Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Releases Windows Server 2012

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the apocalypse-edition dept.

Microsoft 249

Barence writes "Microsoft has released Windows Server 2012, letting businesses test it for 90 days on the Azure cloud platform for free. There are two versions of the main edition of Windows Server 2012: one with virtualization support and one without. The former, the Data Center version, costs $4,809, while the Standard edition will cost $882. There's also an Essentials version, which replaces Small Business Server, for $501 per server, and Windows Server 2012 Foundation, which will only be available pre-installed on hardware." Ars has a detailed look at the new edition.

cancel ×

249 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

frist (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41227761)

in b4 lunix trolls

Re:frist (0)

chucklebutte (921447) | more than 2 years ago | (#41227795)

in b4 lunix trolls

I see what you did there.

Re:frist (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41227797)

there is no need to troll, they have slaughtered themselves with Server 2012 and Windows 8, MetroPOS er UI in both instances... so bad, its unreasonable...

Re:frist (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41228115)

So bad and yet still miles better than any Linux based operating system or OS X.

Re:frist (5, Funny)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228225)

So bad and yet still miles better than any Linux based operating system or OS X.

That'll be why the world runs on Windows servers and no-one would think of putting any critical service on Linux.

Re:frist (3)

tenex (766192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228627)

That has got to be one of the better examples of properly applied sarcasm I've see here in a while.

Good play...

Critical Apps on Linux. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41228733)

That'll be why the world runs on Windows servers and no-one would think of putting any critical service on Linux.

The Oracle world (big business, government) is definitely running on Linux instead of Windows. With the decline of Unix running on "big iron", with the exception of IBM's RS/6000 and AIX being the last holdout, everyone is moving their enterprise, mission critical apps to Linux. Especially with Oracle themselves releasing a tweaked version of RHEL, Linux is an "officially supported" platform that even satisfies the corporate PHBs and bean counters.

I make a pretty good living porting Oracle enterprise databases and apps to Linux. Just a couple weeks ago, we ported a Windows-based Oracle WebLogic middleware server from Windows to OEL Linux running on the very same piece of hardware, and got a tenfold boost in performance. With results like that, business loves Linux now.

Granted, only server-side things on Linux are welcome in the business world. The desktop will sadly *never* be adopted in any significant numbers in any enterprise. All because Windows and Active Directory rule that market segment.

Re:frist (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228901)

For server functionality pure bullshit. I have a decade's experience running Windows and *nix servers, often in the same networks and while Windows has AD and GPOs to its benefit, in other respects it is horribly backwards and painful to use. Just backing up the system config in Windows is appallingly difficult compared to *nix.

Re:frist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229027)

"appallingly difficult"... You keep using those words. I do not think it means what you think it means....

If you find backing up Windows appallingly difficult, then you, my friend, should not be managing Windows... Backing up Windows is very easy. You just use the backup utility.

Re:frist (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229065)

Which, up until Windows 7/Windows 2008 R2, was more of a toy than a true enterprise solution.

Re:frist (1)

DeSigna (522207) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229083)

In comparison, it's quite a bit more difficult. But yes, there are complex tools available to handle all the nasty stuff behind the curtain.

Re:frist (-1, Flamebait)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229731)

The backup utility they crippled as of vista, so that it can no longer do a backup/restore of specific files? The one that was crippled so that it could no longer back up to tape?

For the record, it was an intentional crippling, because they really didnt want people using that, ever, as part of their backup strategy.

WHAT!? (2, Informative)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#41227787)

$4k to enable visualization support (that the code already is there for?)

Yet MS wonders why they have such a comparatively tiny market share of the server market...

Re:WHAT!? (5, Funny)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#41227801)

Dammit, VIRTUALIZATION.

When the hell is Mozilla going to put that in the default en_US dictionary already?

Re:WHAT!? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41227811)

$4k to enable visualization support (that the code already is there for?)

Yet MS wonders why they have such a comparatively tiny market share of the server market...

It also allows for unlimtied virtualised Windows 2k12 installs under that one license...

Re:WHAT!? (2)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#41227827)

OK, that makes more sense then. My mistake...

Re:WHAT!? (1, Offtopic)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#41227913)

2k12

Seriously...

Re:WHAT!? (4, Funny)

mythosaz (572040) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228621)

Seriously... ...says the guy named Forty Two Tenfold, complaining about '2k12'

Re:WHAT!? (4, Funny)

Mike Buddha (10734) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229227)

Seriously... ...says the guy named Forty Two Tenfold, complaining about '2k12'

Well, he is high.

Re:WHAT!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41227943)

SLES does this as well, and the SLES license + HA Tools license (DRBD, etc) is $799 + (IIRC) $499. So, I dunno, $4k still seems a bit high priced.

Re:WHAT!? (4, Informative)

mythosaz (572040) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228633)

Expressed as a percentage of the cost of virtualization environment, both numbers are almost meaningless after you factor in tiny things like storage.

Re:WHAT!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41228725)

Remember where you're posting. This is a linux forum. These kids don't get out of the basement and don't do virtualization in a real environment. These are basement-dweller budgets we're talking about. Your post is meaningless here. "Storage" is a few hundred bucks to them.

Re:WHAT!? (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#41227815)

Isn't that true of pretty much every software with multiple versions? The code already exists. However, I would hope the virtualization support isn't actually installed unless it's needed.

Re:WHAT!? (2)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | more than 2 years ago | (#41227933)

Virtualization (Hyper-V) is a role which is not installed by default. Has been that way with all Windows versions with Hyper-V .

Re:WHAT!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41227881)

Virtualization support in Data Center also included running UNLIMITED copies of the OS on a single virtualized server. For example, let's say I have a vSphere cluster with 2 hosts, 4 CPU's per host. I can buy 8 Windows Data Center licenses (1 for each processor) and then run 60 virtual Windows servers on that hardware without additional server licensing.

It's a benefit, and only makes sense at that large a quantity of servers, but it is a benefit.

Re:WHAT!? (3, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#41227971)

Actually that would be 4 licenses (each one covers two sockets, the old license scheme was hard to figure out for the most common use case of a 2 socket box).

Re:WHAT!? (5, Informative)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 2 years ago | (#41227999)

Each copy of Windows Standard includes TWO virtual instances for $800. Under the old agreement it was 1 License = 1 Copy.
Each copy of Datacenter includes UNLIMITED copies of Windows for $4800.
Or buy Essentials with NO virtualization for $500 (you can still run it on a virtual machine, but only ONE copy)

Re:WHAT!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41228235)

"Under the old agreement it was 1 License = 1" physical installation + 1 virtual installation.
technically you could run win server as hypervisor for a win server as a guest.

Re:WHAT!? (1)

amirulbahr (1216502) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229105)

If you buy Standard and wish to run it under another hyper-visor, such as KVM or ESXi, are you entitled to run three instances, two, or one?

Re:WHAT!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229375)

Not quite right.
Under the old license you had 1 server, 1 windows VM license, but could run as many linux, bsd or other operating systems as you wish.

The new way only allows two of any OS VM to be run. You can buy additional windows licenses to get more VMs though.

Re:WHAT!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41228267)

You can always use HyperV 3.0 for free. Server 2012 with virtualization just means a pretty UI vs HyperV with powershell.

Re:WHAT!? (1)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228353)

...but to be honest, if you are not going to run Windows in those VMs, then ESXi is a much better choice for a free hypervisor...

Re:WHAT!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41228781)

LOL, I just had to read a few posts down to get justification for my troll post here http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3094175&cid=41228725

Kid, free ESXi is not going to be used or considered in any environment that would consider a Server 2012 Datacenter license. Really. It's the mentality you demonstrate in your post that is my point here.

Re:WHAT!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41228597)

What does the code being already there have to do with it? Of course the code is there. The cost isn't in sending you a copy of the code...it's in paying hundreds of highly-educated engineers and programmers to create it.

Re:WHAT!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41228853)

"comparatively tiny market share of the server market..."

You're kidding, right?

Re:WHAT!? (3, Interesting)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229061)

Yet MS wonders why they have such a comparatively tiny market share of the server market...

You're kidding right??? Their server market share would have to be at or close to an all time high with a majority share.

To match Windows 8... (5, Funny)

Atti K. (1169503) | more than 2 years ago | (#41227805)

... it will need Metro-style management tools!

Re:To match Windows 8... (1)

formfeed (703859) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228509)

... it will need Metro-style management tools!

The sad truth is, this shouldn't get a +1 Funny but a +1 Informative
I overheard a couple of "IT managers" at a University rave about their server management tools. If I understood correctly the Excel server is setup by clicking option boxes.

Re:To match Windows 8... (4, Insightful)

danomac (1032160) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228997)

What's wrong with option boxes?

As someone that uses both the shell and GUI config options, what's wrong with a choice? Sometimes configuring things through a GUI is faster. I'm all for that, especially if it can take less of my time.

For running scripted stuff, obviously the shell is better. Both are made for specific purposes.

What exactly does it do? (0)

matthiasvegh (1800634) | more than 2 years ago | (#41227807)

So what exactly does it do that similarly equipped Linux machines/vps' can't do that justify the cost? I mean granted, it seems headless installation seems to finally work, but still..

Re:What exactly does it do? (-1, Flamebait)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#41227843)

.NET and/or IIS lunacy? Not that you're missing out...

Re:What exactly does it do? (0)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#41227869)

Been a while since I've done Windows licensing, but does the license include support? If it does, then there's the main advantage of using Windows over Linux in any corporate environment.

Re:What exactly does it do? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41227963)

Wait...Linux comes with support as well...you just have to pay for it.

Re:What exactly does it do? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228231)

Wait...Linux comes with support as well...you just have to pay for it.

http://www.debian.org/consultants/ [debian.org]

$5K would keep me in doritos and cheetos for awhile.

Finally tried real pay-for-it microsoft support. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41228003)

3 days of grubbing around in the registry and it still doesn't work.
On the linux servers, The same task was done with 3 iptables lines.
including the "service iptables save" .

  I was underwhelmed.

Re:Finally tried real pay-for-it microsoft support (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41228399)

(posting anonymous for obvious reasons)

It only took you three days. We were dealing with a screwy Microsoft Lync mobility issues whereby the iOS client just wouldn't work (but every other client under the sun worked). The only odd-ball thing about our setup was one of the four servers (at least four are required for any Lync deployment) was a Linux box acting as a reverse proxy. We opened up a ticket with Microsoft on April 30, 2012. The time spent with them since is a waste of time:

* We repeatedly requested the actual HTTP request/response data from the iphone's perspective, annotated with notes on how it differs from what the iphone expected. Every time we requested it, they provided us with the client's general iphone debug log (which was useless to us), even though we explained that it doesn't fulfill our request.

* We asked for details on what is expected of the Lync reverse proxy. They provided us with instructions on how to set up TMG. We replied that the provided information did not fulfill the request. Their response was a shrug and another link to the same instructions.

* We asked if there was anything specific to the iOS client that required ISA or TMG. They demurred on it, refused to research it, refused to acknowledge the bug for *four* months. I'm not exaggerating. It was August 31 when we inferred from the continued back and forth that the only way Microsoft can hope to grasp the problem is to make the reverse proxy an ISA server.

From this, I learned that Microsoft support really isn't much better than doing it yourself. They have no inside tricks, they have no way of getting a guru to weigh in on anything, and they hope that by sending you the same wrong information over and over they won't have to acknowledge faults in the product.

For my part, calling Microsoft support isn't an option any longer. It is a waste of time and money that could be better spent solving the problem myself.

Re:What exactly does it do? (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#41227949)

Obsoletes some MCS* certificates perhaps.

Re:What exactly does it do? (4, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228007)

Run the 99% of commercial apps that are coded agaist the win32 api in a supported manner? Have vm management tools that don't suck horribly? I could go on but I'd just be further feeding the troll.

Re:What exactly does it do? (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228143)

Ok, so your point is that you can run more commercial apps and that VM management isn't horrible. I have no experience with VM management under Linux nor Windows so I can't tell.

Is there anything else these $5k will bring over a Linux?

I'm genuinely asking as I'm not all that into Windows.

Re:What exactly does it do? (4, Insightful)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228327)

We run a heterogeneous shop split about 50/50 between Linux (Debian) and Windows (2003/2008). Windows excels at certain things, Active DIrectory, and running .net apps delivered to us by various contractors. Our Linux systems run mission critical services as well as file-servers, and virtualization via VMWare's ESXi products (horribly overpriced but it's the situation that I inherited). I poke fun at the Windows guys fairly often and I get joked at in return, but the reality is that we all realize that it's about the right tool for the job. I don't have a single metal Windows install at home and I don't feel at all left out of the commercial loop, but like everything in life your own mileage will vary.

Re:What exactly does it do? (5, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228599)

So basically, Windows is the right tool for things that only run on Windows ... otherwise, use Linux.

Re:What exactly does it do? (2)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228841)

So basically, Windows is the right tool for things that only run on Windows ... otherwise, use Linux.

That sounds about right to me.

Re:What exactly does it do? (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229483)

Windows excels at certain things, Active DIrectory, and running .net apps...

Newsflash: can opener right tool for the job of opening cans, clip at 11.

Re:What exactly does it do? (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228759)

Keep the once trapped client in the environment where it belongs, why?

Re:What exactly does it do? (5, Informative)

benjymouse (756774) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229427)

So what exactly does it do that similarly equipped Linux machines/vps' can't do that justify the cost?

* New resilient file system ReFS (think BtrFS when completed)
* Storage Spaces (think ZFS storage pools)
* SMB 3.0 - higher performance network transfer, transparent failover, SMB scaleout (multiple servers serve same shares and aggregates bandwidth), SMB Direct (efficient remote direct memory access), SMB Multichannel, Volume Shadow Service (VSS) for SMB file shares, SMB encryption, SMB Directory Leasing (negotiates and updates local caches of metadata over slow networks)
* Dynamic access control (claims and policy based access control). Think SELinux, grsecurity. Access control based on what application the user is running (sandboxing), from what type of device the user is accessing the resource, on other user attributes than security groups (e.g. who is the manager, what department does the user belong to etc), access control based on attributes of the file (e.g. classification, select words of a Word document)
* RemoteFX improvements, e.g. virtualized GPUs (can use local or remote shared GPUs during RDP sessions), remote low-latency multitouch.
* Direct Access over IPv4. Think hassle-free VPN.
* Hyper-V 3: ethernet cable live migration (neat trick) lets you migrate VMs off one server onto another server over the network without the servers sharing anything. Many Hyper-V manageability improvements. Crazy scalability, e.g. a 63-node Hyper-V cluster runs 4000 concurrent VMs simultaneously. Hyper-V replica.
* Server manager: Yes, a Metro (oops - "Modern") style management app for multiple servers. Integrates with response files and powershell workflow scripts to manage multiple computers (servers/workstations) at once - e.g. install new software, perform configure actions.
* PowerShell 3 with new features such as resilient remote connections (you can detach from a remote session and pick it up later/from another device), workflow scripts which can perform actions with suspend/restart/repeat semantics. No, not just "suspend process" - but actually persisting the state of a script to be continued later, e.g. after a computer restart (or from another machine).
* Thousands of new PowerShell cmdlets (many/most automatically derived from WMI providers) to control virtually anything on local or remote computers.
* Block sized data de-duplication

These are features I could find by googling. I'm sure there are more. Obviously not all of them will appeal to Linux enthusiasts. But still...

Ewww (1)

kiriath (2670145) | more than 2 years ago | (#41227837)

This makes me sad... Microsoft needs to do more to enable everyone to use their software. Not everyone wants to pay a ridiculous amount of money just for one or two features. Even the @1k price tag is expensive for a server in my book.

This is really expensive for an OS, and it doesn't even come with awesome looking hardware.

Re:Ewww (1)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228043)

That is why they have the Essentials and Foundation. High end features stripped off and a far more affordable price. For a few people who need a file server, Windows Standard edition is overkill.

Re:Ewww (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228383)

That's just it. There is no functional difference now between Standard and Enterprise. They all have the exact same features. The only difference is how many virtual machines you can run. $800 for standard vs $4000 for enterprise.

If you don't want virtualization at all, then there's Essentials.

Re:Ewww (2)

kiriath (2670145) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228619)

Sure, but right now you can get server core and hyper-v standalone and run many virtual servers, but in the future if you want to stay current, at some point you're going to have to pay through the nose.

Bender. (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#41227841)

> The former, the Data Center version, costs $4,809, while the Standard edition will cost $882.

Virtualization and incresed processor count is worth nearly $4,000?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M [youtube.com]

--
BMO

Re:Bender. (3, Informative)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | more than 2 years ago | (#41227901)

That is up to you.
There is no increased CPU count. Both Standard and Datacenter support 2 CPUs per license.
With Datacenter you get unlimited (Windows) VMs, so if you run more than 10 Windows VMs on a (2 CPU) box, it is cheaper.
For less dense virtualization, use Standard licenses, as each give right to two VMs.

Re:Bender. (1)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228341)

License is also CPU (socket) based not core.
so technically you can have 2x10 core (40 threads) to run lets say 5-40 vm's with the 4k license.
no functionality is disabled from standard to datacenter aside from VM licensing.

Re:Bender. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229403)

Virtualization and incresed processor count is worth nearly $4,000?

Going rate. [milesconsultingcorp.com]

Incorrect abstract. (5, Informative)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | more than 2 years ago | (#41227845)

The abstract is incorrect. Standard and Datacenter are now the same release with exactly the same functionality. The only difference is in the licensing. From the referenced article:

Functionally, Standard and Datacenter are the same. Even things like clustering, which used to be the sole preserve of the higher-end Windows Server SKUs, are found in Standard. The only difference is the number of Windows Server virtual machines supported per license.

So again: The only difference between the Standard and Datacenter is the licensing. Same software, two licenses.

What'd you expect from idiots at Arstechnica? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41228009)

Correct information?? Please... lmao: They're the dolts of the web!

Re:Incorrect abstract. (2)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228053)

The abstract is incorrect. Standard and Datacenter are now the same release with exactly the same functionality. The only difference is in the licensing. From the referenced article:

Functionally, Standard and Datacenter are the same. Even things like clustering, which used to be the sole preserve of the higher-end Windows Server SKUs, are found in Standard. The only difference is the number of Windows Server virtual machines supported per license.

So again: The only difference between the Standard and Datacenter is the licensing. Same software, two licenses.

Or more specifically, Standard = 2 copies of Windows per proc pair, Datacenter = Unlimited copies of Windows per physical server
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_2012#Editions [wikipedia.org]

Re:Incorrect abstract. (5, Informative)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228141)

Or more specifically, Standard = 2 copies of Windows per proc pair, Datacenter = Unlimited copies of Windows per physical server

Not quite. The Datacenter license is also per processor pair. If you have 4 processors in the box, you need two licenses.

Re:Incorrect abstract. (2)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228359)

correct, both lics are for 2 sockets. it will pay off to go with a higher core/socket CPU

Re:Incorrect abstract. (1)

packetrat (245386) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228207)

The article actually states this. The abstract above was wrong, not the article—you get licenses of 2 virtual instances of Windows Server per every Standard edition license. Also, there's a standalone version of Hyper-V Server that's a free download.

Re:Incorrect abstract. (1)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228317)

I actually state twice that the abstract is wrong, and then I quote the correct information from the article... I thought that was pretty clear, but sometimes it is still possible to misunderstand...

Shocking prices. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41227855)

Let me get this straight. $880 or $4800 for Windows Server, and somewhere around $40 for OSX Mountain Lion Server.

and Apple are the expensive ones?

Right. As you were, then.

Pedestal vs. rackmount (0, Offtopic)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228075)

Sure, a Mac Pro or a Mac mini + external Thunderbolt RAID may serve fine as a pedestal server. But I was under the impression that only Windows, Linux, and the like ran on rackmount hardware now that Apple has discontinued Xserve. Or has it already become common practice to put pairs of Mac mini computers into 19 inch racks [amazon.com] ?

where are the dual PSU's and hotswap HDD's? (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228705)

Sure, a Mac Pro or a Mac mini + external Thunderbolt RAID may serve fine as a pedestal server. But I was under the impression that only Windows, Linux, and the like ran on rackmount hardware now that Apple has discontinued Xserve. Or has it already become common practice to put pairs of Mac mini computers into 19 inch racks [amazon.com] ?

where are the dual PSU's and hotswap HDD's?

the mini does not even have a easy to get to HDD (next to all other desktops) in it.

Re:where are the dual PSU's and hotswap HDD's? (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229125)

Mac minis make for terrible rackmount machines.

They don't even have ILM, so you actually have to go into the server room. Even cheap Supermicro servers (of which I am a big fan) have good ILM.

Re:Shocking prices. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41228185)

Does Mountain Lion Server include complete Active Directory, DNS, RADIUS, Terminal Server, Certificate Authority, Web Server and enterprise virtualization functionality?

At $40 I guess not.

Re:Shocking prices. (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228703)

I've no idea what "AD" exactly is, but the rest is. Apple also opensources much of their server software.

Re:Shocking prices. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41228883)

Active Directory is worth the price of Windows Server alone, and I say that as a Linux sysadmin who's implemented an OpenLDAP infrastructure (everything from AuthZ/AuthN to Puppet ENC backend to a single point of truth for Nagios). AD is miles away from anything any Open Source or Apple product has ever implemented.

Re:Shocking prices. (1)

DeathElk (883654) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229107)

Active Directory - effectively yes, DNS - yes, RADIUS - yes, Terminal Server - yes, Certificate Authority - yes, Web Server - yes, enterprise virtualization functionality - neither does server 2012 unless you cough up an extra 4K

Re:Shocking prices. (1)

Celarent Darii (1561999) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228371)

In this case however, you truly get what you pay for. Lion Server is nothing in comparison to Windows Server, though it might be enough for many people.

Hahahahahahaa haaahhhaahahahaha (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41227981)

hahahhhahaa hahahahahahhahahhaaahh
whèèèèèè hahahahahhhhahhahahahahahahhhahaahh,
oh whfffff hahahahhahaha,

World's best server costs $0 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41227997)

I didn't say that. A senior IT executive from JP Morgan opened up his speech with that (at my uni). Well done Apache!

Re:World's best server costs $0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41228405)

and the worlds best bank is my mattress

Set some ground rules here.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41228125)

Obviously anyone who doesn't use M$ and call this announcement the worst thing to happen since the holocaust is a paid Micro$oft shill.

The only reasons to use WS2012 over Linux (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41228187)

1) You are unable to grow a neckbeard.
2) You've had sex without having to pay for it.

Re:The only reasons to use WS2012 over Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229459)

What if I once had a neckbeard but had sex without having to pay? Can I still use 2008 at least?

The Mayans were right... (3, Funny)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228313)

there will be a disaster in 2012

CALs? (1)

pebbert (624675) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228351)

Does Datacenter come with an unlimited number of CALs to go with the server licences? Or, are those separate?

Re:CALs? (0)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228433)

CALs are not included.

Re:CALs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41228447)

CALs are still separate like they've always been

Re:CALs? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41228905)

You are correct, and the two replies to you are lies. Datacenter gives you UNLIMITED guest OS CALs.

This site is pathetic. The amount of linux shilling that goes on here is sad.

Wow. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41228403)

I just picked up my copy and installed on my test machine and HOLY CRAP this is best version of Windows Server I've ever used. This basically solves the last problems that I needed Linux for so I can now finally replace all my Linux servers with something more usable and reliable. I'm looking to save about $1000 to $2000 per server per month by switching to Windows Server. Amazing.

Re:Wow. (3, Funny)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228713)

It's POSIX-complaint? :|

Re:Wow. (5, Interesting)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229367)

Haha.

On a serious note, though, you actually can run POSIX apps on Server 2012. NT has, since its inception, included support for POSIX APIs and filesystem behavior. These days it's called SUA (Subsystem for UNIX Applications) and a smallish but fully functional operating environment for it, called Interix, is available for free. The installer will also let you enable various tweaks such as SetUID/SetGID behavior and filesystem case sensitivity, things you can't get with Cygwin or the like. It's implemented as an NT subsystem, same as Win32, so the speed is basically native as well. Interix comes with a working build toolchain, plus you can get a package manager for a repository of precompiled software and updates from http://suacommunity.com./ [suacommunity.com.]

I'm not sure I'd advocate adopting it at this point if you haven't already - MS has been making moves toward discontinuing support for some years now, and it appears to no longer be in any of the client editions but Enterprise - but it exists, and it works. MS themselves used it to host Hotmail on Apache before they ported it to run on IIS. I use it (on client) both for various utilities that I prefer the POSIX versions of (git and ssh and such, plus sometimes there is no Win32 version) and for bash (my primary shell).

Now That 2012 is Out... (3, Funny)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228503)

It's probably time to seriously consider moving from 2003 to 2007.

Re:Now That 2012 is Out... (1)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | more than 2 years ago | (#41228687)

It's probably time to seriously consider moving from 2003 to 2007.

Why not be a little more bold and go to like 2009? So then you are only 3 years behind...

Not quite generally available yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41228809)

At the time of this comment, Microsoft server site (http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/windows-server/default.aspx) and dreamspark still have the RC version only.

Agressive Pricing... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41228921)

Look like they may be trying to be a really compelling alternative to VMWare in the medium to large business space here. Pay 5000 per two sockets to use Server 2012 core as host OS for VMs, pay an extra 4000 per two sockets for the few System Center 2012 Datacenter boxes you need, evaluate you migration costs and savings from not having to have vSphere licenses.

Could be cost effective for some shops. Especially that it's pretty easy to figure out the costs with this new model compared to VMWare model.

Oh good. Finally quality home OS to replace Win7. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41229451)

Can someone explain to me why MS is pushing me to pirate their 800$ server os by making their 50$ workstation os - which I'm perfectly willing to buy just like I own two win7 licenses - worthless and obsolete? It just makes no sense.

This is win2000 versus winME all over again... Have they learned nothing?

Grossly misleading/incorrect summary (1)

Jahoda (2715225) | more than 2 years ago | (#41229705)

(Although it should be noted article is misleading as well) Server 2012 Standard as well as Datacenter fully supports virtualization through Hyper-V. However, Standard edition is only licensed for running only two instances of _itself_ (actually more generous than the 1 physical, 1 virtual of current 2008 R2 STD licensing). Datacenter supports unlimited licenses. I am sorry, but I can only link directly to the PDF: http://download.microsoft.com/download/C/1/6/C1667DE0-EAC8-4DE7-BC47-E27DAE5B38D6/WS%202012%20Data%20Sheet_All%20Up%20Product%20Overview.pdf [microsoft.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?