It had been announced a while ago already, but today Microsoft finally took the wraps off its latest server offering: Windows Server 2008 Foundation. Foundation is a cut-down version of the Server 2008 family, but Microsoft uncharacteristically did not remove all that much. It won’t be sold as a stand-alone product; rather, OEMs get to sell it pre-installed.
The limitations imposed upon Windows Server 2008 are fairly reasonable. It can only serve up to 15 users, but does not support virtualisation and integrated e-mail, while the other versions of Server 2008 also have simplified management. Another limitation is an 8GB RAM limit, but Microsoft explains that the machines that are going to power Foundation won’t really need more at this point.
Windows Server 2008 Foundation will sadly not be offered as a stand-alone product, but will only be available through complete packages by OEMs; in other words, you buy a machine with Foundation pre-installed, ready to go. Prices of these packages will remain below 1000 USD, Microsoft promises. Hopefully, your local software reatiler will soon start offering OEM copies, since there are probably a lot of small businesses out there that already have a machine.
Steve Ballmer made a statement about Foundation today, and explained that between now and September 30 2009, a portion of every Foundation sale will go to the non-profit organisations TechSoup and Telecentre. These organisations help non-profit organisations around the world with technology.
I am waiting till it has a comparison against standard on the site. over all this is something that needed to be implimented years ago! I am glad they finally got around to doing it though. though now that MS has been making tools like the microsoft web platform ( http://www.microsoft.com/web/downloads/platform.aspx ) and other things avalible, you can pretty much turn any Vista business edition or XP pro box into a web or file server roll server. the only advantage this has is AD and slightly less overhead (though a vista box can be cut down to run as a server once you turn off a lot of stuff, disable aero, and set the system to favor system processes and not programs, etc…)
Though if you ever wanted to run a Win server from your new netbook, this is the one
Why not just come up with Windows 2008 Express? That would nicely complement the Express product line
I really like 2008, it builds nicely upon 2003 R2. However a stripped down version artificially limited to 8GB of RAM isn’t too appealing, especially when looking at its target audience. In which case I’d much rather use Linux.
Indeed. A “server class” OS that only supports $80 worth of memory.
In this day and age, it’s a little odd, given the common availability of 64-bit OSes and apps.
You don’t even need the 64 bit apps. My servers’ apps don’t use a huge amount of per process memory. But they are distributed among a lot of processes. (Typically, I have between 3000 and 4000 procs running.) My apps are 64 bit, but they really needn’t be. In fact, I’d save some memory if they weren’t (at the expense of a little processor time).
Artificial limitations are for wannabe slaves.
Edited 2009-04-01 20:01 UTC
So I’m guessing you aren’t running any serious databases then.
It certainly won’t run SQL Server if you mean ‘serious’, but it will run Postgres with the same data in it ;-).
No SQL Server server is more of a joke than anything serious
But seriously 8 gigs isn’t a lot of memory these days. I would have trouble finding use for such a limited server, other than a file server or small office domain controller. I guess that’s the point of the OS, and the point I’m trying to emphasize.
SQL Server is probably one of the best products Microsoft makes. It’s hardly a joke.
Well, everything is relative, I suppose…
Ok, so it was bad joke. That’s why I had a
But in more seriousness, sql server doesn’t get mentioned very often in db conversations. I know its not the toy that access is, and has decent capabilities. But its just not mentioned very often. I would expect it to be at least as good as postgres on similar high end hardware.
Well thanks for telling me what I need
Our databases definitely like running in 64-bit, thank you very much.
It was an impersonal “you”. Often I use the word “one” but when one does that too much one begins to start sounding monotonous.
The point is that while people rarely think about running a 64 bit kernel with a 32 bit user space, it *can* be a win. The advantages of being able to handle a lot of memory well system wide, but with the relative memory efficiency of 32 bit apps can be attractive. Of course, in the x86_32/x86_64 world, you give up all those extra registers for the user space code. But still. My workloads tend to be XDMCP servers handing a bunch of users. I go 64 bit all the way, because “that’s what people do”. But I’ve always suspected I’d do better to install a 32 bit distro and then just add a 64 bit kernel.
I would be interested in other people’s comments on this. BTW, it was actually one of google_ninja’s posts that got me thinking along these lines.
Edited 2009-04-02 14:30 UTC
Everyone knows that the Server versions of Windows perform better as Workstations for serious users. I give this “OEM only” mini Server 2008 about 48 hours after its initial release to hit the pirate channels where highly optimized custom variants will soon appear. All the power of Server 2008 without a lot of bloat. Thanks Microshaft!
“Everyone knows that the Server versions of Windows perform better as Workstations for serious users. I give this “OEM only” mini Server 2008 about 48 hours after its initial release to hit the pirate channels where highly optimized custom variants will soon appear. All the power of Server 2008 without a lot of bloat. Thanks Microshaft!”
That’s because their server versions ARE based on workstations. Server 2003 shares it’s code base with XP, which is why there are tons of useless, client based applications on Server 2003 which need constant patching, necessitating restarts almost weekly
At least 2008 can be installed headless, which is how a server should be.
This is going nowhere fast, and as usual, it comes with all the restrictions that are designed to ring-fence this from damaging Microsoft’s cash cows of Client Access Licensing and the symbiotic relationship of Exchange, Windows Server and AD CAL licensing all depending on each other. Communicate without e-mail or the internet? I have no clue what organisation does that, and even if they don’t they will very quickly. It sounds like Microsoft from the mid-nineties. A leopard doesn’t change its spots.
Microsoft believes this will provide an upgrade path to Windows Server proper netting them more money, but they’re mistaken. Those wanting a cheap full-featured server with the wherewithall to run one will run Linux and open source software, and those really wanting to run Windows Server but don’t want the expense will probably just pirate it. Even more worrying for Microsoft, businesses can just get an internet connection and use GMail and Google Apps without faffing about with buying a server.
Except the businesses targeted with this product are not using Linux. Obvious to me, don’t understand why not for you, but this is not for SMBs even. If you looked at the user limit you would easily see who this is targeting, and why. Maybe ask yourself what these businesses are usually running currently? Don’t know? Obviously, so I will tell you. Most either have XP, a desktop OS, or SBS which is not really geared to their needs. Happens to be a very decently large segment of businesses that run XP as a desktop server for shared applications for these small businesses. SBS is a few grades above their needs.
Or they could just get ebox, an ubuntu-based server released that allows you to configure everything through a nice little web page.
Easier to maintain, more powerful and a hell of a lot cheaper: i.e., about an hour or two of your time.
http://ebox-platform.com/
Or if you prefer to go the CentOS/Red Hat route and need an easy GUI, go here:
http://wiki.contribs.org/Main_Page
Most small and some very large organizations (as there are no artificial limitiations) will be superbly served by one of the two options I offer above.
I think the real threat to Microsoft is not so much Linux but appliances built on Linux. Interestingly enough IBM has an appliance with the same name called IBM Foundations that does the same thing as Small Business Server but at a fraction of the price. Apparently this is an appliance where you do no even need to know anything about Linux to run it. Anyone have any experience with it?
Hi,
I work for a IBM Lotus Business Partner, and we received the first Foundation appliance for testing purposes.
It contains Lotus Domino Server software, file server, vpn-solution, and backup-solution. I think it also contains an apache webserver, but I’m not 100% certain of this. The appliance runs a custom Linux distribution.
The entire setup and configuration is web-based, and their is no need for Lotus Notes client software.
April Fools