New version of Windows without a GUI?!

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Waylon Kenning, Feb 24, 2006.

  1. That's right! No GUI for Longhorn Server Core Edition. Server core is
    designed to be a minimal server installation to provide a
    low-maintenance server environment.

    There's no Windows shell or GUI, the interface is the friendly command
    prompt. There's no managed code support in Server Core, so all code
    must be native Windows API code (important note for developers), and
    there's limited MSI support (unattend mode only).

    See more information here -
    http://windowssdk.msdn.microsoft.co...url=/library/en-us/srvcore/srvcore/portal.asp

    So that's an interesting turn of events for Windows Server, though I
    agree with the direction. Less installed applications means less areas
    open for attack, and more processing power for things your server
    needs.
    --
    Cheers,

    Waylon Kenning.
    See my blog at http://spaces.msn.com/WaylonKenning/
     
    Waylon Kenning, Feb 24, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:50:09 +1300, Waylon Kenning wrote:

    > So that's an interesting turn of events for Windows Server, though I agree
    > with the direction.


    So...

    Where are the Windows on that version of Windows?

    Is it supposed to be a paneless version of Windows?

    Does that mean it will let all and sundry through the paneless Windows?

    ;o)

    And of couse where is Micro$oft Internet Explorer in all this? Didn't
    Micro$oft say that M$IE was an inseperable component of Micro$oft Windows?

    Yeah right!


    A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    A: because it messes up threading
    Q: why should I not reply by top-posting?
    A: No.
    Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
     
    A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 24, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Waylon Kenning

    Rob J Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:50:09 +1300, Waylon Kenning wrote:
    >
    > > So that's an interesting turn of events for Windows Server, though I agree
    > > with the direction.

    >
    > So...
    >
    > Where are the Windows on that version of Windows?
    >
    > Is it supposed to be a paneless version of Windows?
    >
    > Does that mean it will let all and sundry through the paneless Windows?
    >
    > ;o)
    >
    > And of couse where is Micro$oft Internet Explorer in all this? Didn't
    > Micro$oft say that M$IE was an inseperable component of Micro$oft Windows?


    IE isn't needed on a DHCP server.

    > Yeah right!


    like you have no idea.
     
    Rob J, Feb 24, 2006
    #3
  4. Waylon Kenning

    Rudy Seoa Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > That's right! No GUI for Longhorn Server Core Edition. Server core is
    > designed to be a minimal server installation to provide a
    > low-maintenance server environment.
    >
    > There's no Windows shell or GUI, the interface is the friendly command
    > prompt. There's no managed code support in Server Core, so all code
    > must be native Windows API code (important note for developers), and
    > there's limited MSI support (unattend mode only).
    >
    > See more information here -
    > http://windowssdk.msdn.microsoft.co...url=/library/en-us/srvcore/srvcore/portal.asp
    >
    > So that's an interesting turn of events for Windows Server, though I
    > agree with the direction. Less installed applications means less areas
    > open for attack, and more processing power for things your server
    > needs.


    Could be useful as a Windows server base for Virtual Server, something
    with low overhead similar to VMware ESX?

    Or for specialised server installs that run as virtual machine instances
    with minimal resources.
     
    Rudy Seoa, Feb 24, 2006
    #4
  5. Rudy Seoa wrote:
    > > That's right! No GUI for Longhorn Server Core Edition. Server core is
    > > designed to be a minimal server installation to provide a
    > > low-maintenance server environment.
    > >
    > > There's no Windows shell or GUI, the interface is the friendly command
    > > prompt. There's no managed code support in Server Core, so all code
    > > must be native Windows API code (important note for developers), and
    > > there's limited MSI support (unattend mode only).
    > >
    > > See more information here -
    > > http://windowssdk.msdn.microsoft.co...url=/library/en-us/srvcore/srvcore/portal.asp
    > >
    > > So that's an interesting turn of events for Windows Server, though I
    > > agree with the direction. Less installed applications means less areas
    > > open for attack, and more processing power for things your server
    > > needs.

    >
    > Could be useful as a Windows server base for Virtual Server, something
    > with low overhead similar to VMware ESX?


    Exactly, in fact this is how the Windows Virtualisation technology will
    work, there will be a Hypervisor built in using Server Core/Foundation
    in the "Longhorn" Server wave of technologies.

    > Or for specialised server installs that run as virtual machine instances
    > with minimal resources.
     
    Nathan Mercer, Feb 24, 2006
    #5
  6. A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    > > So that's an interesting turn of events for Windows Server, though I agree
    > > with the direction.

    >
    > So...
    >
    > Where are the Windows on that version of Windows?
    >
    > Is it supposed to be a paneless version of Windows?
    >
    > Does that mean it will let all and sundry through the paneless Windows?
    >
    > ;o)
    >
    > And of couse where is Micro$oft Internet Explorer in all this? Didn't
    > Micro$oft say that M$IE was an inseperable component of Micro$oft Windows?


    Its not meant to run Server Applications, who needs a browser on a
    server running as a
    File Server, or DHCP Server, or DNS Server, or Active Directory DC
    anyway?
     
    Nathan Mercer, Feb 24, 2006
    #6
  7. Nathan Mercer wrote:
    > > Could be useful as a Windows server base for Virtual Server, something
    > > with low overhead similar to VMware ESX?

    >
    > Exactly, in fact this is how the Windows Virtualisation technology will
    > work, there will be a Hypervisor built in using Server Core/Foundation
    > in the "Longhorn" Server wave of technologies.
    >
    > > Or for specialised server installs that run as virtual machine instances
    > > with minimal resources.


    More info here

    Windows Virtualization Architecture
    http://download.microsoft.com/downl...4e74-92a3-088782200fe7/TWAR05013_WinHEC05.ppt

    Microsoft Virtual Server: Overview and Roadmap
    http://download.microsoft.com/downl...4e74-92a3-088782200fe7/TWSE05008_WinHEC05.ppt

    Cheers
    Nathan
     
    Nathan Mercer, Feb 24, 2006
    #7
  8. On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:44:28 -0800, someone purporting to be Nathan
    Mercer didst scrawl:

    > A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:

    *SNIP*
    > Its not meant to run Server Applications, who needs a browser on a
    > server running as a
    > File Server, or DHCP Server, or DNS Server, or Active Directory DC
    > anyway?


    ROTFL. Microsoft finally cottoned on to something that the OSS community
    have been saying for years.
    How much smaller is the footprint of this new version, Nathan? I don't
    imagine that having to drive a GUI is a terribly efficient use of
    resources.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Feb 24, 2006
    #8
  9. On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:44:28 -0800, Nathan Mercer wrote:

    > Its not meant to run Server Applications, who needs a browser on a server
    > running as a
    > File Server, or DHCP Server, or DNS Server, or Active Directory DC anyway?


    So why did Micro$oft say M$IE was an integrated and inseperable component
    of the Windoze OS?


    A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    Adam L. Penenberg: "The next time Bill G. promises to make software that is
    so fundamentally secure that customers never have to worry about it, ask him
    what decade he plans to release it."
     
    A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 24, 2006
    #9
  10. On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:01:52 +1200, Don Hills wrote:

    > It does amuse me to see Windows finally get a feature that OS/2 had from
    > the beginning - the ability to run and be administered "headless".


    I thought that "headless" meant without KVM attached.


    A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    "Linux and MySQL are going to keep chipping away at Micro$ofts' install
    base and it is terrified. Why else would they keep spouting on about how
    awful Linux is? If it was no threat they would just ignore and move on. I
    think the same goes for a huge number of windows admins, they see a steep
    learning curve for a whole new skill set on the horizon and are struggling
    to avoid it. Linux and open source are the future, get used to it."
     
    A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 25, 2006
    #10
  11. Waylon Kenning

    Don Hills Guest

    In article <>,
    A Nice Cup of Tea <> wrote:
    >So why did Micro$oft say M$IE was an integrated and inseperable component
    >of the Windoze OS?


    I'll bet they pull a weasel out of the hat and say that it was really an
    integrated and inseparable component of the GUI.

    It does amuse me to see Windows finally get a feature that OS/2 had from the
    beginning - the ability to run and be administered "headless". A real-world
    example was the IFS (Integrated File Server) attachment for an IBM AS/400
    midrange system. It was effectively a PC on a card that used a "virtual
    disk" on the AS/400's hard drives, and was administered via the AS/400's
    console as though it were just another part of the system. OS/2 ran
    unmodified in such a configuration, and when the NT version shipped the
    customers were disgruntled to find that it required a separate display and
    keyboard to administer it because the interfaces didn't exist to allow allow
    it to be fully administered headless.

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    "New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
    preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
    -- Advertisement on the box for Microsoft Windows 2.11 for 286
     
    Don Hills, Feb 25, 2006
    #11
  12. On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:00:49 +1300, someone purporting to be A Nice Cup of
    Tea didst scrawl:

    > On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:01:52 +1200, Don Hills wrote:
    >
    >> It does amuse me to see Windows finally get a feature that OS/2 had from
    >> the beginning - the ability to run and be administered "headless".

    >
    > I thought that "headless" meant without KVM attached.
    >

    It does. But the definition is usually accepted as not including remote
    GUI being a necessity for operation. If you can't run it over a serial
    cable, which is how headless administration was originally done, it's not
    a headless box.

    --
    Matthew Poole
    "Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."
     
    Matthew Poole, Feb 25, 2006
    #12
  13. Waylon Kenning

    Murray Symon Guest

    On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:06:51 +1300, A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:

    > On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:44:28 -0800, Nathan Mercer wrote:
    >
    >> Its not meant to run Server Applications, who needs a browser on a
    >> server running as a
    >> File Server, or DHCP Server, or DNS Server, or Active Directory DC
    >> anyway?

    >
    > So why did Micro$oft say M$IE was an integrated and inseperable component
    > of the Windoze OS?
    >
    > A Nice Cup of Tea


    Libraries.
     
    Murray Symon, Feb 25, 2006
    #13
  14. On a pleasant day while strolling in nz.comp, a person by the name of
    Waylon Kenning exclaimed:
    > So that's an interesting turn of events for Windows Server, though I
    > agree with the direction. Less installed applications means less areas
    > open for attack, and more processing power for things your server
    > needs.


    Shows that Microsoft can still change direction and learn from their
    opponents. They are getting slower at doing it, but still...

    --
    aaronl at consultant dot com
    For every expert, there is an equal and
    opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
     
    Aaron Lawrence, Feb 25, 2006
    #14
  15. On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:35:06 +1300, Matthew Poole wrote:

    >> I thought that "headless" meant without KVM attached.
    >>

    > It does. But the definition is usually accepted as not including remote
    > GUI being a necessity for operation. If you can't run it over a serial
    > cable, which is how headless administration was originally done, it's not
    > a headless box.


    In that case my file server is headless, and my firewall isn't.

    My firewall is administered via browser, and my file server via ssh
    (altho' I've actually got a console attached but switched off and can be
    plugged into my firewall if needs must. Both can be operated without KVM
    attached) :eek:)


    A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    Adam L. Penenberg: "The next time Bill G. promises to make software that is
    so fundamentally secure that customers never have to worry about it, ask him
    what decade he plans to release it."
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 25, 2006
    #15
  16. On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:09:44 +1300, Murray Symon wrote:

    >>> Its not meant to run Server Applications, who needs a browser on a
    >>> server running as a
    >>> File Server, or DHCP Server, or DNS Server, or Active Directory DC
    >>> anyway?

    >>
    >> So why did Micro$oft say M$IE was an integrated and inseperable
    >> component of the Windoze OS?

    >
    > Libraries.


    What about the librarary?


    A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    Buffer-overflow vulnerabilities are simply programming errors; they occur when
    coders fail to deploy proper memory-management techniques.
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 25, 2006
    #16
  17. Waylon Kenning

    David Guest

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    > On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:09:44 +1300, Murray Symon wrote:
    >
    >>>> Its not meant to run Server Applications, who needs a browser on a
    >>>> server running as a
    >>>> File Server, or DHCP Server, or DNS Server, or Active Directory DC
    >>>> anyway?
    >>> So why did Micro$oft say M$IE was an integrated and inseperable
    >>> component of the Windoze OS?

    >> Libraries.

    >
    > What about the librarary?
    >
    >
    > A Nice Cup of Tea
    >


    Internet explorer comes with libraries that provide heaps of useful
    stuff for developers, and microsoft (especially explorer) also makes use
    of them.
     
    David, Feb 25, 2006
    #17
  18. On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:41:42 +1200, Aaron Lawrence wrote:

    > Shows that Microsoft can still change direction and learn from their
    > opponents. They are getting slower at doing it, but still...


    Yeah - started without a GUI, just cp/... err... DOS. Then copied the idea
    of having a GUI from Apple, then took more than three attempts to get the
    GUI right. Then upgraded to a 16/32 bit system with a 16/32bit GUI still
    laying on top of DOS. Then making the browser an "inseperable part of the
    GUI. Then dumped DOS, making the GUI an "inseperable" part of the new "NT"
    os. Then dumping the GUI in favour of the "NT" os without a GUI attached.

    Micro$oft started with an OS that was without a GUI, then claimed a GUI
    was utterly indispensible and that Windows couldn't work without it, now
    release an iteration that has dumped the GUI.

    Micro$oft will do anything to beat it's competition and to make ever more
    and more money. Nothing else is important to it.


    A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    "I'd hate to be furniture in Ballmer's office."
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 25, 2006
    #18
  19. On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:03:12 +1300, David wrote:

    > Internet explorer comes with libraries that provide heaps of useful stuff
    > for developers, and microsoft (especially explorer) also makes use of
    > them.


    So why doesn't Micro$oft provide those libraries as a part of the OS,
    rather than as a part of a programme?


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    A: because it messes up threading
    Q: why should I not reply by top-posting?
    A: No.
    Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Feb 25, 2006
    #19
  20. Waylon Kenning

    Don Hills Guest

    In article <>,
    A Nice Cup of Tea <> wrote:
    |
    |I thought that "headless" meant without KVM attached.

    Yes. Your point was...?

    --
    Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
    "New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
    preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
    -- Advertisement on the box for Microsoft Windows 2.11 for 286
     
    Don Hills, Feb 25, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ian
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,962
  2. SS
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    6,517
    Freeride
    Jan 16, 2007
  3. =?Utf-8?B?T29oIE1hdHJvbg==?=

    Windows XP 64 bit TSM Backup Archive GUI

    =?Utf-8?B?T29oIE1hdHJvbg==?=, Aug 16, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    714
    -Dan-
    Aug 17, 2005
  4. jedmeister

    Windows XP Pro desktop GUI question

    jedmeister, Mar 26, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    424
    news.xtra.co.nz
    Mar 28, 2006
  5. Chris Caldwell
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    703
    Chris Caldwell
    Jan 16, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page