Windows Server: why I can't take it seriously

adrian@arctus.co.uk (Adrian O'Connor) — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 03:20:00 -0400

Windows Server 2003 isn’t a /bad/ server operating system, but I can’t help feeling that Micrsoft made many bad decisions and compromised on quality in order to meet their own agenda. In this commentary, I shall discuss a few of the things that I find most frustrating.

#1 Speed of installation

I can deploy a Linux server in less than 30 minutes, but Windows Server 2003 takes half a day. This is especially true when the server hardware has a 4 minute POST routine (because a Windows Server install requires many reboots).

Images can go some way to remedying this, but they aren’t a solution that I have been able to make use of, and nor can many other small vendors and IT departments.

Ideally, the installation CD would unpack and copy a basic server image to the disk – this image would be a vanilla install with no optional components. That stage should take 10 minutes. Once the image is installed, it’s a matter of installing drivers and software by hand.

#2 Updates

Microsoft updates are still a bit of a joke. After making so much noise about how improved things would be in current versions of Windows Server, I still need to reboot my servers once every few weeks because of pointles updates. These updates are often for components that ought to either be updatable without a reboot or not be there at all.

#3 Graphical Interface

I don’t understand why Microsoft can’t create a version of Windows Server that operates in a console only headless mode. Furthermore, experienced sysadmins are much better at using the command line to manage their server than a clumsy and slow graphical user interface. This is especially true if you have a server that becomes unresponsive because of a programme or service that is using 100% of the CPU. On Unix, I can still usually create a console session and use command line tools to kill the process. On Windows, the GUI often becomes unresponsive and, in the situation, very, very frustrating.

#4 Windows Media Player, Outlook Express and Internet Explorer

This is the thing that I find most confusing: on a fresh install of Windows Server, why on Earth do Microsoft presume that I will want to listen to MP3s?

And what else do they think I am going to do with this server? Check my personal emails through some crumby home-user email client?

Those two programmes have no place on a server and should not even be options. Nor should the MSN Messenger client.

And Internet Explorer, while having more uses on a server than the other programmes, is surely the prime candidate for removal. With all of the security issues and bad press that it has brought, removing it entirely from Windows Server would, in my opinion, be a great move. Microsoft could provide Windows Updates as packages that can be pushed easily from the desktop (they already do, I know, but it should become a common-place tool).

I could happily continue throwing out suggestions, but they become more trivial. The reason I list these issues here is because they are entirely needless problems that cause real issues for all users of Windows Server. If Microsoft treated Windows Server as a true server operating system, it would be taken more seriously in the enterprise.

Arctus Blog: Windows Server: why I can't take it seriously

Windows Server: why I can't take it seriously