8 ms·

Can someone tell why one would use Windows Server? I can't imagine using it as an application server because of the OS's heft. Maybe as an admin server over a c

Can someone tell why one would use Windows Server? I can't imagine using it as an application server because of the OS's heft. Maybe as an admin server over a cluster of lighter-weight app servers? Edit: Thanks for the answers. The article actually had a pretty good overview. Basically the OS is built to host tons of VM's so every box (hundreds of logical cores, terabytes of memory per VM) can be a cluster in and of itself.

taspeotis 10y ago
Virtualisation (Hyper-V), Active Directory, Exchange, SQL Server...
jinushaun 10y ago
People who need SQL Server, Exchange, ASP, .NET, Active Directory, etc. (MS technology) If you want to build a web service that works with Office files, Windows is still your best bet.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
altharaz 10y ago
It's mostly used in large companies (at least in France). They can use it for ActiveDirectory, and it help them reduce IT department costs: a Windows Desktop SysAdmin can easily manage a Windows Server. Getting Linux would require them to hire new specialists.
protomyth 10y ago
Because some software provider has their stuff working on Windows and your business has determined that is the software they want to use.
garganzol 10y ago
They regularly update Windows with a built-in auto updater mechanism (which is called Windows Update). For me, this is a killer feature #1.
- jhasse 10y ago
  ??? Nearly every Linux distro has this.
  - garganzol 10y ago
    Yeah, until sshd breaks due to incompatible dependency and I cannot login. There are exceptions though. For example, RedHat does a good job (in contrast to some other distros) and I always had auto update on for RedHat systems. Windows works like a Swiss clock in this regards, and it is the biggest selling point for me. Slap, update and forget. It just works then without any manual intervention, and most importantly, does not break things after updates.
    - Gracana 10y ago
      Even for updating domain controllers? This has not been the case for me. At the basic level pretty much any option will "just work", but for complex setups... I have found Windows to be difficult to use and difficult to learn about, with lots of proprietary software solutions for problems that should be easy to solve with the OS-provided tools, but aren't.
    - dspillett 10y ago
      > Yeah, until sshd breaks due to incompatible dependency and I cannot login. I can't say I've every had that happen to me or anyone else I've dealt with. Do you have any references to relevant bugs/issues? A properly running package manager should not allow this unless there is a serious bug in the packages themselves. The closest I can think of otherwise is someone getting locked out of a remote machine where root was the only active account and was authenticated buy user/pass not by key, and he accepted the "start blocking password logins for root" change in a distribution upgrade (so he was warned so his own fault!).
    - ciupicri 10y ago
      Why would you need SSH if the machine is auto-updating itself?
    - 10y ago
blahi 10y ago
In addition to what the others have said, there is a very big list of 3rd party vendors who use C#. Look at enterprise CMS, for example. Microsoft also has a very large footprint in both CRM and ERP systems. Those install bases and the ISVs who build on top of them use Windows. There's also the micro/small business market where a server resides in the office to handle printing/video surveillance, small ERP apps. Think about dentist offices/clinics, shops, restaurants, gyms, small warehouses.
jsingleton 10y ago
Microsoft themselves seem to be making it less relevant as a web app server. ASP.NET Core is cross-platform (I wrote a book on this) and SQL Server 2016 is coming to Linux. I guess they will focus on Azure for this market but Windows Server would still be useful in the back office for email and domain admin.
jrgoj 10y ago
Some of us just prefer it, even without being tethered by other MS dependencies such as Exchange, SQL Server, etc. Personally, given the choice I would prefer to start a new web API project in .NET because I feel most productive in that environment.
daxfohl 10y ago
I have migrated to Linux for app and DB servers, but I don't know of anything better than Active Directory for managing users or Exchange for email. I'd have to imagine such things exist, (I mean, come on it's 2016 there has to be a reasonable alternative to Exchange at least by now, and something a little better than raw LDAP for user management, right?) I just cut my teeth on a MS environment and don't yet see anything comparable.
chiph 10y ago
You can install Windows Server in a GUI-less configuration, so the OS becomes much lighter. Administration would be done via Powershell command-line (and SSH, etc. Not sure if RDP/VNC would work)
- nailer 10y ago
  That's the default for 2016
nulagrithom 10y ago
Windows Nano Server is briefly mentioned in the article but they fail to touch on just how lightweight it really is. Currently you can get it on a VHD coming in at 610 MB (https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/virtualization/windowscontainers/nano_eula https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/virtualization/windowsconta...). Not bad for Windows... Combine that with a need (for whatever reason) to run .NET & IIS and it can definitely make sense to start running some Nano containers.
brudgers 10y ago
In this interview, http://softwareengineeringdaily.com/2016/03/14/state-programming-jeff-atwood/ http://softwareengineeringdaily.com/2016/03/14/state-program... Jeff Atwood describes building Discus on *nix versus his experience building StackOverflow [and previous work] using Windows server and related products. My recollection of what he says is along the line of he believes the Windows Server ecosystem requires substantially less systems administration staff/effort at scale. My understanding is that he's not talking about how much work he had to perform on one versus the other [which could be just his level of experience] but rather the way in which the different stacks affected hiring priorities and business finances during growth at Discus versus StackExchange.
- dizzy3gg 10y ago
  thx for the podcast link. I really should listen to software engineering daily more.
  - brudgers 10y ago
    Even when I listen more, I can't keep up. I was more than three months behind when I listened to the Atwood episode.
KevinEldon 10y ago
Because the rest of your team is more comfortable with Windows and can support and develop for it.
lightedman 10y ago
"Can someone tell why one would use Windows Server? I can't imagine using it as an application server because of the OS's heft." Well, back in the day, I preferred Windows Server 2K3 because I could actually address more than 4GB RAM on a 32-bit architecture, and worked great for running my Q3 servers (and games played quite well on 2K3.)
ageofwant 10y ago
Windows server is useful to support legacy apps that depend on Microsoft's propriety services, AD comes to mind. This server would of course not be deployed on metal, but as another VM on a proper Linux host. Windows on metal are not allowed in my organisation.
UK-AL 10y ago
Well defined solutions. You don't bother trying to decide what webserver to use. You just add the web server role, and you have iis. It's pretty easy to manage.
z3t4 10y ago
for those who cant handle a command line interface or make automatic scripts. While its possible to write scrips in windows, everyone use the gui. There are not even config files, everything is done via mouse clicks.

taspeotis 10y ago

Virtualisation (Hyper-V), Active Directory, Exchange, SQL Server...

jinushaun 10y ago

People who need SQL Server, Exchange, ASP, .NET, Active Directory, etc. (MS technology) If you want to build a web service that works with Office files, Windows is still your best bet.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

altharaz 10y ago

It's mostly used in large companies (at least in France). They can use it for ActiveDirectory, and it help them reduce IT department costs: a Windows Desktop SysAdmin can easily manage a Windows Server. Getting Linux would require them to hire new specialists.

protomyth 10y ago

Because some software provider has their stuff working on Windows and your business has determined that is the software they want to use.

garganzol 10y ago

They regularly update Windows with a built-in auto updater mechanism (which is called Windows Update). For me, this is a killer feature #1.

jhasse 10y ago
??? Nearly every Linux distro has this.
- garganzol 10y ago
  Yeah, until sshd breaks due to incompatible dependency and I cannot login. There are exceptions though. For example, RedHat does a good job (in contrast to some other distros) and I always had auto update on for RedHat systems. Windows works like a Swiss clock in this regards, and it is the biggest selling point for me. Slap, update and forget. It just works then without any manual intervention, and most importantly, does not break things after updates.
  - Gracana 10y ago
    Even for updating domain controllers? This has not been the case for me. At the basic level pretty much any option will "just work", but for complex setups... I have found Windows to be difficult to use and difficult to learn about, with lots of proprietary software solutions for problems that should be easy to solve with the OS-provided tools, but aren't.
  - dspillett 10y ago
    > Yeah, until sshd breaks due to incompatible dependency and I cannot login. I can't say I've every had that happen to me or anyone else I've dealt with. Do you have any references to relevant bugs/issues? A properly running package manager should not allow this unless there is a serious bug in the packages themselves. The closest I can think of otherwise is someone getting locked out of a remote machine where root was the only active account and was authenticated buy user/pass not by key, and he accepted the "start blocking password logins for root" change in a distribution upgrade (so he was warned so his own fault!).
  - ciupicri 10y ago
    Why would you need SSH if the machine is auto-updating itself?
  - 10y ago

blahi 10y ago

In addition to what the others have said, there is a very big list of 3rd party vendors who use C#. Look at enterprise CMS, for example. Microsoft also has a very large footprint in both CRM and ERP systems. Those install bases and the ISVs who build on top of them use Windows. There's also the micro/small business market where a server resides in the office to handle printing/video surveillance, small ERP apps. Think about dentist offices/clinics, shops, restaurants, gyms, small warehouses.

jsingleton 10y ago

Microsoft themselves seem to be making it less relevant as a web app server. ASP.NET Core is cross-platform (I wrote a book on this) and SQL Server 2016 is coming to Linux. I guess they will focus on Azure for this market but Windows Server would still be useful in the back office for email and domain admin.

jrgoj 10y ago

Some of us just prefer it, even without being tethered by other MS dependencies such as Exchange, SQL Server, etc. Personally, given the choice I would prefer to start a new web API project in .NET because I feel most productive in that environment.

daxfohl 10y ago

I have migrated to Linux for app and DB servers, but I don't know of anything better than Active Directory for managing users or Exchange for email. I'd have to imagine such things exist, (I mean, come on it's 2016 there has to be a reasonable alternative to Exchange at least by now, and something a little better than raw LDAP for user management, right?) I just cut my teeth on a MS environment and don't yet see anything comparable.

chiph 10y ago

You can install Windows Server in a GUI-less configuration, so the OS becomes much lighter. Administration would be done via Powershell command-line (and SSH, etc. Not sure if RDP/VNC would work)

nailer 10y ago
That's the default for 2016

nulagrithom 10y ago

Windows Nano Server is briefly mentioned in the article but they fail to touch on just how lightweight it really is. Currently you can get it on a VHD coming in at 610 MB (https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/virtualization/windowscontainers/nano_eula https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/virtualization/windowsconta...). Not bad for Windows... Combine that with a need (for whatever reason) to run .NET & IIS and it can definitely make sense to start running some Nano containers.

brudgers 10y ago

In this interview, http://softwareengineeringdaily.com/2016/03/14/state-programming-jeff-atwood/ http://softwareengineeringdaily.com/2016/03/14/state-program... Jeff Atwood describes building Discus on *nix versus his experience building StackOverflow [and previous work] using Windows server and related products. My recollection of what he says is along the line of he believes the Windows Server ecosystem requires substantially less systems administration staff/effort at scale. My understanding is that he's not talking about how much work he had to perform on one versus the other [which could be just his level of experience] but rather the way in which the different stacks affected hiring priorities and business finances during growth at Discus versus StackExchange.

dizzy3gg 10y ago
thx for the podcast link. I really should listen to software engineering daily more.
- brudgers 10y ago
  Even when I listen more, I can't keep up. I was more than three months behind when I listened to the Atwood episode.

KevinEldon 10y ago

Because the rest of your team is more comfortable with Windows and can support and develop for it.

lightedman 10y ago

"Can someone tell why one would use Windows Server? I can't imagine using it as an application server because of the OS's heft." Well, back in the day, I preferred Windows Server 2K3 because I could actually address more than 4GB RAM on a 32-bit architecture, and worked great for running my Q3 servers (and games played quite well on 2K3.)

ageofwant 10y ago

Windows server is useful to support legacy apps that depend on Microsoft's propriety services, AD comes to mind. This server would of course not be deployed on metal, but as another VM on a proper Linux host. Windows on metal are not allowed in my organisation.

UK-AL 10y ago

Well defined solutions. You don't bother trying to decide what webserver to use. You just add the web server role, and you have iis. It's pretty easy to manage.

z3t4 10y ago

for those who cant handle a command line interface or make automatic scripts. While its possible to write scrips in windows, everyone use the gui. There are not even config files, everything is done via mouse clicks.