Jump to content

My experience with Windows Sever 2012

Globius
By Globius
in Operating Systems
 Share
Posted

So guys I recently purchased a new dedicated sever and it has Windows Sever 2012 when I am used to using 2008!

At first I was rather sceptical and want to downgrade to 2008 however I would of had to purchase enterprise since I am using 128Gb of ram!

After I had been using 2012 for a while I started to grow on it and here I am today quite enjoying it! I have some pros and cons:

 

==================================================================================================================================

 

Pros

  • It looks VERY clean
  • The standard edition supports 128Gb ram (That's what I am running at the moment)

​

Cons

  • No start bar 6f8d70ada7.png
  • Pain in the ass to navigate
  • Somewhat overly complicated (You have to press more buttons to access things that are shown by default in 2008)ac1dfb337b.png
  • It's hard for me to open the search since I have multiple monitors(You have to put your mouse to the edge of the screen and my mouse moves out the window) 812d98c656.png

==================================================================================================================================

 

Sorry that this review wasn't very in-depth but it's my first review and I didn't know what else to include D:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

So guys I recently purchased a new dedicated sever and it has Windows Sever 2012 when I am used to using 2008!

At first I was rather sceptical and want to downgrade to 2008 however I would of had to purchase enterprise since I am using 128Gb of ram!

After I had been using 2012 for a while I started to grow on it and here I am today quite enjoying it! I have some pros and cons:

 

==================================================================================================================================

 

Pros

  • It looks VERY clean
  • The standard edition supports 128Gb ram (That's what I am running at the moment)

​

Cons

  • No start bar
  • Pain in the ass to navigate
  • Somewhat overly complicated 

==================================================================================================================================

 

 

Sorry that this review wasn't very in-depth but it's my first review and I didn't know what else to include D:

Pictures of the annoyances?  ;)

CPU: i5 4670k • Cooler: Corsair H100i • Motherboard: MSI Z87 MPOWER • RAM: Crucial Ballistix Elite 2x 8GB • Storage: Samsung 840 250GB SSD, 2x WD Red 3TB • GPU: EVGA GTX 780 3GB • PSU: Corsair RM750W • Case: Corsair 750D • Mouse: Razer Naga 2012 (I actually use the thing for productivity/media buttons) • Keyboard: Ducky Shine 3 w/ Browns - Green LED • Monitor: Asus PB278Q 27" 2560 x 1440, ASUS PB238Q 23" 1920x1080 • Lighting: 2m NZXT Sleeved Blue LED Strip • pcpartpicker.com/p/3cHfZ

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
  • Author

Pictures of the annoyances?  ;)

Sure, lemme add them now :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

What is the intended use for the server, 128GB seems excessive, and windows servers are just so unreliable and expensive and difficult to deal with. 

I see you have some desktop connection to it to control it, and complain about the difficulty of control. And this is the downfall of windows server, you can't really get around it by using a CLI style prompt and just connecting via SSH, which is the beauty of linux. 

 

I really suggest you look into linux, and its a shame to see Linus so idly reject to looking at it too.

Arch Linux on Samsung 840 EVO 120GB: Startup finished in 1.334s (kernel) + 224ms (userspace) = 1.559s | U mad windoze..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

I have it too. I love the new server manager. It lets me not worry about idiot fish employees screwing anything up. The storage and virtual disk management in particular.

By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.


-Galileo Galilei

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

What is the intended use for the server, 128GB seems excessive, and windows servers are just so unreliable and expensive and difficult to deal with. 

I see you have some desktop connection to it to control it, and complain about the difficulty of control. And this is the downfall of windows server, you can't really get around it by using a CLI style prompt and just connecting via SSH, which is the beauty of linux. 

 

I really suggest you look into linux, and its a shame to see Linus so idly reject to looking at it too.

 

Windows Server's aren't unreliable at all, I run over 70 running everything from 2003 to 2012. I don't have any problems with reliability at all. My Hyper-V Hosts all run Windows Server Core which is CLI only, you can do just about anything you need with PowerShell these days.

 

Linux has it's place too, i run quite a few linux servers as well (All running CentOS) different tools for different jobs, each has it's place.

 

128Gb wouldn't be excessive if it's a virtual host or large database server.

Current Rig (Ongoing Build)


Spec:- 4770K | GTX 780 | 32Gb 2133Mhz Vengeance Pro | CaseLabs TH10 | 2 x 840 Pro RAID 0 | 3 x 3Tb WD Red RAID 5 | Maximus VI Formula | LSI MegaRAID 9271


Cooling (Ongoing Build) :- EK CSQ Clean | EK FC Titan | 3 x BlackIce SR-1 480mm | NB eLoop Fans | Aquaero 5 XT | Dual D5 | Aqualis XT Res

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

are we a little excessive with the 128gb of ram?

Aselwyn1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing Operating Systems

×