cookie_monster Posted January 28, 2008 Posted January 28, 2008 (edited) @ 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. Edited January 28, 2008 by cookie_monster
CyberNerd Posted January 28, 2008 Posted January 28, 2008 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
Geoff Posted January 28, 2008 Posted January 28, 2008 (edited) 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/WindowsVista/en/library/02633470-396c-4e34-971a-0c5b090dc4fd1033.mspx?mfr=true There is also a AD schema extension for the WiFi GPO stupport. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/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 Edited January 28, 2008 by Geoff 1
torledo Posted January 28, 2008 Posted January 28, 2008 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. That’s 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.
cookie_monster Posted January 28, 2008 Posted January 28, 2008 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.
cookie_monster Posted January 28, 2008 Posted January 28, 2008 "NTFS is not robust compared to the proprietary unix filesystems, most of which are VxFS based." (err evidence please you need to back up claims like that) "And NTFS is light years behind what ZFS is and will be capable of doing in the future." (Err well yeh i'd expect it to improve at some point in 'the future' are you also saying that MS filesystems will not improve?)
webman Posted January 28, 2008 Posted January 28, 2008 are you also saying that MS filesystems will not improve? Well they haven't done a very good job with WinFS have they? Not looking good ...
Geoff Posted January 28, 2008 Posted January 28, 2008 Wikipedia has a fun page comparing various file systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems
CyberNerd Posted January 28, 2008 Posted January 28, 2008 it looks like these schema can be applied to existing 2003, I suppose these XML templates can be re-written aswell?
Geoff Posted January 28, 2008 Posted January 28, 2008 it looks like these schema can be applied to existing 2003 You would need to install a 2008 DC (even if only temporarly) to do the schema extension. I suppose these XML templates can be re-written aswell Who are you going to pay to do that then?
CyberNerd Posted January 28, 2008 Posted January 28, 2008 Who are you going to pay to do that then? A 2008 upgrade would be extremely costly, I need to work out the long benefits of both routes for the school.
torledo Posted January 28, 2008 Posted January 28, 2008 "NTFS is not robust compared to the proprietary unix filesystems, most of which are VxFS based." (err evidence please you need to back up claims like that) "And NTFS is light years behind what ZFS is and will be capable of doing in the future." (Err well yeh i'd expect it to improve at some point in 'the future' are you also saying that MS filesystems will not improve?) My 'evidence' is based on personal experience of working with VxFS on solaris servers (additional cost option admittedly) and JFS (again veritas based, but included with hp-ux foundation OE) on HP-UX servers, and more recently administering windows servers using NTFS. Not emperical i know, but i know which filesystems i found to be more reliable.
cookie_monster Posted January 28, 2008 Posted January 28, 2008 (edited) WinFS is still looking promising but it's taken a back burner while MS sort out their crappy client products and conduct security rewrites of older poor software. http://blogs.msdn.com/winfs/archive/2006/06/23/644706.aspx Edited January 28, 2008 by cookie_monster
torledo Posted January 28, 2008 Posted January 28, 2008 "NTFS is not robust compared to the proprietary unix filesystems, most of which are VxFS based." (err evidence please you need to back up claims like that) "And NTFS is light years behind what ZFS is and will be capable of doing in the future." (Err well yeh i'd expect it to improve at some point in 'the future' are you also saying that MS filesystems will not improve?) Conside this..... ZFS is a viable alternative when creating storage 'appliances' using commodity x86 hardware and opensolaris...saving you a huge bundle compared to deploying propreity NAS and iSCSI filers from the likes of netapp which employ proprietary OS and filesystems e.g Netapp's WAFL. Now, what's the windows/NTFS alternative for building such a system ? vanilla Windows server 2003, eugh!! no thanks. And even worse, the monstrosity that is Windows storage server 2003 for NAS and ISCSI. The opensolaris storage group is doing the most interesting work on the opensolaris project....with a little bit of work (sorry, a lot of work) you can have a system using x86 hardware and inexpensive SATA disks that can support a number of the various storage protocols - NFS, CIFS, NDMP for backup, block storage presentation via FC or iSCSI. All on the foundations of a solid filesystem. That's not strictly a filesystem win for ZFS, but you can't built anything comparable using windows and NTFS as the filesystem foundation.
torledo Posted January 28, 2008 Posted January 28, 2008 WinFS is still looking promising but it's taken a back burner while MS sort out their crappy client products and conduct security rewrites of older poor software. http://blogs.msdn.com/winfs/archive/2006/06/23/644706.aspx It was a huge u-turn integrating winFS into SQL server only....will it ever make it into windows server ?, well the win 2008 ship has sailed, and it's conceivable they could ship it with server 2011/2012, but that's a looongg way off. They'll no doubt have their hands full getting the next OS out on time, WinFS may be too much of a hassle in which case they'll take the easy option and ship it with NTFSv?
cookie_monster Posted January 28, 2008 Posted January 28, 2008 Although this is all interesting i think we're deviating from the 2008 features area that the thread is about. 1
sahmeepee Posted January 28, 2008 Posted January 28, 2008 On top of the increase in the available number of GPO settings (there are zillions now) they've changed where ADM templates are stored so there's one location rather than storing them all in every single policy. From what I've seen though they expect you to manually create the central store folder and configure it.
Geoff Posted January 29, 2008 Posted January 29, 2008 I hope policy processing is faster in that case.
cookie_monster Posted January 29, 2008 Posted January 29, 2008 I think thats part of why there is now a GP client service.
sidewinder Posted January 29, 2008 Posted January 29, 2008 quick question, didnt see much point in starting a new thread, but for those who have installed it on virtual server, where is the SCSI driver? It was always detected automatically with 2003 + Xp so it surprised me somewhat..
sidewinder Posted January 30, 2008 Posted January 30, 2008 Never mind, Ive finally given up on Virtual Server, started using VMWare Server and have got Server 2008 installed in about half hour...Vmware seems a much better product
mrforgetful Posted January 31, 2008 Posted January 31, 2008 I remember when I installed it on a test machine in the office. Was having a look and play with DHCP then moved on to something else. Came in the next day and half the school couldn't find the network. Reason? They were getting addresses from the Server 2008 box. Beware. It was that problem that started me worrying about the fact any DHCP server plugged in to your network can give out addresses...the possibilites for disruption...
Gatt Posted January 31, 2008 Posted January 31, 2008 I remember when I installed it on a test machine in the office. Was having a look and play with DHCP then moved on to something else. Came in the next day and half the school couldn't find the network. Reason? They were getting addresses from the Server 2008 box. Beware. It was that problem that started me worrying about the fact any DHCP server plugged in to your network can give out addresses...the possibilites for disruption... Yep had this happen to me too.... now got it on a brand spanking new server that is isolated from the main network... Getting to grips with it ready for going "Live" in September, after its updated to the final release..
mrforgetful Posted January 31, 2008 Posted January 31, 2008 Yep had this happen to me too.... now got it on a brand spanking new server that is isolated from the main network... Getting to grips with it ready for going "Live" in September, after its updated to the final release.. phew! Not just me then...
Gatt Posted January 31, 2008 Posted January 31, 2008 Yeah, caused some confusion at the time.. pity u cant lock DHCP servers to only dish out IP's to a given domain or subnet.. though noticed that the DHCP in Win2k8 now seems to have some more options on it.. (NAP?)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now