Windows Server 8 hits build 8180, new screenshots emerge

While CES 2012 continues in Las Vegas this week, Windows Server 8 has hit build 8180 with a beta build date of January 9 as indicated by the full build string: 8180.0.WINMAIN.120109-1245_X64FRE_SERVER. Not much is known about the build's new features, except that some parts of the operating system have received Metro-style refreshes.

PCBeta shows us that the Server Manager dashboard has received a new coat of paint, and this is also confirmed by separate screenshots from WinUnleaked. Instead of the white theme that was present in the Developer Preview, the Windows Server 8 Beta has switched to a darker theme as you can see by the dark header. As we haven’t been able to try the builds ourselves, we don’t actually know whether there are any functionality changes between the Developer Preview and the Beta.

Also from WinUnleaked is the new logon screen present in the Windows Server 8 Beta. Again, not much has changed here and the overall theme is darker. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen a dark Metro theme; we first saw it with the Windows 8 Server installation screenshot earlier this month. Finally, WinUnleaked also had managed to snap some screenshots of the Storage Spaces feature working with the new ReFS Windows filesystem.

We’ll remind everyone who is eager to try out the latest builds of Windows 8 that the Beta is due out late February, as confirmed once again at CES 2012. In the meantime, check out our hands-on preview of the pre-beta builds on a reference tablet and the Windows 8 pre-beta demo video from CES 2012.

Thanks again to Faikee for the heads up in our Windows 8 forum.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Hands-on with Razer's gaming tablet, Fiona

Next Story

iPhone 4S sales in China halted in its retail stores

127 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Obviously this is NOT what it will look like when finished. Case in point: the white text on light gray on the taskbar is unreadable. Nobody in their right mind would allow a finished product to look like that.

Enron said,
Obviously this is NOT what it will look like when finished. Case in point: the white text on light gray on the taskbar is unreadable. Nobody in their right mind would allow a finished product to look like that.

What are you talking about? Have you seen Windows Phone 7?

I, for one, think this is a major step in the right direction. Having come from using Windows Server since Windows 2000 Server and now managing a few now running Windows Server 2008 R2, having a UI like they're doing in Server Manager just helps administrators find what they're looking for and manage it quickly. It's just more clean-looking and simple, and the overall UI looks much better than Classic ever did. Needless to say, I am a big fan of Metro - the major emphasis on text and using simplified graphics and colors just communicates to the user what is really important without being too flashy or concerned about gradients or 3D effects. Even Windows 3.1 used 3D effects - and this UI doesn't - which makes it different and much better, in my opinion. One of the big design philosophies of Metro is to not make the UI something it is not - and they do a great job with this.

Still see very little for the data entry intensive users--both personal and business. All this tap, tap, tap on touch screens is fine for casual users and those who can afford expensive toys. How are business going to react, when, after hundred or thousands of tap,tap..tap with fingernailed tipped fingers they have to replace the very expensive screen? Not well at all. replacing an inexpensive keyboard is one thing--replacing an expensive video panel or entire table is not going to go over well. Windows-7 will live for a very long time; at least until Windows-9 is released.

%90 of the people commenting here are ****in trolls. **** off you android trolls. its always the same morons going around making the comments section unbearable. why dont you go flash a rom or play with your little nes emulators instead of giving us your false opinion.

vcfan said,
%90 of the people commenting here are ****in trolls. **** off you android trolls. its always the same morons going around making the comments section unbearable. why dont you go flash a rom or play with your little nes emulators instead of giving us your false opinion.

or the fact your a die hard wp7 & metro fanboy more like it!

android has NOTHING to do with this discussion. just because you like metro doesn't mean all of us will. you guys need to accept that.

So, does the Start button in Windows 8 Server bring you to the Metro Desktop with the big tiles, or is it like a normal start menu?

devHead said,
So, does the Start button in Windows 8 Server bring you to the Metro Desktop with the big tiles, or is it like a normal start menu?

Normal by default

face it guys, this is the route microsoft is going. i hope they fall flat on their rears too. metro DOES NOT belong on any desktop pc or a server. ballmer and the design team need to be fired!

Microsoft does not develop two individual products; They build one which is componentised and configurable to function as a server or client. Most elements are identical to the client and has been since Windows Vista/ Server 2008.
If you think that the UI is killing your servers performance then you can go for the core installation and do everything via powershell. I see the Windows 8 UI requiring less hardware in comparison to Windows 7 so the same rule will apply to the server instance. I am sure both products can take you to classic mode anyway.

Only thing I dont like is the taskbar looks funny. The metro dashboards are a good way forward and the new server manager looks fantastic.

As long as I have the option to get a non-Metro UI when I have to RDP into a box, I don't care what they do with the rest.

And MSFT has been advancing PowerShell for years, so the UI isn't really much of a concern unless you live and die by a GUI.

AgentGreen said,
As long as I have the option to get a non-Metro UI when I have to RDP into a box, I don't care what they do with the rest.

And MSFT has been advancing PowerShell for years, so the UI isn't really much of a concern unless you live and die by a GUI.

RDP'ing into the box isn't going to give you that option, I can pretty much guarantee that.

xpclient said,
Wow it's so much fun for server admins to re-learn everything all over again!!! </s>

Adapt/learn/change, or get out of the way.

xpclient said,
Wow it's so much fun for server admins to re-learn everything all over again!!! </s>

Re-learn? You having a laugh? So what, it'll take 5 minutes to look around to see where everything in, you do realise you'll still have the Start > Search feature and find exactly what you are looking for.

Not just that, if you play with the beta when it's available I'm sure you'll be fine when RTM comes around.

It's hardly a problem.

Tony. said,
Re-learn? You having a laugh? So what, it'll take 5 minutes to look around to see where everything in, you do realise you'll still have the Start > Search feature and find exactly what you are looking for.
Not just that, if you play with the beta when it's available I'm sure you'll be fine when RTM comes around.

It's hardly a problem.

AgentGreen said,
Adapt/learn/change, or get out of the way.

No I don't have to re-learn. I can move to Linux for servers and continue with the same interface for years. I bet you have never even administered or used Windows Server 2003/2008/R2 or you wouldn't be saying this.

News just came out that Microsoft is recommending to use the NON-GUI version of Windows 8 Server.

And we know why!

Sacha said,
News just came out that Microsoft is recommending to use the NON-GUI version of Windows 8 Server.

And we know why!

Exactly. I recommend Server Core for all those who diss the Metro UI.

I hope they like PowerShell.

Yeah, I like this actually, I always had troubles with Server 2008 R2, It seemed over complicated compared to Server 2003. Granted there were definently more features in R2, but getting to them always seemed too complicated and wasted alot of CPU when hosting it on a VPS

xbamaris said,
Yeah, I like this actually, I always had troubles with Server 2008 R2, It seemed over complicated compared to Server 2003. Granted there were definently more features in R2, but getting to them always seemed too complicated and wasted alot of CPU when hosting it on a VPS

There you go, the reason why this crap is put upon us - appeasing idiots who can't bother to actually take a book and learn about the server.

DerpDerp said,

There you go, the reason why this crap is put upon us - appeasing idiots who can't bother to actually take a book and learn about the server.

Its not that I dont know how to use Server 2008 R2. So dont judge me because I find the UI in Server 2008 R2 and the overall performance of MMC slow, especially on a VPS. Please. Go troll some place else. Douche.

xbamaris said,

Its not that I dont know how to use Server 2008 R2. So dont judge me because I find the UI in Server 2008 R2 and the overall performance of MMC slow, especially on a VPS. Please. Go troll some place else. Douche.

I actually agree with you, the MMC panel is very slow, I have a Q6600 with 8GB RAM and while it may not be the fastest CPU on the market now, it's still a quad core system that only 2 months ago, could play BF3 easily. When you select something from the MMC dropdown menu, it takes about a good 5-10 seconds to loading everything which is annoying. It shouldn't take 30 seconds to open up in the first place either. I know it waits for each of the dropdown boxes to load but this is just silly and I hope it's something silly.

This is a problem when managing remotely as well, takes way to long for such a simple task to execute.

I'm starting to wonder if Metro ui was done to pacify Intel, as it had massive trouble with producing decent graphics chips for vista and 7 ...

Anyhoo Metro is actually a productivity stopper than anything ... its a slow ui just like ios is ..

krustylicious said,
its a slow ui just like ios is ..

I would agree with you with the last part. But this not. Due to its very simple design it's able to do faster than any other current UI seen to this day.

krustylicious said,
I'm starting to wonder if Metro ui was done to pacify Intel, as it had massive trouble with producing decent graphics chips for vista and 7 ...

Intel's troubles happened because they didn't have 3d pipelines in their gpus, and the early WDDM model was such a paradigm shift that drivers needed lots of work. Plus, there were problems inherent in windows that made early WDDM run like garbage anyway.

Metro is still being rendered through the 3d pipeline of the GPU, so I'm not too sure what you're gettin at.

I don't see how you think metro is a productivity stopper. I'd like to see more Metro in the System Center suite that will undoubtedly accompany this server release. As far as the server goes, powershell v3 please, and I'll do everything remote and never have to load desktop for any of the 500 servers I administer.

Anyone else notice that the new default user tile on the login screen looks like a silouette of Bill Gate's mug shot?

adriann said,
Anyone else notice that the new default user tile on the login screen looks like a silouette of Bill Gate's mug shot?

Because it is....

I'm thinking the colors, specially the white taskbar/window boarder and white text is a custom preset by whoever installed it, you can change the color to whatever you want on the desktop, that's always been the case.

Now if people have issue with the look of the Server Manger, then that's different. It's not only done but probably missing lots of information in that shot so until it's closer to done and we see it in action I can't really comment on it.

LoL @ all the clueless fools complaining about the GUI of an unfinished server operating system!
Although I'm sure most Neowin readers would already know, I'll explain anyway . . .

This OS meant for a server, a very plain GUI is to be expected. In a lot of cases, a server would
be set up as "headless", meaning it won't have a display plugged directly into the VGA port.

Access to a "headless" server is usually via Remote Desktop, which by default, drops back to a
display with a lower than native colour depth and/or resolution. Which doesn't really matter,
since most server GUIs would generally only be looked at for a few minutes at a time.

Even so, there's often a "Desktop Experience" setting available in Windows Server for anyone
that wants the full "Aero" GUI. This is usually not enabled by default, since very few servers
have anything more than a relatively low spec GPU soldered to the mainboard.

DJGM said,
LoL @ all the clueless fools complaining about the GUI of an unfinished server operating system!
Although I'm sure most Neowin readers would already know, I'll explain anyway . . .

This OS meant for a server, a very plain GUI is to be expected. In a lot of cases, a server would
be set up as "headless", meaning it won't have a display plugged directly into the VGA port.

Access to a "headless" server is usually via Remote Desktop, which by default, drops back to a
display with a lower than native colour depth and/or resolution. Which doesn't really matter,
since most server GUIs would generally only be looked at for a few minutes at a time.

Even so, there's often a "Desktop Experience" setting available in Windows Server for anyone
that wants the full "Aero" GUI. This is usually not enabled by default, since very few servers
have anything more than a relatively low spec GPU soldered to the mainboard.

Im not really replying to you in particular but to some of the other comments as well.

This is the perfect time to complain/provide feedback. This product is unfinished, therefore can still be changed. Microsoft need feedback to perfect the system, so i would say provide as much feedback as possible as when this is Beta or RTM that is the time when complaining will mean nothing as the product can't be changed.

I would agree that the management console looks like crap, it's probably my only very minor annoyance with 2008R2 is the first login you get presented with the management console which i switch off as i prefer to change the settings through the various settings and powershell. I can see what Microsoft are doing trying to make it easier to use and unified, however to me it looks like a fisher price/ my first server config, perhaps it would work better on SBS or something but on vanilla Windows Server i think it looks awful.

I would agree with your comments regarding the rest of the screenshots showing the rest of the desktop pics, the server doesn't need anything apart from running at least 1024x768 on a SVGA adapter as servers don't really have great GPU's (unless of course your going for RDS), which is basically what you said.

personally as long as most of the settings are in the same place as 2008R2 i won't really care. The main features for Windows Server are usually under the hood stuff.

Things are am interested in is

Hyper-V, i run a clustered hyper-v 2008R2 environment, it's great, it's stable, fast and best of all free (you get the licence back for a VM). SP1 added dynamic memory which was well recieved, however Windows Server 2012 looks to be adding some really interesting features such as more cpu's per machine, etc..

Storage, it looks like the storage space is going to work well, especially with hyper-v and thin provisioning. I look forward to more ZFS type features in regards to the storage system in Windows. We have self heal, fast and reliable NTFS system which i personally have never had a problem with, i would love to see de-dup make it in but perhaps windows 2015 or whatever they decide to call it.

General performance increases and improved admin tools (the tools are good already but if they can improve them, then excellent) and ill be happy with it.

I personally love 2008R2 and think it's a great Server OS along side Debian and some other linux's/BSD's

Dot Matrix said,
Would look alright if I could read the windows on the taskbar...

I can see what you are pointing out, you need to take into account that this is still pre-beta and the little cosmetic stuff comes later.

Omg... who cares about the login splash screen.. seriously? do you have so much time on your hands that you complain about the UI on the login screen.. smh

techguy77 said,
MS is obsessed with squares and tiles. This looks better than full skin with Metro crap.

Yeah, they're called windows. Ever done any C++ programming? Every element you see on the screen is a 'window'. Creating organic shapes in C++ involves a lot of painful math.

neufuse said,
so what does the start button do in the server version? don't tell me goes to the metro start.... if so I'll gag

I believe it does, but chances are, Microsoft will fill it with tiles that show different things like problems, updates, CPU/memory usage etc.

To all the trolling people
1) The resolution is small , it looks pathetic even with linux/aero and noone wants to work @ 800x600 or that kinda res
2) Its server , not meant to change wallpaper add dock install rainmeter etc , its meant to be simple , and fast .

bogas04 said,
Its server , not meant to change wallpaper add dock install rainmeter etc , its meant to be simple , and fast .
If Microsoft really was serious about speed and resource usage, they would have made PowerShell the only UI! PowerShell is more than capable of controlling the entire system. Instead Microsoft insists on catering to these half-ass sysadmins who are afraid of typing.

MS Lose32 said,
If Microsoft really was serious about speed and resource usage, they would have made PowerShell the only UI! PowerShell is more than capable of controlling the entire system. Instead Microsoft insists on catering to these half-ass sysadmins who are afraid of typing.

What? You mean like the core edition what does exactly this? You login, and you are greeted with a command line window, doesn't get any more basic than that, plus the memory and CPU power used to even generate the GUI is so small that it's not even worth not having it there.

Tony. said,

What? You mean like the core edition what does exactly this? You login, and you are greeted with a command line window, doesn't get any more basic than that, plus the memory and CPU power used to even generate the GUI is so small that it's not even worth not having it there.

I am aware of Server Core. However, not all options, or even all roles can be administered from the Windows command line. Heck, not even PowerShell is installed. Server Core is a big step in the right direction but I think right now, it's too little, too late.

MS Lose32 said,
I am aware of Server Core. However, not all options, or even all roles can be administered from the Windows command line. Heck, not even PowerShell is installed. Server Core is a big step in the right direction but I think right now, it's too little, too late.

PowerShell is installed? I run VM with Server core as a back up DC and for me to even configure it requires a PowerShell script to be used.

hmm, ui looks awful, hopefully there is a black and white mode somewhere. I run a server 08 and do web-design and run a server application on it, so I am on the server quite a bit reading logs, checking databases, monitoring data.

I'd get a headache after looking at the Server 8 screen for too long.

firey said,
hmm, ui looks awful, hopefully there is a black and white mode somewhere. I run a server 08 and do web-design and run a server application on it, so I am on the server quite a bit reading logs, checking databases, monitoring data.

I'd get a headache after looking at the Server 8 screen for too long.

Ever thought about using the remote features and display all that data via a MMC console on your client side?

I'm not a fan of console, I prefer an interface personally. Even console applications I write have an ascii interface to them. Is that sort of thing in the remote stuff? (I've never used it, so it's an honest question)

firey said,
I'm not a fan of console, I prefer an interface personally. Even console applications I write have an ascii interface to them. Is that sort of thing in the remote stuff? (I've never used it, so it's an honest question)

MMC is a gui based program…

I am still hearing a lot of gripeage about the optional (at least for non-touch desktops) Metro UI - why is it so important that the UI be *pretty*?

Let's be honest - how many of us here actually keep an utterly bone-stock (no themes or other dressiness) Windows 7?

In the case of a server, a pretty UI makes even less sense - how often do administrators actually sit down *at the server* and do things directly? Maybe once - on first installation - if even then. It's becoming more and more commonplace - especially in enterprises and government agencies - for the administrator to manage/configure the server remotely, and all too often, it's from a non-desktop. Big problem - the Server 2008 UI (even in R2) doesn't really lend itself to touch-based mamangement (at the server or remotely), does it? While PowerShell can be used for some remote-installation/management tasks, you still need some sort of GUI to do other not-so-routine, but needed, server tasks. Metro is a very remotable UI - the default UI for the current versions of Windows (either desktop or server) is anything but.

PGHammer said,
I am still hearing a lot of gripeage about the optional (at least for non-touch desktops) Metro UI - why is it so important that the UI be *pretty*?

Let's be honest - how many of us here actually keep an utterly bone-stock (no themes or other dressiness) Windows 7?

In the case of a server, a pretty UI makes even less sense - how often do administrators actually sit down *at the server* and do things directly? Maybe once - on first installation - if even then. It's becoming more and more commonplace - especially in enterprises and government agencies - for the administrator to manage/configure the server remotely, and all too often, it's from a non-desktop. Big problem - the Server 2008 UI (even in R2) doesn't really lend itself to touch-based mamangement (at the server or remotely), does it? While PowerShell can be used for some remote-installation/management tasks, you still need some sort of GUI to do other not-so-routine, but needed, server tasks. Metro is a very remotable UI - the default UI for the current versions of Windows (either desktop or server) is anything but.


I do. I find all those themes people use to be really ugly and see no point in them. I like my destop clean and simple no flashy themes or background pics. Also I don't understand how you get Windows 3.1 from these pics. These look lightyears better.

PGHammer said,
In the case of a server, a pretty UI makes even less sense - how often do administrators actually sit down *at the server* and do things directly? Maybe once - on first installation - if even then. It's becoming more and more commonplace - especially in enterprises and government agencies - for the administrator to manage/configure the server remotely, and all too often, it's from a non-desktop. Big problem - the Server 2008 UI (even in R2) doesn't really lend itself to touch-based mamangement (at the server or remotely), does it? While PowerShell can be used for some remote-installation/management tasks, you still need some sort of GUI to do other not-so-routine, but needed, server tasks.
Then why does Windows Server even have a GUI? Windows Server should have had great command line support since day 1! Why waste resources rendering a GUI that is not even being looked at 99.9% of the time? PowerShell is good and all, but it should have been there since the beginning. Any sysadmin worth has salary should be a command line guru. Besides the command line is about as remote-able of a UI as you can get.

MS Lose32 said,
Then why does Windows Server even have a GUI? Windows Server should have had great command line support since day 1! Why waste resources rendering a GUI that is not even being looked at 99.9% of the time? PowerShell is good and all, but it should have been there since the beginning. Any sysadmin worth has salary should be a command line guru. Besides the command line is about as remote-able of a UI as you can get.

And how can you manage a command-line interface via a tablet or slate?

Answer - unless you have virtual-keyboard support via the RDP client, you can't.

If you are going to insist on CLI-driven server management, that means you need clients with keyboards (either physical or virtual) - which is limiting for the server admins. GUI-based interfaces can be remoted via devices with either limited keyboard support, or no keyboard support at all - such as tablets, slates, or even smartphones. You simply can't manage a CLI interface - not even PowerShell - that way.

MS Lose32 said,
Then why does Windows Server even have a GUI? Windows Server should have had great command line support since day 1! Why waste resources rendering a GUI that is not even being looked at 99.9% of the time? PowerShell is good and all, but it should have been there since the beginning. Any sysadmin worth has salary should be a command line guru. Besides the command line is about as remote-able of a UI as you can get.

I support what you say, I can manage my linux server easily via command line, but your argument is a little flawed. This isn't the 90's, memory prices are stupidly cheap, resources are not being "wasted" by rendering a UI, how much CPU power does a GUI use when idle? Literally nothing. Think about how powerful server configs are today, the GUI is the smallest ripple in an ocean of CPU power.

So my opinion is this: GUI or No GUI, it doesn't matter.

PGHammer said,
Let's be honest - how many of us here actually keep an utterly bone-stock (no themes or other dressiness) Windows 7?

95% of people?

PGHammer said,

And how can you manage a command-line interface via a tablet or slate?

Answer - unless you have virtual-keyboard support via the RDP client, you can't.

If you are going to insist on CLI-driven server management, that means you need clients with keyboards (either physical or virtual) - which is limiting for the server admins. GUI-based interfaces can be remoted via devices with either limited keyboard support, or no keyboard support at all - such as tablets, slates, or even smartphones. You simply can't manage a CLI interface - not even PowerShell - that way.

What kind of tasks would you be performing on a server (other than viewing statuses/statistics) where you wouldn't need a keyboard? And if you're viewing statuses/statistics, there are much better solutions out there than logging onto each machine one at a time.

Tony. said,

I support what you say, I can manage my linux server easily via command line, but your argument is a little flawed. This isn't the 90's, memory prices are stupidly cheap, resources are not being "wasted" by rendering a UI, how much CPU power does a GUI use when idle? Literally nothing. Think about how powerful server configs are today, the GUI is the smallest ripple in an ocean of CPU power.

So my opinion is this: GUI or No GUI, it doesn't matter.

In practice, yes, the amount of resources used to render a simple GUI like Windows Classic is negligible. A BIG advantage of CLI-based interfaces that GUI-based interfaces miss out on is script-ability. A powerful shell language like Bash is essential to an experienced Linux sysadmin. PowerShell is very good but I think it's a pity that it got added to Windows Server so late in the game. It would have been much better if Microsoft had built Windows Server in the CLI world first, then added GUI capabilities on top.

MS Lose32 said,
Then why does Windows Server even have a GUI? Windows Server should have had great command line support since day 1! Why waste resources rendering a GUI that is not even being looked at 99.9% of the time? PowerShell is good and all, but it should have been there since the beginning. Any sysadmin worth has salary should be a command line guru. Besides the command line is about as remote-able of a UI as you can get.

Ummm...GUI is easier because you remember how to configure everything plus it's quicker in most cases. There is no way in hell that I will be using "DSAdd" to add a user in AD when I can just right click, copy (or even deploy from a template) in ADUC.

PGHammer said,
Let's be honest - how many of us here actually keep an utterly bone-stock (no themes or other dressiness) Windows 7?

Me, 'cause I've never seen a theme that doesn't look like s***. I even started to only use programs that follow the native UI as I consider consistency important…

sanke1 said,
Love it. Can't wait to tweak the hell out to be able to run Aero and install Angry Birds through Appstore

*facepalm* You do realise that since Microsoft merged the kernels for consumer and servers that there is no performance difference using normal Windows and the Server version?

Tony. said,

*facepalm* You do realise that since Microsoft merged the kernels for consumer and servers that there is no performance difference using normal Windows and the Server version?

*facepalm* for assuming everyone knowing same as you do. But thanks for letting me know.

Look forward to seeing the finished product. Doesn't mean I'll be upgrading any of my servers anytime soon though.

Gun jumping FTW!

I like it but its unfinished, very unfinished. You have to look at these screenshots with that in mind folks...

I can see it will be simple and present info and options in a cleaner and more concise way than server 2008 curently does. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with 2008 UI, I use it a lot and support over 30 servers for different customers and ourselves, but this looks better and will fit in with the overall look windows is heading. Dont forgewt the plan is to make a unified design theme/language (metro) over all MS products, and I personally love Metro.

Klayzen said,
Yep, this is really bad. Windows 8 looks good, Windows Server 8 does not.

It's not about looking "good" or looking "cool", it's about functionality, performance and little memory used as possible.

Tony. said,

It's not about looking "good" or looking "cool", it's about functionality, performance and little memory used as possible.

How is this any more functional than Windows Server 2008's interface?

Arum Koub said,
I seriously think that MS is messing-up WOW-effect with WTF-effect these days :-\

It's a Server OS, bloody hell.

I don't know why people are getting so upset - the server UI's in windows have always looked horrible. But who cares? It's a server, if you have to look at it every day, something isn't right. Once its set up, you should only have to remote in once in a blue moon.

Kushan said,
I don't know why people are getting so upset - the server UI's in windows have always looked horrible. But who cares? It's a server, if you have to look at it every day, something isn't right. Once its set up, you should only have to remote in once in a blue moon.
To leave the ugly Windows Classic theme alone is one thing. To actively spend developer resources to make the UI even uglier is another.

Love it! It's a server, so the ui needs CPU, ram to be at the very least, so of course it's not beautiful. But to me taste it's excellent, the problem with server OS ui is there all plain, so atleast these colours clearly diffinterate

Dan~ said,
Love it! It's a server, so the ui needs CPU, ram to be at the very least, so of course it's not beautiful. But to me taste it's excellent, the problem with server OS ui is there all plain, so atleast these colours clearly diffinterate

Agreed.

WOW!!! THIS IS THE UGLIEST CRAP I HAVE EVER SEEN!!!! lets just pretend that graphics cards and graphics instructions in most modern CPUs do not exist. Microsoft not only do you have to fire your marketing team as announced earlier but steve sinophsky and his design crew must go. This is what happens when you hire academics and not passionate techies.

Iridium said,
WOW!!! THIS IS THE UGLIEST CRAP I HAVE EVER SEEN!!!! lets just pretend that graphics cards and graphics instructions in most modern CPUs do not exist. Microsoft not only do you have to fire your marketing team as announced earlier but steve sinophsky and his design crew must go. This is what happens when you hire academics and not passionate techies.

Whilst I do agree that this design looks absolutely disgusting, the past 3 servers I've had from different generations all have similar graphics chipsets, my IBM x330 from 1999 has an ATI rage pro, my dell poweredge 2650 has an ATI rage xl, and my dell poweredge 2950 has an ATI ES1000. When you consider that virtualisation on servers these days is a must, say 6 VMs to a single server? My 2950 has 16MB of GFX memory, so you're sharing 16MB of video RAM around 6 servers, that's under 3MB of ram per VM.
Personally I'd like it if they offered windows server without a GUI, the 2008 R2 core was a step in the right direction, but it lacked support for basically everything, and still has a gui...

Iridium said,
WOW!!! THIS IS THE UGLIEST CRAP I HAVE EVER SEEN!!!! lets just pretend that graphics cards and graphics instructions in most modern CPUs do not exist.

Well at least they're thinking about performance eh?

Iridium said,
.........

Graphics cards only belong in servers that are serving up clients via App-V with RemoteFX. Plus, Modern server CPU's don't have on-die graphics to my knowledge.

As far as your assertion about the design team, You do understand that their changes are supported by the company and by the thousands of hours of market research in usability right?

The do not make these changes lightly.

n_K said,

Whilst I do agree that this design looks absolutely disgusting, the past 3 servers I've had from different generations all have similar graphics chipsets, my IBM x330 from 1999 has an ATI rage pro, my dell poweredge 2650 has an ATI rage xl, and my dell poweredge 2950 has an ATI ES1000. When you consider that virtualisation on servers these days is a must, say 6 VMs to a single server? My 2950 has 16MB of GFX memory, so you're sharing 16MB of video RAM around 6 servers, that's under 3MB of ram per VM.
Personally I'd like it if they offered windows server without a GUI, the 2008 R2 core was a step in the right direction, but it lacked support for basically everything, and still has a gui...

I don't think that's how it works. Hyper-V connects to VM's via Remote Desktop and doesn't use GFX memory other than what the server is already using. You also forget that Windows Aero can be enabled via the Features menu and the reason why they went with a plain/very basic GUI is because it's about speed and functionality with as little memory footprint as possible.

It's a server OS, and even if you don't like it, it's a good job Microsoft has tools that can manage a server remotely any ways.

Sacha said,
Too many squares and plain edges. Not good to look at.

Looks like Linux when the window manager dies.

You're not suppose to actually look at it much, if at all, after you've set it up.

GP007 said,

You're not suppose to actually look at it much, if at all, after you've set it up.


So that's a reason to make it ugly?!?!?! To scare you away from using it more than once? I am so fricken disappointed with the direction of the UI in windows at the moment.

Iridium said,

So that's a reason to make it ugly?!?!?! To scare you away from using it more than once? I am so fricken disappointed with the direction of the UI in windows at the moment.

For a Server OS, I would say Yes... We have a server at our office, and if it didn't look the way it did, people would be surfing the internet on it. I would NEVER want a server OS to look like a desktop OS, because you'll no doubt have issues like that. They need to know that they're somewhere they shouldn't be.

Iridium said,

So that's a reason to make it ugly?!?!?! To scare you away from using it more than once? I am so fricken disappointed with the direction of the UI in windows at the moment.

What part is ugly exactly? The white colored theme for the superbar and windows? Those colors can be changed if you want. Or do you mean the server manager? The server manager itself isn't close to being done i'd say, so as an app who knows how it'll really look when it's done.

M_Lyons10 said,

For a Server OS, I would say Yes... We have a server at our office, and if it didn't look the way it did, people would be surfing the internet on it. I would NEVER want a server OS to look like a desktop OS, because you'll no doubt have issues like that. They need to know that they're somewhere they shouldn't be.

That is perhaps the stupidest reason I've ever heard.

GP007 said,

You're not suppose to actually look at it much, if at all, after you've set it up.

Sigh... unless of course you're in a job that pertains to server operations 40 hours a a week.

shockz said,

Sigh... unless of course you're in a job that pertains to server operations 40 hours a a week.

You can use powershell if you wanna go old school as well, heh. Not saying that's the option but if you're hitting the server (if it's headless) from a workstation then you really only use the Server Manager app or remote desktop. If you're doing lots of the same operations on a server I believe the best thing is to make (if you know how) powershell scripts and fire those off when needed.

thekim said,

I like the classic elements. The new startmenu and superbar are just not adapted.
Windows 8 Server is themed and this is really awful designed

As a Server OS though, it's never been about looks. It's designed to be functional.

M_Lyons10 said,

As a Server OS though, it's never been about looks. It's designed to be functional.

But why actively spend time and money to make it even uglier? What's the point?

MS Lose32 said,
But why actively spend time and money to make it even uglier? What's the point?

The point is unification of their products, and consistency between them. They need a common element of design, and thats what they are moving towards. Very quickly I may add. I love it.

thekim said,
awful even for a server OS

Just like Windows 2008, you can turn on the freaking Glass if you want pretty or use it as a desktop computer.

It isn't hard, and should by default for remote (RDP) GraphicFX users turn on Aero automatically anyway. This is why Microsoft designed Windows so it can handle and multi-task GPU threads, unlike other OSes.

Anthonyd said,

It's a pre-beta, what do you expect?

I always love these its a beta comments, well guess what, what the beta looks like and alpha looks like usually is an indication of the direction the product is going, hence why they changed it to be like that...

Anthonyd said,

It's a pre-beta, what do you expect?


It's also a server OS, so it's not meant to have a flashy GUI as you'd expect from a
desktop/client/workstation OS like Windows 7 (or 8). I also wouldn't expect to see
the Metro tiled Start screen enabled by default in Windows Server 8 either.

DJGM said,

It's also a server OS, so it's not meant to have a flashy GUI as you'd expect from a
desktop/client/workstation OS like Windows 7 (or 8). I also wouldn't expect to see
the Metro tiled Start screen enabled by default in Windows Server 8 either.

I don't see anything flashy about any of those screenshots

DJGM said,

It's also a server OS, so it's not meant to have a flashy GUI as you'd expect from a
desktop/client/workstation OS like Windows 7 (or 8). I also wouldn't expect to see
the Metro tiled Start screen enabled by default in Windows Server 8 either.

On Windows 8 (client), you can chose if you want the metro menu or classic desktop at startup. I don't see why it would be different in Windows Server 8, unless they ditch the metro start menu but it's highly unlikely.

Anthonyd said,

On Windows 8 (client), you can chose if you want the metro menu or classic desktop at startup. I don't see why it would be different in Windows Server 8, unless they ditch the metro start menu but it's highly unlikely.

Yeah, but I think his point was that all of that may be available, but it will no doubt be turned off by default. All of that generally is in the Server OS's... They're more geared towards performance and aren't expected to be seen quit so much...

M_Lyons10 said,

Yeah, but I think his point was that all of that may be available, but it will no doubt be turned off by default. All of that generally is in the Server OS's... They're more geared towards performance and aren't expected to be seen quit so much...


Well it depend on your server role. I wouldn't be against a metro tile showing lastest error/conflicts for example.

DJGM said,

It's also a server OS, so it's not meant to have a flashy GUI as you'd expect from a
desktop/client/workstation OS like Windows 7 (or 8). I also wouldn't expect to see
the Metro tiled Start screen enabled by default in Windows Server 8 either.

It may not require a flashy GUI, but that doesn't mean the users wouldn't benefit from there being one. A flashy GUI usually makes the user experience better, so if the user experience can be improved without functionality or usability being harmed, it makes sense to go through with it. Most people may not care about a flashy GUI on a server operating system, but I do, and others do, too.

Martin5000 said,

If I was the developer I would expect feedback on how its looking.


It's cute that you think MS looks at Neowin.net comments for feedback.

Callum said,

It may not require a flashy GUI, but that doesn't mean the users wouldn't benefit from there being one. A flashy GUI usually makes the user experience better, so if the user experience can be improved without functionality or usability being harmed, it makes sense to go through with it. Most people may not care about a flashy GUI on a server operating system, but I do, and others do, too.

Flashy GUI on a RDP session?
Or should the admin in question always be right on the front on the PC hosting the SERVER OS??

No one really uses the server like this. Not as a server OS at least.

Callum said,

It may not require a flashy GUI, but that doesn't mean the users wouldn't benefit from there being one. A flashy GUI usually makes the user experience better, so if the user experience can be improved without functionality or usability being harmed, it makes sense to go through with it. Most people may not care about a flashy GUI on a server operating system, but I do, and others do, too.

isnt the whole purpose of server is to have less performance hit in UI and do what it is suppose to do which is serve?? Its not like everyone use it all day long... you only open it when you need them and is obviously rare. I understand your concern about UI looking good but as you said most people dont care about the UI and Microsoft made most happy here. You cant make everyone happy. unfortunately u are on the other side.

Callum said,

It may not require a flashy GUI, but that doesn't mean the users wouldn't benefit from there being one. A flashy GUI usually makes the user experience better, so if the user experience can be improved without functionality or usability being harmed, it makes sense to go through with it. Most people may not care about a flashy GUI on a server operating system, but I do, and others do, too.

most people don't sit in front of a server 24/7 staring at the UI. Also, ever heard of Server Core? no gui! Do you sit logged into your exchange/DNS/File server all day admiring it's interface?

Martin5000 said,

If I was the developer I would expect feedback on how its looking.

If you are building a car, lets say a BMW, you see the doors, roof, and engine being built. You think its going to look like ****.. but then they finish with the paint and you are amazed.

Everyone needs to stop acting like a douches over what it LOOKS like so far, and you need to look at whats being built INSIDE.

You ****en kids annoy me.

Wait for the finished products and stop bitching. because you guys obviously aren't developers or you don't have a single clue what alpha, pre-beta, beta, and RTM are.

ShareShiz said,

If you are building a car, lets say a BMW, you see the doors, roof, and engine being built. You think its going to look like ****.. but then they finish with the paint and you are amazed.

Everyone needs to stop acting like a douches over what it LOOKS like so far, and you need to look at whats being built INSIDE.

You ****en kids annoy me.

Wait for the finished products and stop bitching. because you guys obviously aren't developers or you don't have a single clue what alpha, pre-beta, beta, and RTM are.

you buy a cracking engine, but if you put it into a rust bucket, it spoils the engine.

SharpGreen said,

I don't see anything flashy about any of those screenshots
Well... But if the metro startscreen provides you with useful information? Like RAM usage, how full the harddrives are and shortcuts to the active directory and stuff? I think that would be very neat and very useful

Wouter52 said,
Well... But if the metro startscreen provides you with useful information? Like RAM usage, how full the harddrives are and shortcuts to the active directory and stuff? I think that would be very neat and very useful

It can, simply by the nature of the live tile system itself as long as someone does it/codes it. Any app's live tile can post a good chunk of information (Windows 8's tiles should also flip like they do on Windows phone I think, so you get even more info on both sides).

There's no reason why a task manager live tile can't show you CPU/RAM and Networking data etc. It's really open to what devs want to do.

DrakeN2k said,
I feel sick...

Ya, cause looking at server screens is how everyone decorates their homes. I have an Oil print of the NT 4.0 desktop in the dinning room, and Windows 3.51 server screen shots in monocromatic stills in the bathroom. So it has to be freaking beautiful or it is worthless. (LOL)

/s

ShareShiz said,

If you are building a car, lets say a BMW, you see the doors, roof, and engine being built. You think its going to look like ****.. but then they finish with the paint and you are amazed.

Everyone needs to stop acting like a douches over what it LOOKS like so far, and you need to look at whats being built INSIDE.

You ****en kids annoy me.

Wait for the finished products and stop bitching. because you guys obviously aren't developers or you don't have a single clue what alpha, pre-beta, beta, and RTM are.

Wow, how incredibly rude!

Anyway, I can prove you wrong easily: Microsoft DO release software before the beta stage to get feedback on what people think of it. I am a developer, I also do the same thing, its how the industry works.

Anthonyd said,

It's a pre-beta, what do you expect?

It's a refined version of the alpha looks, so it'll likely look like this. Recall how different the Win 7 Beta was from final. Not very. And Win 8 is close to beta now.