microsoft.com! Not even mentioning Microsoft's history (particularly the incident when they showed internet explorer is faster than Netscape when Netscape is on a slower connection!). Also it is talking about file access only... AND what about Microsoft's wonderful "total ownership of windows is less than Linux.." which is just funny.. really is funny...

    Not to mention this is testing Samba not linux. And even then only one feature of Samba.

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    Manip wrote:
    Are you joking? I mean you link to a study on Microsoft.com! Not even mentioning Microsoft's history (particularly the incident when they showed internet explorer is faster than Netscape when Netscape is on a slower connection!). Also it is talking about file access only... AND what about Microsoft's wonderful "total ownership of windows is less than Linux.." which is just funny.. really is funny...

    Not to mention this is testing Samba not linux. And even then only one feature of Samba.


    Tech support doesn't have to work as hard and anyone that pays per minute/hour will be in the poor house with Linux.

    Tech Support: Now I want you to type in this 200 character line into the bash prompt.

    Worker: I have no clue what you just said, what is a bash prompt and would you repeat each character extremely slowly so I make sure that I type the right one?

    With Windows, everything is visual so things are streamlined and it is not a GUI on top of a command prompt.

    Tech Support: I want you to click this, this and this, then check this and click the ok button 3 times.

    Worker: Done, everything is working again, thankyou!

    This really increases productivity which lowers the TCO.

    And if you still don't believe me, thinking that Windows 2003 Server is not a significant increase in performance is your choice and I have no right to argue with you over your decision.

  • User profile image
    Manip

    I love how you back-peddle out of your entire 'windows is faster than linux, look at this' rubbish.

    Also, Linux isn't a desktop system and we are not discussing desktops... You might not have a GUI but that reduces hardware costs / usage.

  • User profile image
    Jeremy W

    Are you ignoring the 2 recent non-MS TCO studies then?

    I really have no desire to get into a TCO argument, but there are two things that I always, always find funny when these studies come up:

    1. While a company doing it's own study does not have the appearance of partiality, that does not mean it is biased. By studying the methodologies, test subjects, etc (which Microsoft hasn't lied about, that I'm aware of, in past studies) you can easily determine how indiciative a study is (most people simply would rather say "MS did it themselves, or they paid for it so it doesn't count")

    2. Where studies are done and conclusive evidence is found, they are ignored.

    Personally I don't care about studies. Whenever you do a conversion project you should run your own numbers and those numbers should be one (just one) of the deciding factors.

    Either way we are geting severely off track. This was a discussion about what could be done to improve Windows in the server space.

    As far as Windows 2003 and performance (getting back to the subject at hand), most servers in companies our size are single-purpose, single-app servers (about 50%). We generally don't buy with power in mind.

    For instance we just bought 25 Dell PowerEdge 2650's (2 x 3.0GHz Xeons with 4GB of RAM and a pair of RAID arrays (one for OS and one for data)).

    None of these will ever max out their power requirements. As such, while the added speed of 2003 is good to know about it doesn't help us.

    What will help us is ways to bring down the cost of SAN-attaching servers, a more streamlined way to interoperate with other tools (particularly Novell ones as they are the most mature management tools (in my opinion) outside of Microsoft) and better asset management built into the servers (ie: outside of the DSI management tools).

    Disclaimer: again, we haven't even got our 2003 test lab up yet, so there could be significant improvements in these areas already.

  • User profile image
    smartguy

    Well my windows 2000 would always go to blue screen. This is the 1999 copy. I had 2000 because i own a test host. So i thought it would be nice to start with that. It was my first server. Then also i dont want apache. I use it cuz php can be unable throw that. So then it brings me around to Php. I would like php to work on Windows. Even thou its can be used throw linux. "Not a big linux fan. Its a very annoyying os. but i do use it."

    "4. What goes in and out of where? what? "

    What i mean by that is that i can have more control over each port. But without going throw each port. Like ports 2000-#### is close or leads to port 80.
    Irc is very popular throw linux from what i know. Windows would make a better irc server. Cant say the same about http server. lol. I just leave that to linux. I use windows as my workstation.

  • User profile image
    BOFH

    :\

    Is there something wrong with you, or are you just very unlucky and misled?

    The only reason which 2000 would have cause to BSOD would be either:

     a) Bad hardware
     b) Bad software (such as Apache)
     c) Bad user

    As far as your point 4 goes, that's called ISA Server 2000: http://www.microsoft.com/isaserver/

    "Irc is very popular throw linux from what i know. Windows would make a better irc server. Cant say the same about http server. lol. I just leave that to linux. I use windows as my workstation."

    Firstly, you've got it the wrong way around. Linux, at the moment, is a better platform for IRC (I should know, I run an IRC network with 3200 users on it); the reason for this is that the majority of the large IRCds (IRC Servers) available at the moment are designed primarily for Linux. Some of the more well-used ones such as Bahamut and Unreal come with Win32 ports which you can compile and run on Windows, however, the development of these Win32 ports is secondary to the main development work.

    IIS, however, is a superior web server to practically everything else out there, including Apache. IIS is a commercial product, backed by one of the largest companies in the world. It is not, as Apache is, a "hobby" product written by a thousand developers who have virtually no internal communication beyond their primitive form of discussion board called a "mailing list." I hate to be so anti-Apache/Linux here, but it's one of the things which really bugs me about Linux evangelists; the persistant belief that OSS has a hope in hell of creating better products than a commercial entity like Microsoft.

  • User profile image
    SMac

    Damn.. add mod points and we'd have slashdot V2


    (I know, I know, I'm a -1 flamebait)

    As far as more control over ports, look into routing and remote access (Remote Access/VPN Server Role) you can see your routing table, see current active connections, change filters.. much much more..

    Need more? ISA server 2000 or 2k4 beta 2 is available to MSDN subs..



  • User profile image
    sbc

    BOFH wrote:

    IIS, however, is a superior web server to practically everything else out there, including Apache. IIS is a commercial product, backed by one of the largest companies in the world. It is not, as Apache is, a "hobby" product written by a thousand developers who have virtually no internal communication beyond their primitive form of discussion board called a "mailing list." I hate to be so anti-Apache/Linux here, but it's one of the things which really bugs me about Linux evangelists; the persistant belief that OSS has a hope in hell of creating better products than a commercial entity like Microsoft.

    Why does Apache have 67% market share then? Maybe it does not need commercial support, and if it did then I am sure someone provides it.
    Amazon uses Apache as does PayPal and they are very successful commercial sites. Very good business case for Apache. Google runs Linux (and it's own home grown web server).
    It proves that OSS can provide a better product. Why is CVS and PHP/Perl so popular as well?

    What is good about Apache is the .htaccess files. They may not be user friendly but the do allow you to do things like redirection (which in IIS you need access to the server and need to create the file you are redirecting from).

    Other things Apache can do (without admin rights to the server config):
    • Error Documents
    • Password Protection
    • Deny access (via IP)
    • Adding mime types
    • Directory index (i.e. default page in folder)
    • Prevent hotlinking (i.e. linking to images from other sites)
    • Prevent directory listing
    From http://www.javascriptkit.com/howto/htaccess.shtml
    Apache's .htaccess file gives a lot more power to the web developer (which can be dangerous as well as extrememly beneficial if you use it properly)

    There are lots of modules available for Apache to extend it.

    IIS can do things like that, but only with web.config files (and even then only if the file types are .NET - ie ASPX)

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.