Windows Server 2012: We defluff Microsoft's 'cloud' OS
Reg readers had their say in a lunchtime chat
Live Chat Microsoft calls Windows Server 2012 part of its “cloud operating system”. In a field loaded with subjective and loaded terms, Microsoft is surely adding to the confusion.
Say “cloud”, and you think Amazon, Google, VMware – but Microsoft?
Yet Windows Server 2012 brings changes in scalability, management and flexibility that are helping turn the tide on one member of that triumvirate – VMware. This is because customers are starting to switch to Hyper-V, the Windows hypervisor-based virtualisation system which comes bundled in with Windows Server 2012, rather than paying extra for VMware.
All-About-Microsoft’s Mary Jo-Foley; Reg regular and ITwriting author Tim Anderson; MVP and co-author of the Great Big Hyper-V Survey Aidan Finn, representing Microsoft; and fellow Reg readers joined a Live Chat to talk about what's in Windows Server 2012 and why exactly it's starting to turn the tide on market-leader VMware.
We looked at why enterprises are likely to upgrade now rather than later and worked out where Windows Server 2012 fits into a Redmond cloud story that also contains Windows Azure.
Is this a "software data centre", a "cloud OS" or server marketing BS?
closed sources are never a good idea
I work in a mostly MS Windows environment and for us MS products are not bad. But if one ever will have to change things, hard- or software related - MS puts major obstacles in the way to change. And then even the proprietary "free" stuff suddenly gets very expensive, if not preventing a transition at all. I will prefer VMware and in my opinion the initial costs and TCO are not higher than with MS. And it runs many different flavors of OSes since long without giving problems when changing.
expensive for worse
Windows server is obsolete, unless it's used for something MS specific like Exchange.
For real enterprise computing, Linux servers require less admin, they're more scalable, more robust, more secure and faster. And licence costs and management overhead is zero (no danger of confiscation of servers for suspected licence violation).
In summary a Linux box will do the same work as two windows boxes and require probably about 1/10th the system admins to run them.
Also <joke alert> Linux servers do not have the Metro interface</joke alert>
Most importantly - Linux servers are open source, you can inspect the source for back-doors and compile and build - a must-have in these days of cyber warfare and criminals stealing data.
because customers are starting to switch to Hyper-V, the Windows hypervisor-based virtualisation system which comes bundled in with Windows Server 2012, rather than paying extra for VMware.
This is probably one of the most important points... I haven't tried the latest version of Hyper-V, but certainly on previous versions VMWare was markedly superior. However when it comes to a price comparison, free (convenient) and separately paid for are very different choices and while as soon as you start expanding your requirements Hyper-V prices do stack up, it's the initial hurdle that's one that can be hard to beat. MS is just front loading convenience to get users used to Hyper-V as a form of lock in for later and it's something that VMWare would find hard to counter in a similar fashion without losing a large proportion of their income.