Jump to content



Photo

Windows Server 2008 R2 or Windows Server 2012?

windows server 2008 2012 r2

  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#16 Jason S.

Jason S.

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 01-September 03
  • Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Posted 15 February 2013 - 13:32

i'd also vote to go for 2012. It's been out longer than people think now. And, in our case recently, we werent even able to purchase 2008 R2. we had to purchase 2012 w/ the downgrade rights.

we dont have 2012 installed in a production environment yet. I've only been able to play around it in a VM, so i'm not sure of all the new features yet. However, i still like it.


#17 sc302

sc302

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 23
  • Joined: 12-July 05
  • Location: NJ, USA

Posted 15 February 2013 - 15:48

Go for 2012. It is better to have more than enough than not enough, can always turn off features and turn them back on vs upgrade to a whole new os when you need a feature.

Also if you haven't touched a server since 2000, a lot has changed. It is not the same software as it once was and you will certainly find yourself bumbling with it even with training.

#18 OP ArtistX

ArtistX

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 14-November 12
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro x64 - Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 x64

Posted 15 February 2013 - 17:10

guess I will have to get a copy and use it in a vm :laugh:

#19 #Michael

#Michael

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 28-August 01

Posted 22 February 2013 - 17:08

But that said, for Production Servers, 2008 R2 has proven reliability, where as 2012 has only just been released. For my Servers, I only use Server 2008 R2, it's always a good idea to stay one step behind in the Enterprise.

Just an idea, if the office only has 15 or so users, surely something like Office 365 for Business would be an easier to support and manage. Hosted Sharepoint + Exchange is probably better than a DC and Fileshares.


I agree with the O365 option. What will the new server be used for... DC/file server/Exchange? You already stated that it won't be used for many of its features. If you don't plan on using it for a DC or for exchange then wouldn't O365 be better suited for the business?

#20 OP ArtistX

ArtistX

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 14-November 12
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro x64 - Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 x64

Posted 22 February 2013 - 17:18

I don't know what he want's as I don't think he does atm, all he asked me was to price things up and he and his business partner will discuss it, and from what I have been told, one of the companies we did the cabling for, for their network were so impressed by what we did, that the sys admin there has said he would handle the admin side FOC, so bang goes my admin course :/

#21 #Michael

#Michael

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 28-August 01

Posted 22 February 2013 - 17:25

I don't know what he want's as I don't think he does atm, all he asked me was to price things up and he and his business partner will discuss it, and from what I have been told, one of the companies we did the cabling for, for their network were so impressed by what we did, that the sys admin there has said he would handle the admin side FOC, so bang goes my admin course :/


It sounds as though he wants a server just because. Has anyone done a system/risk analysis to see what the needs actually are? It may turn out the the current software/hardware is sufficient for a few more years. Or by off loading exchange to the cloud (google or o365) you can extend the hardware life, reduce network load, and probably save costs.

FYI....please don't take it to mean that I am just about email in the cloud. Situations like this are very fun to manage and work with. You have the opportunity here to work on a great project and in the long run provide new equipment that can benefit this company for many yeas.

#22 Roger H.

Roger H.

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 20
  • Joined: 18-August 01
  • Location: Germany
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 06 May 2013 - 14:59

Old stuff but I upgraded a SBS 2003 R2 and 2003 Standard server to 2012 (2003 Standard to 2012 Hyper-V VM) and it's been great. I love firing up VMs even LIVE migrated a few of them from a test server to a live server and it was the sweetest thing ever :D

I thought of doing 2008 R2 also but ended up with 2012 and glad I did. In another job I did recently 2008 R2 is "required" for the software they were gonna use (it would work on 2012 but not "Certified" and therefore they don't want to troubleshoot it, :( ).



#23 fusi0n

fusi0n

    The Crazy One

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 08-July 04
  • OS: OSX 10.9
  • Phone: iPhone 5S 64GB

Posted 06 May 2013 - 15:12

I don't really care for 2012 at all... It has the Start Screen and I hate that for a server.. I guess I can install start8.. lol but still.

#24 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 06 May 2013 - 15:21

Hyper-v in 2012 now allows live migration to and from NON clustered machines. in 2008 r2 they have to be clustered. This is a HUGE thing which is worth going right to 2012 for. For a small business anything hyper-v is good since it allows them to create a virtual server without having to pay for it.

It has other big features like changing dynamic memory while the machine is running when in 2008 r2 you have to stop the virtual machine .

IIf hyper-v will be used in the future I think starting with 2012 now is a good idea.


If you have Hyper-V in the plans at all, 2012's lack of a clustering requirement is monstrous. Also, I don't know if 2008R2 requires AD for Hyper-V (2012 Standard does not) - not needing clustering is a definite advantage for SMBs.

If you deploy Windows Server as a workstation OS, that is, in fact, another reason to strongly consider Server 2012, as you have literally nothing to do! Unlike any previous version of Windows Server (even 2003R2) Server 2012 sans clustering and Active Directory is a shockingly lean operating system for non-gaming use. The boggle factor for me is that Server 2012 Standard (even with AD, Desktop Experience, and Hyper-V installed) uses fewer (not more) system resources than Windows 8 - how the heck did Microsoft do that?

I don't really care for 2012 at all... It has the Start Screen and I hate that for a server.. I guess I can install start8.. lol but still.


The StartScreen only shows up if you add Desktop Experience - which is an option (as it has been in Windows Server since 2003) - it is NOT the default.

#25 Roger H.

Roger H.

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 20
  • Joined: 18-August 01
  • Location: Germany
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 06 May 2013 - 15:26

I don't really care for 2012 at all... It has the Start Screen and I hate that for a server.. I guess I can install start8.. lol but still.


Real admins use powershell anyways :p

(teasing, I still suck at using it so yeah, i'm with you on that one).

#26 TPreston

TPreston

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 18-July 12
  • Location: Ireland
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Emterprise & Server 2012R2/08R2 Datacenter
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 1520 Black

Posted 06 May 2013 - 16:54

I don't really care for 2012 at all... It has the Start Screen and I hate that for a server.. I guess I can install start8.. lol but still.


#doingitwrong

Use server core or minimal desktop interface and connect them using server manager on a windows 8 client. No GUI on the servers but once remote you get the same gui you had on the server.

Pretty much the only thing you have to do via cli is sconfig.

Youd only use the full GUI for something like a print server or promedia carbon server or a backup software that dosnt have remote administration.