First Look at Windows Server Technical Preview
-
It is fully installed and LogMeIn is working on it already.
-
Awesome, looking forward to hearing some reviews.
-
What are supposed to be the big new features with the new version of Windows Server?
-
We getting a new Hyper-V?
-
@thanksaj said:
We getting a new Hyper-V?
Yes, every new Windows Server release packages a new HyperV release.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
We getting a new Hyper-V?
Yes, every new Windows Server release packages a new HyperV release.
That's what I figured. Would this be Hyper-V 4.0?
-
@thanksaj unlikely. But I've not heard of the number yet.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj unlikely. But I've not heard of the number yet.
Wasn't the latest release Hyper-V 3.0?
-
@thanksaj said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj unlikely. But I've not heard of the number yet.
Wasn't the latest release Hyper-V 3.0?
My understanding is that they dropped the version numbers and version it with the Windows Server release now, which is very confusing, but that has been part of the goal of HyperV since day one. Remember the top selling point of HyperV is confusion. So being clear would make no sense for Microsoft on this in any way.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj unlikely. But I've not heard of the number yet.
Wasn't the latest release Hyper-V 3.0?
My understanding is that they dropped the version numbers and version it with the Windows Server release now, which is very confusing, but that has been part of the goal of HyperV since day one. Remember the top selling point of HyperV is confusion. So being clear would make no sense for Microsoft on this in any way.
How does that possibly make sense?!
-
@thanksaj said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj unlikely. But I've not heard of the number yet.
Wasn't the latest release Hyper-V 3.0?
My understanding is that they dropped the version numbers and version it with the Windows Server release now, which is very confusing, but that has been part of the goal of HyperV since day one. Remember the top selling point of HyperV is confusion. So being clear would make no sense for Microsoft on this in any way.
How does that possibly make sense?!
That's the point?
-
@coliver said:
@thanksaj said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj unlikely. But I've not heard of the number yet.
Wasn't the latest release Hyper-V 3.0?
My understanding is that they dropped the version numbers and version it with the Windows Server release now, which is very confusing, but that has been part of the goal of HyperV since day one. Remember the top selling point of HyperV is confusion. So being clear would make no sense for Microsoft on this in any way.
How does that possibly make sense?!
That's the point?
I guess...
-
@thanksaj said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj unlikely. But I've not heard of the number yet.
Wasn't the latest release Hyper-V 3.0?
My understanding is that they dropped the version numbers and version it with the Windows Server release now, which is very confusing, but that has been part of the goal of HyperV since day one. Remember the top selling point of HyperV is confusion. So being clear would make no sense for Microsoft on this in any way.
How does that possibly make sense?!
It's not a superior product. It isn't as powerful, robust or cheap (at scale) as VMware and it lacks the extensive free features and maturity of XenServer. So why would anyone choose HyperV intentionally if they understood it as a product? There are some use cases, but by and large it is chosen because someone doesn't understand how it is bundled, that all of the competition are also free, that licensing is the same across all hypervisors or that at scale HyperV is expensive or because people are irrational suckers for bundling (same way that every carrier bundles Internet, television and phones while raising the price and lowering quality - just calling it a bundle is enough to make the average consumer drool and do anything that they are told.)
It is very rare that someone evaluates the options and chooses HyperV understanding all of the factors. The one big exception is that HyperV in its cheapest form allows Veeam and Unitrends to back it up - but that factor is external and not part of the product itself. At a product level, XenServer and ESXi beat it in every way.
-
Not that HyperV is bad, it's just not "as good" as its competition.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj unlikely. But I've not heard of the number yet.
Wasn't the latest release Hyper-V 3.0?
My understanding is that they dropped the version numbers and version it with the Windows Server release now, which is very confusing, but that has been part of the goal of HyperV since day one. Remember the top selling point of HyperV is confusion. So being clear would make no sense for Microsoft on this in any way.
How does that possibly make sense?!
It's not a superior product. It isn't as powerful, robust or cheap (at scale) as VMware and it lacks the extensive free features and maturity of XenServer. So why would anyone choose HyperV intentionally if they understood it as a product? There are some use cases, but by and large it is chosen because someone doesn't understand how it is bundled, that all of the competition are also free, that licensing is the same across all hypervisors or that at scale HyperV is expensive or because people are irrational suckers for bundling (same way that every carrier bundles Internet, television and phones while raising the price and lowering quality - just calling it a bundle is enough to make the average consumer drool and do anything that they are told.)
It is very rare that someone evaluates the options and chooses HyperV understanding all of the factors. The one big exception is that HyperV in its cheapest form allows Veeam and Unitrends to back it up - but that factor is external and not part of the product itself. At a product level, XenServer and ESXi beat it in every way.
We run a HyperV shop (by choice) and I agree with almost everyone of these points. I would have preferred to deploy XenServer but I was more worried about the people who would come after me and would need to support it, in the past there have been some... mediocre hiring decisions before I came on board. What this company really needs is to oursource their IT all together and not have an in house person... of course then I would be out of a job.
-
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj unlikely. But I've not heard of the number yet.
Wasn't the latest release Hyper-V 3.0?
My understanding is that they dropped the version numbers and version it with the Windows Server release now, which is very confusing, but that has been part of the goal of HyperV since day one. Remember the top selling point of HyperV is confusion. So being clear would make no sense for Microsoft on this in any way.
How does that possibly make sense?!
It's not a superior product. It isn't as powerful, robust or cheap (at scale) as VMware and it lacks the extensive free features and maturity of XenServer. So why would anyone choose HyperV intentionally if they understood it as a product? There are some use cases, but by and large it is chosen because someone doesn't understand how it is bundled, that all of the competition are also free, that licensing is the same across all hypervisors or that at scale HyperV is expensive or because people are irrational suckers for bundling (same way that every carrier bundles Internet, television and phones while raising the price and lowering quality - just calling it a bundle is enough to make the average consumer drool and do anything that they are told.)
It is very rare that someone evaluates the options and chooses HyperV understanding all of the factors. The one big exception is that HyperV in its cheapest form allows Veeam and Unitrends to back it up - but that factor is external and not part of the product itself. At a product level, XenServer and ESXi beat it in every way.
We run a HyperV shop (by choice) and I agree with almost everyone of these points. I would have preferred to deploy XenServer but I was more worried about the people who would come after me and would need to support it, in the past there have been some... mediocre hiring decisions before I came on board. What this company really needs is to oursource their IT all together and not have an in house person... of course then I would be out of a job.
Or just hire an MSP to support their very qualified in-house technician...
-
@coliver Have you tried XenServer? It's the easiest hypervisor that I have used. HyperV is more confusing to even discuss than XS is to use. I would choose XenServer specifically because it is so easy for someone coming after me.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver Have you tried XenServer? It's the easiest hypervisor that I have used. HyperV is more confusing to even discuss than XS is to use. I would choose XenServer specifically because it is so easy for someone coming after me.
I think his point was that it'd be more likely for someone applying for a job at his office in the future to know Hyper-V over Xen. I hear more about Xen at the enterprise level, and I'm guessing not a ton of those people would apply for a job at @coliver 's office. Just a guess.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver Have you tried XenServer? It's the easiest hypervisor that I have used. HyperV is more confusing to even discuss than XS is to use. I would choose XenServer specifically because it is so easy for someone coming after me.
I use XenServer for my home lab... agreed on all counts... it is ridiculously simple to implement and use even the command line XS console have been useful (I've actually migrated to doing a lot through XS commands). I would recommend it to anyone looking to get into virtualization, or even virtualizing production workloads.
-
@thanksaj said:
I think his point was that it'd be more likely for someone applying for a job at his office in the future to know Hyper-V over Xen. I hear more about Xen at the enterprise level, and I'm guessing not a ton of those people would apply for a job at @coliver 's office. Just a guess.
Xen in a cloud is huge in the enterprise space. XenServer is the packaging of Xen into a easy to use, SMB friendly (far more friendly than HyperV) virtualization stack.
XenServer is easier to use than VMware is to get a license from. XS is far more SMB friendly than HyperV or VMware in my experience. Licensing alone makes it easier. If you can use VirtualBox, you can use XenServer. If supporting XenServer presents a challenge, your IT staff can't support a Windows server at all.
