Recommended Posts

My brothers company is expanding and they are thinking of getting a server to handle the users in the office so far there are only 15 or so, but more may be added at a later date, other than the price what are the advantages of 2012 over 2008 for a small business?

They are also considering sending me on a course to admin the thing, I have a limited knowledge of a server, the last thing I worked on was Windows Server 2000, and again the courses for each version are different, it all comes down to cost.

I have done some research and most of the things in 2012 are not going to be used or applicable.

Although it is not my money I do not wish to have him spend more than he needs to in order to get what he wants, mainly the network at the moment has just been one large workgroup.

While 2012 may not offer any immediate advantages, the benefit for it over 2008 is that it will be supported longer. Support for 2008 will run out quicker, meaning you are spending more in the long term because you will need to upgrade sooner.

While 2012 may not offer any immediate advantages, the benefit for it over 2008 is that it will be supported longer. Support for 2008 will run out quicker, meaning you are spending more in the long term because you will need to upgrade sooner.

no more needs to be said

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'd go with 2008 R2.

At least you can upgrade/migrate if you need to... You've already said you won't use the features in 2012, so why pay more for something you won't use?

Stick with what works. (Y)

The problem is simply upgrading is not as easy as it sounds. especially if your using something like hyper-v.

Well I can only give him the figures and let him and his business partner decide, make's no difference what I tell him I know he will ask the people he knows in the IT business what they think and show them what information I have given him, but from all the work I have been doing with him, even the new servers for the big companies are still on 2008R2.

Thanks to all for the advice and information, much appreciated :)

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.

Just rolled out Server 2012 on two upgrades from 2003. One was SBS 03 to 2012 Essentials, the other was 2003 Standard to 2012 Standard. Pretty straightforward if you use the migration tools. 2012 runs like a champ.

Only problem with 2012 is that Exchange 2010 (and before) is not currently supported. And on Essentials Exchange is not officially supported at all. (Even 2013). You can get them to install, but you have to follow some workarounds.

What would they be using the server for? File storage? Email? There might be better, cheaper solutions.

2008 R2 is rock solid. Personally though I would go 2012. There are many new features and its the latest release. A lot of people will say wait for the first service pack, personally I think that's over the top. You'll purly be throwing money away by not using the latest release now.

I work in a wintel server team btw.

2012 was in beta for a while, so a lot of any of the big problems have been found, in the enterprise it is best to stick one version behind. However 2012 is even easier to admin than 2012 and like the other poster said it will be supported longer.

One other thing i would say re:2012 is de-duplication. You don't need to worry about it now, but in the future you can switch this on and reclaim space. Basically if person A copies a word document onto the server, then Person B copies the same document slightly altered or exactly the same to the server in another location, de-duplication will only save one copy of the file thus saving space.

Ive been testing this out since RTM and it's very fast, very stable and i have had some pretty big successes. On a server with a lot of ISO's (from Technet and Linux sites) on 1TB drive ive saved 400GB due to de-dupe.

Like i said don't worry about it now, but could be a life saver in the future,

There is some other compelling reasons to consider 2012, better performance (not much, but noticable), better utilization of hardware (uses less memory and work better on multiple cores).

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.

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.

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?

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 :/

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.

  • 2 months later...

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, :( ).

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.

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).

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • It's actually shocking how logs filling disks has been a constant issue going back for decades, yet we see very little improvement over the years. Even in the server world, its actually shockingly common for a server to either go totally down, or have a critical alert raised due to logs filling disks.
    • YouTube has finally brought back its DMs feature, but only in these countries by David Uzondu Late last year, YouTube started testing a "new" way to share videos directly with friends, without having to leave the app. Now, the video giant has announced that is now rolling out a revamped direct messaging inbox, which lets you share videos, Shorts, and live streams and have conversations about them, directly on YouTube. The platform limits this feature to 18+ users who are signed in to a verified channel and use the latest mobile app version. Direct messaging on YouTube first became a thing back in 2017 inside the mobile app (later renamed to "Messages"), where users could chat one-on-one and share clips directly, but all that came to an end on September 18, 2019, when Google decided to shut it down after giving users a month to download a .zip file archive of their past chats. No one really knows why YouTube killed the feature, but users were encouraged to migrate to the public Comments section, on Community tab posts, and via YouTube Stories. The previous incarnation suffered from moderation challenges, prompting Google to implement stricter safety guidelines and age verifications for this new iteration. Here's a list of the countries where the re-launched feature is currently available, though note that Brand Accounts do not have access to it, at least for now: Countries American Samoa Austria Belgium Brazil Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Guam Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Northern Mariana Islands Norway Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Romania Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland U.S. Virgin Islands United Kingdom United States Before you can use the feature, you first have to send an invite link to your contact. Invite links expire exactly seven days after you create them. If the person on the other end accepts the invite, you can exchange videos directly and text back and forth inside the app. To delete a message, just long-press on the message and tap unsend to remove it for both users. You can also delete entire conversations by long-pressing the thread and selecting delete, but the other person will continue to see the chat history on their end. To make sure everything remains safe, YouTube monitors these messages to ensure they follow Community Guidelines.
    • The problem of course is simply that government does not always know best. My point is that agency is taken away from the EU consumer in these cases. I'm sorry, but I do not believe that governments (politicians) are inherently good, and "looking out for me." Primarily they look to themselves and their own personal desires first, foremost, and always. When the EU or the DOJ fines these companies, claiming to "represent the welfare of the consumer," how much of these billion-dollar judgments are handed to the consumers they claim to represent? Not even a dollar, as I've seen. Yet the EUC lawyers who are paid to sit around and dream up these suits make huge commissions on the fines the EUC adjudicates, which is an ironclad fact I hope everyone is aware of. It's also rank corruption, of course, but that's another topic. Last, when the EU inflicts these judgments, or the DOJ, take your pick, the costs are bundled right along in the cost of the goods and services these companies provide the consumers they are "looking out for." If you are someone who believes his government is his savior then you have my condolences. I think Apple is right here, because the whole scheme of consumer choice is that consumers pick and choose among the products companies offer. Microsoft Windows is more compatible with third party software and hardware than any desktop OS on Earth, which is my sole reason for choosing it. Just because the EUC forces companies do certain things it knows the companies do not want to do, "or else", has no bearing on consumer benefit. This Siri thing is almost idiotic it's so infantile. But this is what the EUC does when the EU in Brussels becomes cash-strapped and needs a big infusion of cash. Some people get upset by "big companies" but it's the opposite when governments dwarf the size and scope of these companies, which is so obvious it hurts.... I mean you can't honestly believe that forcing Apple to do things with Siri it has its own reasons to decline is something that "opens up" Apple, do you? Say it aint' so...
    • Looks like many years since the request was made, a directory tree view finally may be added. https://github.com/files-community/Files/pull/18537
    • Is it still super slow or has it improved on that area?
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      Tommi118 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      sjbousquet earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      sjbousquet earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • First Post
      DragonOfMercy earned a badge
      First Post
    • First Post
      bella52 earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      501
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      210
    3. 3
      +Edouard
      156
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      84
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!