• Announcements

    • xper

      MSFN Sponsorship and AdBlockers!   07/10/2016

      Dear members, MSFN is made available via subscriptions, donations and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, become a site sponsor and ads will be disabled automatically and by subscribing you get other sponsor benefits.
gosh

Waiting for SP2

15 posts in this topic

I installed server 2008 final x64 last nite. My initial impression:

I installed on a freshly formated 80 gig partition. And yet, after the install i had 2 windows folders - windows and windows.old. Windows.old was empty except it had a recycle bin in it. Both folders had the same create date so i assume setup did this.

Also, if i go to my computer properties, it says "Windows server". That's it, just windows server, not windows server 2008. It also says copyright 2007 even though it was released in 2008. Also, it says Service Pack 1. I looked in the registry and the registry says it's service pack 1. Why would the final version of server 2008 say sp1??????

Also, the recycle bin properties shows my partitions in the wrong order. It lists them as F, then C, etc. I dont understand why the recycle bin would list the drives in random order

Im starting to think server 2008 isnt ready for prime time, just like vista when it was released. Waiting for SP2

-gosh

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same issue with partitions names here.

Old C (with XP installed on it) is now D and so on. C is %systemdrive% now in Server 2008.

I think this is Windows Server 2008 "almost" RTM :D

Edited by radix
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I installed server 2008 final x64 last nite. My initial impression:

I installed on a freshly formated 80 gig partition. And yet, after the install i had 2 windows folders - windows and windows.old. Windows.old was empty except it had a recycle bin in it. Both folders had the same create date so i assume setup did this.

Also, if i go to my computer properties, it says "Windows server". That's it, just windows server, not windows server 2008. It also says copyright 2007 even though it was released in 2008. Also, it says Service Pack 1. I looked in the registry and the registry says it's service pack 1. Why would the final version of server 2008 say sp1??????

Also, the recycle bin properties shows my partitions in the wrong order. It lists them as F, then C, etc. I dont understand why the recycle bin would list the drives in random order

Im starting to think server 2008 isnt ready for prime time, just like vista when it was released. Waiting for SP2

-gosh

Only today i had a similar issue that youve had except it was on a 32 bit. Eventually i had some problems and decided to reinstall. When i did i came across the usual screen saying it found a Windows folder so setup will rename it to Windows.old. I decided not to go ahead with this and clicked the format partition (even though the partition was already formatted) since then i didnt get any unusual errors.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I installed on a freshly formated 80 gig partition. And yet, after the install i had 2 windows folders - windows and windows.old. Windows.old was empty except it had a recycle bin in it. Both folders had the same create date so i assume setup did this.

It probably did, although I can't imagine why. Did you use Windows setup to format the volume, or did you format it prior to install with something else?

Also, if i go to my computer properties, it says "Windows server". That's it, just windows server, not windows server 2008. It also says copyright 2007 even though it was released in 2008. Also, it says Service Pack 1. I looked in the registry and the registry says it's service pack 1. Why would the final version of server 2008 say sp1??????

Because it's the same kernel as Vista SP1, and in keeping the build trees the same it's now the Server 2008 SP1 build tree. Confusing, yes :).

Im starting to think server 2008 isnt ready for prime time, just like vista when it was released. Waiting for SP2

Not that your problems aren't real, but I'm not seeing any of this on my end. Perhaps you could give us a little more about your install and the hardware in the box? Maybe this is something specific to how things are set up or how we did the install?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im starting to think server 2008 isnt ready for prime time, just like vista when it was released. Waiting for SP2

Win Server 2008 has been thouroughly tested and are supposed to be more ready than most other OS:s:

-Some corporations and local authorities have been using it in production since the beta stages.

-It's based on SP1 of the original Longhorn code (which Vista is based on) and they've had plenty of time to find and iron out most of the bugs found in the code with Vista (not all of course, there will probably be a a lot more).

I haven't had time to test the final version yet, but I sure will.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Windows server 2003 was based on the XP sp1 source tree but it didn't see it was version SP1. I totally disagree server 2008 is stable because of all the testing. I used the beta of server 2003 when it was in beta, and it was rock solid. I tried the rc0 of server 2008 and after just a couple days i had a ton of errors so i removed it. The final so far seems as buggy.

It also used 8 gigs (12 gigs with the page file), and i found it slow, even though i have a new computer with dual 2.8 gigahertz processors and 4 gigs of DDR2 ram. I think once people start upgrading to this theyre going to be very disappointed with the performance.

-gosh

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They released as SP1 so people wouldn't have to wait for SP1.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windows server 2003 was based on the XP sp1 source tree but it didn't see it was version SP1. I totally disagree server 2008 is stable because of all the testing. I used the beta of server 2003 when it was in beta, and it was rock solid. I tried the rc0 of server 2008 and after just a couple days i had a ton of errors so i removed it. The final so far seems as buggy.

It also used 8 gigs (12 gigs with the page file), and i found it slow, even though i have a new computer with dual 2.8 gigahertz processors and 4 gigs of DDR2 ram. I think once people start upgrading to this theyre going to be very disappointed with the performance.

-gosh

I have been running 3 server as 2008 since Beta 3, all 3 have preformed better then expected. 2 set in a Clustered Fileshare and a server running WDS. all 3 ran as smooth as any of our other boxes in the data center. :) i have been very happy with the preformance so far and look forward to upgrading them to RTM

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with partitions names appears only when I installed on multiboot system.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here's some pics. Although i couldnt take a pic of the recycle bin in windows.0 because i deleted the folder.

post-7679-1202569525_thumb.jpg

post-7679-1202569529_thumb.jpg

post-7679-1202569533_thumb.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I installed on a freshly formated 80 gig partition. And yet, after the install i had 2 windows folders - windows and windows.old. Windows.old was empty except it had a recycle bin in it. Both folders had the same create date so i assume setup did this.
Why format the partition beforehand?

Just delete it and let the setup do a quick NTFS format, then I doubt you would have the problem.

I would guess there were some residual system files when the setup came to run which made it create a windows.old folder.

Also, if i go to my computer properties, it says "Windows server". That's it, just windows server, not windows server 2008. It also says copyright 2007 even though it was released in 2008. Also, it says Service Pack 1. I looked in the registry and the registry says it's service pack 1. Why would the final version of server 2008 say sp1??????
Actually, your properties says Windows Server Enterprise, it is telling you which flavour of Windows Server 2008 you have installed and should have the license for.

Hopefully anyone that glanced at the server would recognise it as W2K8 without the properties needing to tell them.

Run winver if you are concerned, that is designed to provide more detailed information.

Edit:

No point arguing semantics, and I like my job too much to discuss details of source trees.

Apologies if you were offended at having your questions answered.

Your partitions are viewed in the Recycle Bin exactly the same as in Disk Management - the list is being sorted alphabetically by the volume label, it isn't random:

Data

Srv2008

Storage

Vistax64

XP

Edited by Mr Snrub
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a lot of opinions but no facts.

Server 2003 was forked off the windows xp sp1 source tree. You obviously are very ignorant about how microsoft forks off from a source tree. Whenever microsoft makes a new OS, it takes the latest codebase and "forks" it off to another source tree. Windows xp 64 bit is forked off the server 2003 source tree. Originally longhorn was forked off the xp source tree, but then because of all the changes made in server 2003 longhorn was later forked off the server 2003 source tree. Server 2008 is forked off the vista source tree.

I know for a fact, i used to work for microsoft. You didn't. You act like you know everything when in fact you don't know anything. There has never been a version of windows server released that said it was "SP1". Instead of spouting out opinions next time back them up with facts.

-gosh

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's keep it civilized.

Edit: Now that I've thought about it, this is NOT the first OS to be released at SP1 on release - XP and 2003 x64 versions were SP1 as they were built off of the 2003 SP1 codebase, and stated SP1 as such after install when you looked at properties or winver.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windows xp 64 bit is forked off the server 2003 source tree.

XP64 was not forked. It is EXACTLY the same as S2K3 minus the server code. A binary compare between the two OSs will reveal that.

You act like you know everything when in fact you don't know anything.

And yet you feel the need to come in and start bashing people for what they know or they think they know. If someone is wrong in what they think or say then by all means say so. But do it in a polite manner. Might as well rename the site MSFNeowin for all the childish bickering going on.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Server 2003 was forked off the windows xp sp1 source tree. You obviously are very ignorant about how microsoft forks off from a source tree. Whenever microsoft makes a new OS, it takes the latest codebase and "forks" it off to another source tree.

And they decided to not do that with the release of Server 2008. As mentioned in the following blog post, this was done for ease of patch releases. Did you notice that when Service Pack 2 was released for Server 2003 it was also released for Windows XP x64? Expect the same with Service Pack 2 for Vista...it'll also be released for Server 2008 at the same time.

http://blogs.msdn.com/iainmcdonald/archive...ings-right.aspx

This means the that the Service Packs are shared, that patches get released at the same time, etc etc. I believe it is incredibly simplified for customers.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.