To GUI or not to GUI?



  • Just doing my first Windows 2012 R2 install. I see Microsoft recommend the core installation. As a complete novice when it comes to Powershell, I find the idea of this pretty intimidating. But maybe I should just accept it's 2015 now and go for it!

    The language Microsoft use during the install is almost suggesting that I need to man up and ditch GUIs.

    Could I cope? I'm not really an IT pro.



  • Have you looked at Server Manager at all? You really don't need the GUI if you have RSAT and Server Manager going.



  • OK. I'll give it a go.



  • @Carnival-Boy said:

    OK. I'll give it a go.

    The good news is that you can easily add/remove the GUI if you find you want it/don't want it.



  • @coliver said:

    Have you looked at Server Manager at all? You really don't need the GUI if you have RSAT and Server Manager going.

    Exactly this. The idea is that you don't manage the box from the box itself anymore, instead you manage it from your workstation instead using remote tool like RSAT as Coliver mentioned.



  • @Carnival-Boy said:

    Could I cope? I'm not really an IT pro.

    That's not true. I've seen plenty of your posts on here



  • I am just going to shake my head and nod in agreement because coliver and dashrender are spot on


  • Service Provider

    Server core is not the big scary thing it seems.

    • Install

    • Log in

    • See options in the little sconfig window #Note: If it does not auto start, type sconfig

    You can configure the server name, join the domain, enable remote admin, etc all through the little menu driven text prompts.

    Once the basics are configured, you just connect via RSAT



  • @JaredBusch said:

    You can configure the server name, join the domain, enable remote admin, etc all through the little menu driven text prompts.

    Done. Thanks.



  • I've chickened out. I need to install SQL Server 2014 this week, and I just find the attended installation GUI much easier for a relative newbie like myself.

    I've a consultant coming next week to install MS Dynamics on another server and he's not comfortable with core either - so the GUI will be going on that too.

    It sounds like you can just turn the GUI on or off whenever you want though. So it's pretty easy to turn it on, do some installs, then turn it off again, right? I'll still be managing them remotely.



  • @Carnival-Boy said:

    It sounds like you can just turn the GUI on or off whenever you want though. So it's pretty easy to turn it on, do some installs, then turn it off again, right?

    Yep



  • @Carnival-Boy said:

    It sounds like you can just turn the GUI on or off whenever you want though. So it's pretty easy to turn it on, do some installs, then turn it off again, right? I'll still be managing them remotely.

    Yes you can, but make sure whatever apps you have installed support that too.



  • What is an app, exactly?

    In my "Windows Server 2012 R2 Essentials & Configuration" book by Microsoft Press it says "In its current implementation, a Server Core installation is not a platform for running server applications."

    This slightly confused me, but I assuming that SQL Server is a "server" and not an "application"? Ditto Dynamics Server. Whereas, SQL Server Management Studio is an application, and thus should never be installed on core.



  • huh - great question.

    Perhaps it's my narrow way of thinking, but in general I considering something you install on an OS an app, regardless of what it does.... but in light of your question I can definitely see the other side of that argument.

    I guess I'm suggesting that if you plan to use Windows Server Core, that you make sure Core is one of the supported platforms for your "server/serving application."

    For example, many third party backup solutions won't run (at least in the past) on Core because they require the ability to interact with the desktop.



  • @Dashrender said:

    huh - great question.

    Perhaps it's my narrow way of thinking, but in general I considering something you install on an OS an app, regardless of what it does.... but in light of your question I can definitely see the other side of that argument.

    I guess I'm suggesting that if you plan to use Windows Server Core, that you make sure Core is one of the supported platforms for your "server/serving application."

    For example, many third party backup solutions won't run (at least in the past) on Core because they require the ability to interact with the desktop.

    Have you tried it before? You can still install many GUI applications on core by launching the EXE from the command line. UPS and Backup utilities usually work fine in server core.



  • @thecreativeone91 said:

    @Dashrender said:

    huh - great question.

    Perhaps it's my narrow way of thinking, but in general I considering something you install on an OS an app, regardless of what it does.... but in light of your question I can definitely see the other side of that argument.

    I guess I'm suggesting that if you plan to use Windows Server Core, that you make sure Core is one of the supported platforms for your "server/serving application."

    For example, many third party backup solutions won't run (at least in the past) on Core because they require the ability to interact with the desktop.

    Have you tried it before? You can still install many GUI applications on core by launching the EXE from the command line. UPS and Backup utilities usually work fine in server core.

    This is what I was going to mention. I'm not sure why they say Apps are recommended... many of them do work.



  • Not in many years, back when Core was first introduced... It's possible/likely that many vendors selling products meant to be installed on Windows Server now work with Core.


  • Service Provider

    @Carnival-Boy said:

    This slightly confused me, but I assuming that SQL Server is a "server" and not an "application"? Ditto Dynamics Server. Whereas, SQL Server Management Studio is an application, and thus should never be installed on core.

    In Windows lingo, yeah. Apps have a GUI. The actual term does not imply that in any way.



  • @Dashrender said:

    Not in many users, back when Core was first introduced... It's possible/likely that many vendors selling products meant to be installed on Windows Server now work with Core.

    What applications are you referring? Most things that run on a server could care less if they are a gui or not as they primarily run as services. MS Dymanics is not supported on Core and I've never done it on core nor would I try it.



  • @thecreativeone91 said:

    @Dashrender said:

    Not in many users, back when Core was first introduced... It's possible/likely that many vendors selling products meant to be installed on Windows Server now work with Core.

    What applications are you referring? Most things that run on a server could care less if they are a gui or not as they primarily run as services. MS Dymanics is not supported on Core and I've never done it on core nor would I try it.

    Symantec Backup Exec wouldn't run on Core back in the 2008 R2 days. Yes a client would work to Core, but the main install couldn't go on a Core server.



  • @Dashrender said:

    @thecreativeone91 said:

    @Dashrender said:

    Not in many users, back when Core was first introduced... It's possible/likely that many vendors selling products meant to be installed on Windows Server now work with Core.

    What applications are you referring? Most things that run on a server could care less if they are a gui or not as they primarily run as services. MS Dymanics is not supported on Core and I've never done it on core nor would I try it.

    Symantec Backup Exec wouldn't run on Core back in the 2008 R2 days. Yes a client would work to Core, but the main install couldn't go on a Core server.

    Backup Exec, you mean the product that's always had lots of problems since symantec took it over. and they took years to even get server 2012 support. Backup Exec is a black sheep anymore.



  • I ditto @coliver's comments. Server Manager makes things easy, especially if you have 8.1 Pro.



  • @thecreativeone91 said:

    @Dashrender said:

    @thecreativeone91 said:

    @Dashrender said:

    Not in many users, back when Core was first introduced... It's possible/likely that many vendors selling products meant to be installed on Windows Server now work with Core.

    What applications are you referring? Most things that run on a server could care less if they are a gui or not as they primarily run as services. MS Dymanics is not supported on Core and I've never done it on core nor would I try it.

    Symantec Backup Exec wouldn't run on Core back in the 2008 R2 days. Yes a client would work to Core, but the main install couldn't go on a Core server.

    Backup Exec, you mean the product that's always had lots of problems since symantec took it over. and they took years to even get server 2012 support. Backup Exec is a black sheep anymore.

    Yep I'm talking 5-6 years ago ....