Windows Server 2012 R2

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

I read about this yesterday, and whilst it seems good news, the speed of the releases is somewhat annoying.

Having only just purchased 2012 licences with a view to start implementing it this summer it seems that I may have wasted money now that 2012 R2 is coming out. I didn't buy SA since I wasn't expecting a new OS to be rolled out quite as soon!

From a Network Manager point of view I will be planning to base upgrades on a single platform and to make that platform last for X number of years rather than the constant testing and upgrading cycle that MS seem to now be steering us down.

I've said this to colleagues for some time now that there are advantages to always being one step behind the latest technology. You know what to expect, and let others do the ground work for you.

 

That's exactly my point of view.

However, where I am I am 2 steps behind (Server 2003) and it is causing a lot of problems locking the Windows 7 machines down.

 

I'm actually working on guaranteeing my clients will be a couple of steps behind current on the server side by the end of the year. My objective is to have all of them running sbs 2008/2011 as the majority don't have reliable enough connections to move to hosted exchange and certainly can't justify the cost of server 2012 and exchange 2013.

Its now sounding even better with the announcement of 2012 r2.

 

Comparing to 2008, I believe there was about an 18 month gap between that and 2008 R2, so I'm not sure what they hope to gain by this. Windows 8/2012 platforms only just got released last year - what 9 months ago? What happened to good old Service Packs?

 

As someone only just starting out on their Microsoft path, it is a major concern because it will take quite a long period of study before I can accumulate enough exams to get to each of stage of my goal (especially as the interim level MCTS is about to 'expire' with no replacement). If Microsoft then keeps shifting the goal posts like this in timescales that amount to mere months, it will be much harder to keep up, let alone have a certification that is considered 'current'.

So how it affects our certified status is of particular concern, as if you are certified in an older version, how much pressure is there to have the latest version on your CV? That's something I've yet to discover, but was something you implied at the outset, and makes even less sense when taken alongside the fact that Microsoft themselves usually recommend specific periods of actual operating experience with a given technology before considering sitting for the related exams.

I have to agree as someone that has 'grown up' with Windows, and it has naturally followed that I'm usually quite defensive of Microsoft and their achievements. However, I must admit that in recent years I've started to appreciate opposing views ever more as their strategies don't seem particularly sensitive to their entrenched market. Maybe it is the nature of the beast, as you say, that as corporations become more dominant they try to assert more control of the direction in which the industry moves; but this could prove to be their undoing in the long run if test takers start to dwindle due to instability, especially if viable alternatives emerge that command greater respect.

Which brings us conveniently to the next point. I looked at VMware recently when I found out the Hyper-V certificates were retiring soon. My first reaction was that I'd probably be better off looking at a more stable and equally, if not more, valued certificate path for my virtualisation training in future. So it's interesting to see some confirmation that I was on the right track with that notion.

Interesting way to look at it, and it's not exactly as if the 'new' operating system is a totally new technology, but rather just another evolution of the same basic product that's been with us for a long time. Most organisations I've come across know this well and usually do not see the justification to upgrade so regularly, but even more so in future if the new product is released as they've barely completed the last migration!

It also begs the question, what of the licensing system? The shorter the cycle gets, the more I can see them looking to move towards a subscription based model as it is the only one that would be efficient. I can certainly understand the desire to keep pushing out products more regularly from a profitability point of view; but as you rightly cited with XP, supporting it long past their original intent only fostered respect and improved their market position, which again contrasts with the response to some of their recent moves that threaten to undermine that good will.