Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@Indrek wrote:
But I see you’re really taking it into heart that someone dared challenge your opinion.
Check your premise: I voiced no ‘opinions‘ for anyone to ‘challenge‘; and you’ve posted nothing of veracity or worthy of ‘taking into heart‘ — or to effect me in any way with regard to emotion; perhaps you’re projecting…
I posted a suggestion… For you to dive bomb a literal, straight-forward, post statement that contains no guile, and invites no discussion the way you have with all your: bizarre assumptions, sarcasm, personalizations, histrionics, and disingenuous psychologizing is not a ‘challenge‘, it’s trolloing and nut bag crack-potting…
@Indrek wrote:
I’m still confused as to why you would totally fly off the handle like that for what really was a sincere question…
Reproaching someone for ridiculous assumptions is not ‘flying off the handle‘ of anything; if any of your questions were in fact ‘sincere‘, you would not have presumed to answer your own question when asking, and you would not regard your nasty remarks as above reproach…
Perhaps there’s a semantic language barrier issue; I don’t speak Hrvatski, and as you’re making the effort at translation I supposed some forbearance at understanding on my part is due — but your statements are so loaded with irrelevant personalization, hostility, and histrionics it doesn’t invite much enthusiasm or sympathy from me in discussing anything with you again…
🙁
I think that sounds good; I don’t know if phpBB offers the functionality, or if there’s a plug-in for it, but if there some means to flag or rename topic titles that are merged so that forum Users can tell a particular merged thread is about Server 2008 vs Server 2008 R2 without opening it — would be very helpful, or perhaps setting a topic title policy to make it clear, and updating the topics manually… Not just an idle suggestion, if manual labor is involved, I’ll help…
Re. Application & Utilities: I initially had in mind software that was rather Server, and Server as Workstation centric — that isn’t typical Consumer software like WSCC and the Utilities it deploys; but now think it might be nice if the section invited discussion and comparison of Userland applications, as there are forum Contributors that have a lot of knowledge of Windows internals that can can offer insight, so perhaps a more generic title then ‘Tips‘?
Lastly: the forum global link color is very low contrast for the current theme, and the forums seems to be on a version of phpBB that has an annoying post scroll bug that’s fixed in later versions, there are also many security fixes in later versions and updating is usually fairly easy if you’re not too many versions behind…
:geek:
@Indrek wrote:
Heh, relax there, buddy. No need to get all agitated.
I am relaxed, I’m not agitated — it’s your straw man arguments, bating remarks, rhetorical questions where you offer your own answers and are completely intolerant of exception that have me reproaching you, and I’ve realize too late what I’ve fallen for…
@Indrek wrote:
I was asking a simple question – “Why?”
So simple, so innocent; except you answer all your own questions with the assumption of ‘correctness‘ before offering an opportunity for response, and reproach the answers I do offer as unacceptable with more straw-man bullshit, and insults.
@Indrek wrote:
But I guess you were not looking for constructive criticism after all. Sorry about that.
‘Constructive criticism‘? ‘After all‘? Where do I solicit any criticism? And where other then in your mind are your posts anything that even remotely resemble anything ‘constructive‘?
@Indrek wrote:
Au contraire, my good man. The only one giving off hostile vibes here is you.
You’re obviously lacking in introspective attention to what you’re writing, and how you’re writing it — or are a dishonest person.
@Indrek wrote:
Appearances can be deceiving. My desire is to initiate discussion, not to troll.
There should be no issues of ‘appearance‘ or ‘deceit‘ on an tech forum (unless your a marketing shill representing some interest), your statements and intentions should be explicit, not a guarded mess of jabs, bating remarks, rhetorical questions, sarcasm, and petty personalized insult under the guise of analysis.
It should be clear who the topic post was directed at; in case you missed it let me retype it here so you can see it more clearly: Arris: Application & Utility Forum? Nowhere is there any “RFD” or solicitation for discussion explicit or implicit.
@Indrek wrote:
I’m not sure why you’re so mistaken about my intentions.
Considering your choice of grammar, sarcasm, bating remarks, rhetorical questions and petty insults that till now I’ve politely ignored — I sincerely doubt you are anything but trolling…
@Indrek wrote:
Maybe you’re unclear on the meaning of the phrase “playing devil’s advocate”? If so, I’m sure a quick visit to your search engine of choice will clear it up, after which we can hopefully resume civilised discussion.
More sarcasm and insults, concealing another self-aggrandizing straw man argument; ergo I that solicited a ‘discussion‘, want one with you, and that you have been civil.
@Indrek wrote:
Is it not the whole purpose of this forum to reduce the difference between Windows 7/Vista and Server 2008 R1/R2 Workstation to nothing more but semantics?
Another assuming rhetorical question; can you possibly tolerate or is there even room in your thinking for an exception? Do I even care at this point? No. But for the sake of others that may bother to read and may be mislead; I see many here that don’t have any desire to replicate the Windows 7/Vista ‘desktop experience‘ or ‘userland‘ and, like me have some very specialized OS needs.
@Indrek wrote:
I do hope you’re not somehow basing your self-worth on your choice of OS.
More revolting, petty, bating insults, why? Have you even read why I use Server 2008 R2, the answer is on the forum. Windows isn’t even my main OS ‘choice‘… But all things considered you probably know this already, and/or don’t honestly care…
@Indrek wrote:
I’m only asking because your posts leave the impression that you think this is some sort of exclusive club where “run-of-the-mill Windows Users” (whatever that means) are derisively looked down upon by those select few who have been blessed with both the knowledge and the resources required to run this particular piece of software. Because guess what? It isn’t.
Good Lord, you’re so off-the-charts with this baiting, bullshit, troll remark it doesn’t merit comment beyond that…
Please, flake-off Indrek, the post wasn’t intended as invitation for your trolling; in the future I’ll correspond any similar intentions via PM to the intended audience directly to avoid upsetting you…
🙄
@Indrek wrote:
And how is that audience different from the general ‘buy Windows 7 and use that‘ audience? Compatibility issues are pretty much the only things that set us apart and, like I said, the forum has those covered already.
Most most of the people on this forum (present company excluded) whose posts I bother to read, and whose opinions, and feedback interest me are not run-of-the-mill Windows Users…
And that is the point; I’d rather get feedback from other WaS users I know, value, trust and that can offer some real insight — then some Geek Blogger wannabe. This is a Miscellaneous Sub-Forum exclusive to Server 2008 R2 help and issues — starting software and utility posts here is no different then Games and is impractical for all the same reasons.
@Indrek wrote:
Hmm… that seems a pretty cynical view of things 😛
I’d say your hostility, apparent desire troll the forum to a stand still, and regard for the kind of people posting here as no different then any other Windows Users as far more cynical — this isn’t the thread you’re looking for, move along…
Anyway, I posted a sample post, and will save more interesting material in the event it’s welcome here or for another forum…
:geek:
@aln688 wrote:
Why Server 2008 [R2] over Windows Vista/7?
For me the answer is much simpler then some of the others given here; if it doesn’t work I can’t use it and get work done — so fault tolerance and stability seal the deal for me.
Among other things I do Sound Design for games, film, theater, and television — and I have several applications and that will consistently BSOD Windows 7.
Moreover on some chip sets even with its newer kernel architecture and HAL Windows 7 has some of the same audio reproduction issues as Windows XP where you’ll get drop-outs and popping — and while these issues have been blamed on some chip sets, the issues don’t prevail on the Windows Server OS’s…
In a professional audio production environment, as I’m sure is the case in any other professional production environment where time is money; these short-comings just aren’t tolerable, and Microsoft and the staffs of large sound and film studios have made no headway to resolving them on Windows 7…
I also agree with yumeyao’s remarks about all the ridiculous automation in Windows 7, which is well and fine for a Consumer ‘User Land‘ OS, but in professional production environment can work across purposes of what you need the OS to do, and be a time consuming pain in the ass to reconcile…
:geek:
@Indrek wrote:
Aren’t there already plenty of sites that do just what you described?
Not for the ‘Server as Workstation‘ platform and audience.
@Indrek wrote:
Why duplicate that effort, especially in a relatively small community like this?
Because it’s not a duplication of effort, because the community is small, and traffic is light (understatement)… Your response is its own answer as a ‘Poster Child Post‘ that demonstrates forum Members are bored and more constructive discussion is warrented… I can get the ball rolling, but, having moderated enough forums to know making that effort in ‘Misc‘ sub-form category will be a wasted effort…
Of couse if everyone is satisfied with the static state of things — you’re absolutely right; why go for interesting discussion and post count that’s above what you’d see on a comments section of an abandoned web page…
@Indrek wrote:
Just playing devil’s advocate…
I’ll say; it’s not like I’ve suggested we burn you alive… On second thought…
Oh my! Probably irreconcilable versioning issues and/or Vista feature code that’s just broken on 7/R2; but thank you so much for giving it a go, and everything else you’ve done! With all you’ve done for the Windows Servers platform as a Workstation and Funstation, beyond a doubt…
😀
I can confirm that AsciiWolf did in fact save the day again, that the error message stems from the absence or corruption of Game Explorer, and running AsciiWolf’s Game Explorer Installer will get the game going on Server 2008 R2. AsciiWolf’s Game Explorer Installer might also be able to repair issues for those running Windows 7 that have used tools like Game Explorer Manager, Game Explorer Builder, or Game Exporer Editor that can corrupt Game Exporer’s registry settings and break God knows what else on Windows 7.
I tested this on a a clean install of Windows Server 2008 R2 Foundation, and have a licensed copy of Just Cause 2 (check my Steam profile under same nick). Of course I still wish AsciiWolf would pick the Game Explorer project up and take a look at porting Vista’s Game Explorer to Server 2008 R2 as there’s some nice feature and functionality that was ditched in the Windows 7 version — but we all owe him a big round of thanks regardless…
😀
I’m curious what “rundll32.exe shell32.dll,Control_RunDLL appwiz.cpl,,2” is supposed to do exactly? Isn’t this just another way of launching “OptionalFeatures.exe” (which can be launched directly or with a shortcut btw)?
❓
Arris <=== This Guy... Is just...
AsciiWolf <=== Is pretty swell too! :D Thanks Guys! Just a side note to this, for those that might like to use WMP, and other features on Server 2008 R2 — if things go amok, i.e. something breaks with your Windows ‘Feature‘; removing and then adding it back in can be a fast and dirty way to fixing a lot more then just file associations.
😀
Sorry if any of my responses come off as a bit harsh, but the topic title is a commonly used Journalistic trick of the trade, and a title that should, imho, only be used in the debunking of common, popularly held assumptions with hard empirical evidence, science and fact.
That said, I do agree with some of what might be the underling premise of your topic post that: ‘Microsoft’s Sever OS’s deployed as a Workstation is not for everyone…‘ — which would perhaps make a better topic concept, and the thread exploration of who the Server OS is and probably is not better suited for a more constructive discussion.
With respect to objective design criterion and results Microsoft’s ‘Server‘ OS products are better operating systems then their ‘Consumer/Desktop‘ operating system products; the same objective design criterion apply to both and the distinction between ‘Consumer/Desktop‘ and ‘Server‘ OS is an arbitrary one manufactured for the sake of marketing and selling product at higher margins.
Any OS can be made into a server, using 3rd party software and services, and again some of Microsoft’s Operating System design and features that separates the ‘Consumer‘ and ‘Server‘ OS are artificial and created by the Marketing department, not actual ‘best practice‘ design and engineering decisions made by Developers.
Everyone, regardless of how the operating system they use will be deployed, and to what purpose wants some of the same things; for example everyone fundamentally wants their OS to work when they need it, and be reliable — as no one wants an OS that crashes or looses their work/data in the process of failing…
I’d say reliability is priority #1 for just about anyone that uses a Workstation to do anything ‘productive‘ — the actual opportunity cost of that will depend on how critical those productive chores are; in the case of writing Grandma letters, it’s probably not even worth the price of a Microsoft OS at all, but in the case of running mission critical applications where process and production gets hosed, the value of a robust Workstation OS can be a ‘cost is no object‘ consideration.
The balance of features, performance, and legacy software compatibility are again something Microsoft juggles for marketing leverage more then something that has a basis in ‘best practice‘ of operating system design and engineering.
I think in most cases, for the person that thinks a Microsoft server OS rolled as a Workstation will be a better OS choice them that their assumption will often prove correct — as it’s not going to be the average User that actually attempts this; as this is a sharper audience, with specific needs, or an adventurous Geek curiosity about OS system internals that wants to explore.
Using a Microsoft Server OS as a Workstation is somewhat analogous to flying an airplane vs driving a car — where almost anyone can get in a car and drive it (sans safely), but few people can get in an aircraft and even get it started no less off the runway and in the air — those that can know what they’re doing and to what purpose, and flying an airplane costs a lot more then driving a car, but can easily make up the opportunity cost again, depending on your objectives.
🙂
@hoak wrote:
@halladayrules wrote:
The kernel architecture of both Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2 are identical.
No, they are similar, and have the same code heritage but they are not “identical” — not even close… Microsoft’s own Kernel Development team corroberate and have discussed this extensively in several venues on many occasions…
@halladayrules wrote:
No Media Center, HomeGroup, remote media streaming capabilities, better application compatibility support (especially with anti-virus).
Microsoft’s Media Center, and remote media streaming are quite simply horribly executed shovel-ware, with limited codec support, poor performance, horrific interface design, and poor feature support; there are FOSS products like VLC and MPCHC that are leaps and bounds better (true 64-bit media decodecs, offer full free decodec support, full decodec control, vastly better looking video, and better stream performance with lower resource use and zero registry bloat).
HomeGroup is a resource pig trash-toy for individuals completely ignorant of networking that will keep them that way — not everyone that uses a Workstation is retarded and needs or even wants this kind of idiot ‘hand-holding‘…
Compatibility is similarly a moot argument as less then 1/5 of 1% of all applications ‘in the wild‘ worth anything have compatibility issues on the Server OS… Consumer AVx software makes an excellent case in point, most are resource pigs, and perform no better or substantially worse then FOSS solutions that run fine on Sever OS; like Clam AV which doesn’t clog the registry with megabytes of useless crap, and your system RAM with poorley executed code scavengers. And the few Consumer AVx apps that don’t ‘appear‘ to run on the Server OS’s it’s typically simple versioning issues that can be easily cricumvented if you really want to run this sort of junk.
@halladayrules wrote:
As far as up time is concerned thats not a valid reason to run Windows Server as a “desktop” OS. Up time is virtually meaningless to me as I shut down my computer every night. I sleep in the same room as my desktop so i shut it off every night, so up time to me is pointless and has no barring whatsoever.
Saying it’s not a valid reason because you sleep next to your PC is ridiculous!
Any assumption of ‘mythos‘ are presumptions that apply to more people then just you; your pet use of an operating system does not apply to how others will use it or depend on it — Workstations can run mission critical applications in all sorts of environments were up-time critical, and one minute (or more) of down-time for a reboot, or learning the cause of an issue costs far more then the OS…
🙁
@halladayrules wrote:
The kernel architecture of both Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2 are identical.
No, they are similar, and have the same code heritage but they are not “identical” — not even close… Microsoft’s own Kernel Development team corroberate and have discussed this extensively in several venues on many occasions…
@halladayrules wrote:
No Media Center, HomeGroup, remote media streaming capabilities, better application compatibility support (especially with anti-virus).
Microsoft’s Media Center, and remote media streaming are quite simply horribly executed shovel-ware, with limited codec support, poor performance, horrific interface design, and poor feature support; there are FOSS products like VLC and MPCHC that are leaps and bounds better (true 64-bit media decodecs, offer full free decodec support, full decodec control, vastly better looking video, and better stream performance with lower resource use and zero registry bloat).
HomeGroup is a resource pig trash-toy for individuals completely ignorant of networking that will keep them that way — not everyone that uses a Workstation is retarded and needs or even wants this kind of idiot ‘hand-holding‘…
Compatibility is similarly a moot argument as less then 1/5 of 1% of all applications ‘in the wild‘ worth anything have compatibility issues on the Server OS… Consumer AVx software makes an excellent case in point, most are resource pigs, and perform no better or substantially worse then FOSS solutions that run fine on Sever OS; like Clam AV which doesn’t clog the registry with megabytes of useless crap, and your system RAM with poorley executed code scavengers. And the few Consumer AVx apps that don’t ‘appear‘ to run on the Server os’s it’s typically simple versioning issues that can be easily cricumvented if you really want to run this sort of junk.
@halladayrules wrote:
As far as up time is concerned thats not a valid reason to run Windows Server as a “desktop” OS. Up time is virtually meaningless to me as I shut down my computer every night. I sleep in the same room as my desktop so i shut it off every night, so up time to me is pointless and has no barring whatsoever.
Saying it’s not a valid reason because you sleep next to your PC is ridiculous!
Any assumption of ‘mythos‘ are presumptions that apply to more people then just you; your pet use of an operating system does not apply to how others will use it or depend on it — Workstations can run mission critical applications in all sorts of environments were up-time critical, and one minute (or more) of down-time for a reboot, or learning the cause of an issue costs far more then the OS…
🙁
@halladayrules wrote:
The current builds of both the server and desktop operating systems share the same kernel. A resource behaves the same identical way it would on Windows Server 2008 R2 as it would on Windows 7. It is the software layer above the kernel that separates the two.
Not true, the Windows 7 Kernel and HAL are based on the same Kernel as the Server OS, but were developed later, and there are substantial structural differences.
@halladayrules wrote:
I think applications are well behaved in Windows 7 just at a much smaller level.
What does that mean?
@halladayrules wrote:
I think you might be misinformed on this one.
Nope, and you yourself acknowledge I’m not…
@halladayrules wrote:
If we are talking about using Windows Server as a “development” workstation, where you will utilize both server and desktop features, Foundation has a clear advantage, but keep in mind I am talking strictly about using Server as a desktop only OS.
Pretty restrictive ‘after the fact‘ qualification you’re making; Sever as a Workstation has many applications that aren’t strictly “development”, some even vetted by Microsoft.
@halladayrules wrote:
The idea of paying $300 for a Server OS that can only do a limited amount of stuff its desktop counterpart can do for virtually the same amount of price makes no sense.
Limited? In what way?
@halladayrules wrote:
The point I was trying to make is that if you are not going to use any of the server features than Windows 7 is the more preferred OS.
Again, that may apply to you, but there are real-time applications and production environments that don’t require Severs ‘server‘ features but it’s a much better OS choise for fault-tolerance, higher granularity security,
@halladayrules wrote:
If I wanted a workstation and I had a $300 budget I would definitely want the added feature of TV tuner and Media Center support, not to mention a slightly faster boot time. Compatibility is much higher than expected when using 7 as a desktop OS compared to Server. It just doesn’t make any logical sense to use Server as a desktop if you’re not going to use the server.
Again, not everyone wants or needs a TV tuner, or uses an OS to play with desktop toys; Server makes perfect sense in many production and mission critical environments, or even day-to-day use where there are considerations of reliability and up-time have value that has a dollar amount attached to it, and foo-foo fluff, bells and whistles are secondary…
😕
