Windows Server 2016 TP4 on Scale HC3 HC2000 Test


  • Service Provider

    Testing the installation of Windows Server 2016 TP4 on the latest Scale HC3 H2000 cluster build. This isn't officially supported yet, nor is Windows 10, but we wanted to see if it "can" do it rather than just going by what is officially sanctioned. So nothing too exciting here, but wanted to show the installation process going smoothly. As with most Windows OS, you need a special driver for the storage to use the optimized storage. That is shown in the screen shots.

    0_1452646456997_2016_1.png

    0_1452646466422_2016_2.png

    0_1452646480277_2016_3.png

    0_1452646487920_2016_4.png

    0_1452646496580_2016_5.png

    0_1452646504720_2016_6.png

    0_1452646511703_2016_7.png

    0_1452646524597_2016_8.png

    0_1452646531846_2016_9.png

    0_1452646538213_2016_10.png



  • When will be launch Windows Server 2016 ?


  • Service Provider

    I've not heard yet.



  • @iroal said:

    When will be launch Windows Server 2016 ?

    I've heard late 2016. Third or fourth quarter.


  • Service Provider

    Seems likely as no release candidate has been announced yet.



  • @Dashrender said:

    I've heard late 2016. Third or fourth quarter.

    Hmmm, that makes me question my decision (under at the time great ML advice) to wait for Server 2016.

    I might get Server 2012 now with software assurance.

    I don't know if I trust 2016 when it comes out anyway. And I have these 2003 machines running on older hardware I need to move sooner than later.


  • Service Provider

    @BRRABill said:

    I don't know if I trust 2016 when it comes out anyway. And I have these 2003 machines running on older hardware I need to move sooner than later.

    Why would you trust the less mature 2012 R2 and not the more mature 2016? What would make you shy away from the most up to date, patched, managed, overseen and paid attention to product for one that has less development time, less oversight and less care?


  • Service Provider

    0_1452696150811_2016_12.png

    Also installed the GUI version, just to show it working.


  • Service Provider

    @BRRABill said:

    @Dashrender said:

    I've heard late 2016. Third or fourth quarter.

    Hmmm, that makes me question my decision (under at the time great ML advice) to wait for Server 2016.

    I might get Server 2012 now with software assurance.

    I don't know if I trust 2016 when it comes out anyway. And I have these 2003 machines running on older hardware I need to move sooner than later.

    Or just wait and buy 2016. Then install 2012, because VL lets you install an older version if you want, to migrate and then migrate to 2016 after that.

    Granted I would not do it that way, but you can. I would go straight to current.



  • @scottalanmiller said

    Why would you trust the less mature 2012 R2 and not the more mature 2016? What would make you shy away from the most up to date, patched, managed, overseen and paid attention to product for one that has less development time, less oversight and less care?

    Did I miss some awesomely stable great first releases Microsoft has had?



  • @JaredBusch said:

    Or just wait and buy 2016. Then install 2012, because VL lets you install an older version if you want, to migrate and then migrate to 2016 after that.

    Granted I would not do it that way, but you can. I would go straight to current.

    My issue is that I have have Server 2003 running on some ancient hardware. (I'm more concerned about the hardware than Server 2003.)

    I already lost one of these servers in the past few months. (It's replacement is a desktop machine. Another reason I am looking to make a move sooner than later.)


  • Service Provider

    @BRRABill said:

    @scottalanmiller said

    Why would you trust the less mature 2012 R2 and not the more mature 2016? What would make you shy away from the most up to date, patched, managed, overseen and paid attention to product for one that has less development time, less oversight and less care?

    Did I miss some awesomely stable great first releases Microsoft has had?

    1. Apparently, when have they NOT? Where does this "first release" myth come from? Other than the unique case of Vista, which was a true first release of NT 6.
    2. This is NOT a first release, this is the latest version of NT 6. If you have concern about lower releases, then that would make you install this as this is the latest update to NT 6.


  • @scottalanmiller said:

    1. Apparently, when have they NOT? Where does this "first release" myth come from? Other than the unique case of Vista, which was a true first release of NT 6.
    2. This is NOT a first release, this is the latest version of NT 6. If you have concern about lower releases, then that would make you install this as this is the latest update to NT 6.

    On the desktop side, I typically have always felt the first releases (like the now defunct Windows 8 ) to be shaky. I do not think that is a myth.


  • Service Provider

    @BRRABill said:

    @scottalanmiller said:

    1. Apparently, when have they NOT? Where does this "first release" myth come from? Other than the unique case of Vista, which was a true first release of NT 6.
    2. This is NOT a first release, this is the latest version of NT 6. If you have concern about lower releases, then that would make you install this as this is the latest update to NT 6.

    On the desktop side, I typically have always felt the first releases (like the now defunct Windows 8) to be shaky. I do not think that is a myth.

    There was not a single functionality issue with Windows 8.
    Honestly, there was not a single problem with Vista either as long as your hardware worked with it. Vista had a driver compatibility problem.



  • @JaredBusch said:

    @BRRABill said:

    @scottalanmiller said:

    1. Apparently, when have they NOT? Where does this "first release" myth come from? Other than the unique case of Vista, which was a true first release of NT 6.
    2. This is NOT a first release, this is the latest version of NT 6. If you have concern about lower releases, then that would make you install this as this is the latest update to NT 6.

    On the desktop side, I typically have always felt the first releases (like the now defunct Windows 8) to be shaky. I do not think that is a myth.

    There was not a single functionality issue with Windows 8.
    Honestly, there was not a single problem with Vista either as long as your hardware worked with it. Vista had a driver compatibility problem.

    I was just going to mention this. The reason Vista had such a hard time was that it was running a brand new version of NT and they tried to port drivers from older versions to it.



  • Even more telling... every subsequent release of Windows since Vista has been more stable, more secure, and more usable then the previous. That is double so for the server operating systems. Some argue that the usability of Windows 8 went down hill... but I argue that many of the features that were lackluster in Windows 7 got a huge boost. Windows Search which was so-so or ok in Windows 7 is amazing in Windows 8 and Windows 10.



  • OK, point taken.

    Not 100% agreed with (LOL) but taken.

    But for me, personally, I don't know if I can wait that long, as I said.

    Decisions, decisions...


  • Service Provider

    @JaredBusch said:

    @BRRABill said:

    @scottalanmiller said:

    1. Apparently, when have they NOT? Where does this "first release" myth come from? Other than the unique case of Vista, which was a true first release of NT 6.
    2. This is NOT a first release, this is the latest version of NT 6. If you have concern about lower releases, then that would make you install this as this is the latest update to NT 6.

    On the desktop side, I typically have always felt the first releases (like the now defunct Windows 8) to be shaky. I do not think that is a myth.

    There was not a single functionality issue with Windows 8.
    Honestly, there was not a single problem with Vista either as long as your hardware worked with it. Vista had a driver compatibility problem.

    It's true, the Vista issues were nearly all "user impression."

    That's why the myth only exists in desktop circles and not in server circles even though they are generally using the same "first release" at roughly the same time. Who had an issue with Server 2008? No one that I've ever heard. Even the NT 6 release, famously the worst in Microsoft business history, went nearly flawlessly.



  • @scottalanmiller

    Can you make it come out NOW though? :)


  • Service Provider

    @coliver said:

    Even more telling... every subsequent release of Windows since Vista has been more stable, more secure, and more usable then the previous. That is double so for the server operating systems. Some argue that the usability of Windows 8 went down hill... but I argue that many of the features that were lackluster in Windows 7 got a huge boost. Windows Search which was so-so or ok in Windows 7 is amazing in Windows 8 and Windows 10.

    Yup, because each is roughly two more years of research, learning, improvements, patching, fixes, etc. They aren't reinventing the wheel, they are tweaks to Vista (NT6.)


  • Service Provider

    @BRRABill said:

    @scottalanmiller

    Can you make it come out NOW though? :)

    you can always deploy to the release candidate which is probably available soon. Sounds crazy, but when you realize how their code release happens, 2016 Release Candidate is probably already far better than whatever old OS version you are running on currently.


  • Service Provider

    @BRRABill said:

    On the desktop side, I typically have always felt the first releases (like the now defunct Windows 8 ) to be shaky. I do not think that is a myth.

    Well while I don't agree that it was shaky at all (and did a second release ever come?) There is a bigger issue... Windows 8 was not a first release, it was something like the eight patch release and the third minor point release of NT6. So if you had an issue with Windows 8, it completely dismantles your first release theory and just says that "it's random".


  • Service Provider

    @JaredBusch said:

    @BRRABill said:

    @scottalanmiller said:

    1. Apparently, when have they NOT? Where does this "first release" myth come from? Other than the unique case of Vista, which was a true first release of NT 6.
    2. This is NOT a first release, this is the latest version of NT 6. If you have concern about lower releases, then that would make you install this as this is the latest update to NT 6.

    On the desktop side, I typically have always felt the first releases (like the now defunct Windows 8) to be shaky. I do not think that is a myth.

    There was not a single functionality issue with Windows 8.
    Honestly, there was not a single problem with Vista either as long as your hardware worked with it. Vista had a driver compatibility problem.

    All of the "first releases", if you can call anything since NT 3.5 a true first release - and even that, was it not a point release on OS/2?, like NT 4 and 2000 (NT 5) were quite good at first release.



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    you can always deploy to the release candidate which is probably available soon. Sounds crazy, but when you realize how their code release happens, 2016 Release Candidate is probably already far better than whatever old OS version you are running on currently.

    Is the RC the version that comes out directly before the actual release?


  • Service Provider

    @BRRABill said:

    @scottalanmiller said:

    you can always deploy to the release candidate which is probably available soon. Sounds crazy, but when you realize how their code release happens, 2016 Release Candidate is probably already far better than whatever old OS version you are running on currently.

    Is the RC the version that comes out directly before the actual release?

    Yes, RC = Release Candidate. Literally a candidate for final release.



  • @JaredBusch said:

    @BRRABill said:

    @scottalanmiller said:

    1. Apparently, when have they NOT? Where does this "first release" myth come from? Other than the unique case of Vista, which was a true first release of NT 6.
    2. This is NOT a first release, this is the latest version of NT 6. If you have concern about lower releases, then that would make you install this as this is the latest update to NT 6.

    On the desktop side, I typically have always felt the first releases (like the now defunct Windows 8) to be shaky. I do not think that is a myth.

    There was not a single functionality issue with Windows 8.
    Honestly, there was not a single problem with Vista either as long as your hardware worked with it. Vista had a driver compatibility problem.

    Well this is not entirely true. Vista also included a brand new network stack that they wrote that had TONS of holes in it. They dumped that stack with 8.1 though.



Looks like your connection to MangoLassi was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.