2
I have a MSDN (Accademic alliance) subscription, and I have a rack mountable box, (I can't remember whats in it anymore but it has 2 CPUs and 1 GB of DDR 2 ram. I remember when I was given it (12 months ago) is was one of something called a Delta or a Charlie) I feel the need to improve my skills, by muching around with a windows server. (I've never use one before, or indeed ever set up any kind of server. (used plenty of linux ones though))
So I went on MSDN AA, and downloaded Windows HPC Server 2008 R2 x64 I wasn't paying attention and now (after I burnt it to one of my precious few remaining DVD) from my reading I don't think its appropriate for my needs.
The others on MSDN are: Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Datacenter-Enterprise-Standard Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard-Enterprise-Datacenter-Web
Which is good for someone who has never worked with a windows server before?
thanks, I can always grab more DDR2 Ram, its pretty common/cheap stuff. the CPUs are abit more of a problem, but I remember it was at least equiv to a pentium 4, so we'll see how this goes. – Lyndon White – 2011-06-20T05:44:20.867
+1 - I'll just add that Standard allows one additional virtual machine instance, Enterprise allows four total instances on a physical machine, and Datacentre allows unlimited virtual machines. – paradroid – 2011-06-20T05:49:52.907
Also, MSND AA shows a 32 bit version avaible to me... – Lyndon White – 2011-06-20T05:50:53.623
Since I'll not be using 4GB of ram am i better to go for hte 32Bit version of Server 2008 R2? – Lyndon White – 2011-06-20T05:59:22.670
@Oxinabox - Correct, < 4gb, use 32-bit – Mark Henderson – 2011-06-20T06:06:58.570
Ok I see why I can find a 32 bit version, I never noticed but the only R2 on MSDN AA are HPC and Webserver. Oh well looks like I going for the 2008 version, see how it goes... Maybe another day (once I've worked out what the CPUs exactly are, I now know they are some form of 2.4GHz Xeon, with 512KB L2 cache) – Lyndon White – 2011-06-20T07:57:53.420
@Oxinabox - You really want to avoid 2008 given the issues with Vista so your choice is 2008 R2 (if your hardware supports it and is fast enough) or 2003 - Given your machine spec I would suggest 2003
– Matt Wilko – 2011-06-20T09:23:55.513Assuming I can run R2, Is the trade off using the 64bit R2 worth it, for the improved features (like playing nice with Windows 7). Considering many things that i would be accessing it from, would be computationally more powerful (though my windows XP netbook wouldn't). I guess the remote desktop improvement things an't relervent. – Lyndon White – 2011-06-20T09:24:50.447
@Matt - 2008 does not suffer nearly the same issues as Windows Vista. We had it in deployment for 2 years and it's been just fine. – Mark Henderson – 2011-06-20T09:50:57.620
@Farseeker - agreed, I have managed serveral deployments with no major issues but my point was that if you have the option of something else I would go with that. – Matt Wilko – 2011-06-20T10:23:10.833