+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 76
Windows Thread, Play with Server 2008 in Technical; Will it be easy to migrate across to 2008? I'm just thinking it's gonna be an arse recreating GP 's ...
  1. #16
    Oops_my_bad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Man chest hair
    Posts
    1,738
    Thank Post
    438
    Thanked 53 Times in 50 Posts
    Rep Power
    30
    Will it be easy to migrate across to 2008? I'm just thinking it's gonna be an arse recreating GP's and all the rest..

  2. #17
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,196
    Thank Post
    392
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    If you have a tidy AD then you should be able to add a 2008 DC and upgrade your schema. I haven't tried this yet but it will be the likely course of action.

  3. #18

    Gatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,658
    Thank Post
    858
    Thanked 646 Times in 429 Posts
    Rep Power
    498
    I'll be doing a clean install on some new servers..

  4. #19
    mrforgetful's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,637
    Thank Post
    7
    Thanked 15 Times in 15 Posts
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyle View Post
    Where can you get a copy of 2008 from?
    The Microsoft website has a downloadable RC. Do a search on there it should turn up.

  5. #20
    projector1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    460
    Thank Post
    70
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    18

  6. #21

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Rugby
    Posts
    432
    Thank Post
    17
    Thanked 66 Times in 61 Posts
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by CyberNerd View Post
    ^^ 5yrs of development is paying off. Seriously, what new features are there.
    You've obviously not had a look at the MASSIVE improvements to group policy.
    That's just one of the things that we noticed this week.

    Matt

  7. #22

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,639
    Thank Post
    514
    Thanked 2,443 Times in 1,891 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    831
    As matt says, the improvements are amazing. The development time has been well worth it I would say. Should make our lives a hell of a lot easier in so many ways.

  8. #23


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,202
    Thank Post
    442
    Thanked 1,032 Times in 812 Posts
    Rep Power
    339
    What are these improvements to gpo ? My question is genuine because I've stopped believing anything that comes from MS propaganda department, so I'm asking you guys to sift the Bulls*it.

    I've previously found with group policy it's possible to write adm templates to change pretty much any resistry settings. we were told we needed win2003 for XP, when adm templates can be loaded onto 2000 server. Is there a fundamental difference to 2008 to prevent it being backwards compatible?

    I was expecting new virtualisation features, as MS rush to keep up with Vmware, Citrix and the linux offerings. It seems this will be delayed until after 2008 release. Any sign of winfs?. Powershell looks an improvement (15yrs late).

  9. #24
    torledo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,928
    Thank Post
    168
    Thanked 155 Times in 126 Posts
    Rep Power
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by CyberNerd View Post
    What are these improvements to gpo ? My question is genuine because I've stopped believing anything that comes from MS propaganda department, so I'm asking you guys to sift the Bulls*it.

    I've previously found with group policy it's possible to write adm templates to change pretty much any resistry settings. we were told we needed win2003 for XP, when adm templates can be loaded onto 2000 server. Is there a fundamental difference to 2008 to prevent it being backwards compatible?

    I was expecting new virtualisation features, as MS rush to keep up with Vmware, Citrix and the linux offerings. It seems this will be delayed until after 2008 release. Any sign of winfs?. Powershell looks an improvement (15yrs late).
    you make a good point about adm files, i bought the whole idea that you must have 2003 for xp-specific gpo's ....if i had known i would never had upgraded beyond win2000. win2k server does everything you need and the things that were supposed to improve things in 2003 such as the printer deployment gpo just plain don't work as advertised or are ugly solutions to a problem (check both boxes for the awful printer deployment feature)....as for the file and print mgmt gui's to me they're just purely cosmetic fluff

    As for win2008, if it's better than the con that was windows server 2003 then i'm all for it - winfs was always an empty promise, they've killed it dead in the water before they dug that hole too big for them to get out of. MS realised it's just too difficult to create a truly modern fs without community support, i'm guessing winfs would have looked crap next to what sun and the open-source community have achieved with zfs anyway.

    As for virtualization my understanding was that hyper-v IS the virtualization offering, and is based on xen. if as a result of microsoft efforts vmware reduce the cost of vi3 even further to retain competitive advantage then i don't care if Hyper-V is any good.

  10. #25
    torledo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,928
    Thank Post
    168
    Thanked 155 Times in 126 Posts
    Rep Power
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by CyberNerd View Post

    Powershell looks an improvement (15yrs late).
    it's funny 'cos the team behind powershell actually looked back 15 years when developing powershell - that's how wrong microsoft were with thy're cmd / wsh approach . ....the team were heavily influenced by vms and os/400 - bonafide legacy technology from way bacj wen .

    and i don't think it is wrong to say that powershell itself is very heavily influenced by vms.

    So yes, powershell is late, but just shows how advanced legacy technology such as vms actually was and how microsoft got it so wrong before they came to their senses.


    when microsoft or the other tech companies tells you they've developed something brand spanking new, in all likelihood it's been done before in more mature technology.

    after all vm's aren't new ibm were doing virtualization and thin clients decades ago, what goes around comes around if it's of real substance.

  11. #26
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,196
    Thank Post
    392
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    @ torledo. 2003 is a far superior platform compared to 2k, IIS6 security and functionality is massively improved, reliability, VSS (so users can restore their own work). Don't get me wrong it's probably not worth running to from 2K but it's certainly a better product especially inc the disk quota/FSRM software in R2. Also loads of changes to how AD functions over WAN links, the ability to move a DC state to another location so you don't need to sync over slow links, even simple things like drag and droping of users.

    @ CyberNerd, i'm not sure MS ever said that you needed 2003 to manage XP just that the adms were built in, anyone that knows active directory would know that you can just upgrade the adm templates and that's exactly what thousands of companies did.

    WinFS was a massive project and they bit off more than they could chew, the other problem is that NTFS is very robust so it's difficult to better it.


    As for Powershell Wasn't it Dave Cutlers vms team that MS hired to write the NT kernel, i wonder why they didn't think of those ideas back then (just popped in there).

    As for virtualisation, no one inc IBM was doing this with a general purpose OS on sub $1000 hardware. That’s the difference. ICL were using virtualisation on their mainframes decades ago, you could have one for just £20,000,000.
    Last edited by cookie_monster; 28th January 2008 at 09:20 AM.

  12. #27


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,202
    Thank Post
    442
    Thanked 1,032 Times in 812 Posts
    Rep Power
    339
    anyone that knows active directory would know that you can just upgrade the adm templates and that's exactly what thousands of companies did.
    Indeed, this was my question, is it just a UI enhancement, or is there fundamental new GPO technology in 2008 that I should be aware of.

    As for virtualisation, no one inc IBM was doing this with a general purpose OS on sub $1000 hardware. That’s the difference. ICL were using virtualisation on their mainframes decades ago, you could have one for just £20,000,000.
    VMWare Desktop was launched in 1999
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vmware#Desktop_software

  13. #28

    Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Fylde, Lancs, UK.
    Posts
    11,803
    Thank Post
    110
    Thanked 583 Times in 504 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    224
    Well for a start, the file format has changed. They have a .admx extension now, because they are written in XML. So the template upgrade trick wont work.

    http://technet2.microsoft.com/Window....mspx?mfr=true

    There is also a AD schema extension for the WiFi GPO stupport.

    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../bb727029.aspx

    There are new 'functional' areas of GPO that require W2k8 and Vista to work. These include:

    - Power Management
    - Blocking of Device Installation
    - Combined IPSec and Firewall Settings
    - Redone IE settings
    - Printer Assignment based on Location
    - Delegating Printer driver installation to users
    Last edited by Geoff; 28th January 2008 at 10:05 AM.

  14. Thanks to Geoff from:

    CyberNerd (28th January 2008)

  15. #29
    torledo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,928
    Thank Post
    168
    Thanked 155 Times in 126 Posts
    Rep Power
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by cookie_monster View Post

    WinFS was a massive project and they bit off more than they could chew, the other problem is that NTFS is very robust so it's difficult to better it.

    As for virtualisation, no one inc IBM was doing this with a general purpose OS on sub $1000 hardware. Thatís the difference. ICL were using virtualisation on their mainframes decades ago, you could have one for just £20,000,000.
    NTFS is not robust compared to the proprietary unix filesystems, most of which are VxFS based. And NTFS is light years behind what ZFS is and will be capable of doing in the future. Again, we have to look back to vms, as to how a truly robust filesystem and volume manager could have been accomplished by the great minds at microsoft....just a shame they weren't pinching ideas wholesale from the vms implementation when it really mattered.

  16. #30
    cookie_monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    4,196
    Thank Post
    392
    Thanked 278 Times in 239 Posts
    Rep Power
    74
    Protected OU's is a start, the ability to have multiple password policies is a big one, read only domain controllers as well. Basically it's much more than a GUI upgrade.


    VMware err yes and it VMs general purpose OS's on low cost hardware.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Search Server 2008 Express
    By cookie_monster in forum Windows
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 9th March 2008, 11:37 AM
  2. Windows Server 2008
    By Quackers in forum Windows
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 7th February 2008, 08:39 PM
  3. Windows Server 2008 RC0
    By mrforgetful in forum Windows
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 14th October 2007, 08:51 PM
  4. Windows Server 2008
    By GrumbleDook in forum Books and Manuals
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 28th June 2007, 10:51 PM
  5. USB server? Anyone had a play?
    By contink in forum Hardware
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 4th July 2006, 02:36 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •