Talk:Windows Server 2012

Name?
Here, Microsoft refers to this OS as "Windows 8 Server"; however, I have seen little other authoritative sources confirming that as the final name.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * MSDN lit as Windows Server "8" Beta.Smallman12q (talk)

Upgrades/downgrades
Someone copied a line directly from the WS8 Beta Requirements which was not at all clear as pasted. Particularly, "Upgrades to this version (the beta) from Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2 are supported. You will not be able to upgrade to subsequent (beta/RC) releases from this (beta) release." Without the added words, the sentence meant that upgrades to Server 2012 from 2008/2008R2 were supported, but upgrades to the next post-2012 version of Windows Server would not be supported, which is completely untrue.

To summarize, the WS8 beta requirements and conditions were specific to the WS8 beta, and SHOULD NOT be presented as requirements/conditions for Windows Server 2012 in general. Mistranslations did occur.Forge64 (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No more Itanium support
Windows Server 2012 to have no support for Itanium-based computers. Oracle/Sun were sued by HP because Oracle has stopped releasing software for Itanium. Now that Microsoft has stopped supporting Itanium for future software does that mean HP or Intel will try to sue Microsoft ? --tygrus (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC) isinya kamseupay :p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.111.116.66 (talk) 08:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Chances of you seeing this are slim, but I'll reply anyway. No, it doesn't.  The basis of HP filing against Oracle was that when an exec left HP to work for Oracle there was an agreement that Oracle would continue supporting the Itanium architecture HP was happily turning a profit off.  When Oracle announced they were dropping the dead donkey HP sensed a massive impending loss of revenue and filed suit to force Oracle to prop up what is basically a failing business model.  Intel only support Itanium because HP has paid them quite a chunk of money to do so.  At this point I don't think Microsoft has any investment in either direction, but each release requires porting to be done and the market was shrinking, hence good business decision. See http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/hp-wins-itanium-case-88150 Nazzy (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Maximum physical processors
The only reliable sources I could find were and, but these appear to have been synthesized from Windows Server 2008 R2's editions by TechSoup. Should this be included? I don't think so because there appear to be no other sources.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Windows Server 2012 Start Screen update
Please update screenshot of Windows Server 2012 Start Screen. http://cdn-static.zdnet.com/i/story/70/00/001872/original/wse-2012-metrostartscreen-620x464.jpg?hash=Awp4ZwqwLG&upscale=1
 * Hi. In order to replace the screenshot, we need a link to the page on which this new image appears. Sorry for inconvenience, but Wikipedia has to take copyright matters more than seriously. (It cannot afford being sued.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Color guide in editions table
Hello

I think we have a problem: I am concerned about the meaning of the cell colors in Editions table the article. I feel the colors at the top section are completely meaningless. It seems if we were to add a guide to the table, we were unable to.

At the bottom, the green color is used for "Yes" (meaning that the feature is present), the red is used for "No" (meaning that the feature is absent) and yellow is used for "Partial" (meaning that the feature is present only to some extents). But at the top, where silvery gray, light red, green, cyan and yellow are used, I cannot associate a meaning.

For example why some numbers are light red and some are yellow? Why limitations on users is painted red in one cell and yellow in another? It seems there is an arbitrary user limit in both. (It seems to me it is a feature with limitation so, the cells should be yellow.) Why the term "unlimited" is sometimes green and sometimes cyan? I cannot assume cyan means "unlimited but there is CAL requirements" because:
 * 1) The CPU cell containing 64 is in cyan. According to the source, the limitation is by technical specs, not by license.
 * 2) The word Unlimited in Virtualization rights is in cyan where there is no CAL requirements.
 * 3) When I read the sources, it seems all inbound connection to a Standard/Datacenter edition of the server needs a CAL; why the Unlimited cells in "File Services limits" and "Network Policy and Access Services limits" are green?

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Myself i would keep the colours to Red, Green & Yellow. Anything else shouldn't be filled in my opinion. --JetBlast (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Cyan and light red do have meaning. Codename Lisa, you are getting everything wrong with those, except #3: 1 - that limit is lower unless you get the right # of licenses, 2 - you first need to license a server before you can take advantage of virtualization rights. Yellow would be misleading, since, for example, 25 users and 15 users for the 2 lower editions isn't as good as unlimited requiring CALs, but 25 is also better than 15, and both are better than none at all, hence both are intermediates, but unequal intermediates, necessating color coding.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, Jasper.


 * I am beginning to see the light in your line of thinking but I think it is still not well-defined. Look here, you must make up your mind on one point: Does cyan means "License required", or "CALs required", or "limited only by per-processor licensing scheme" or a combination of the last two?
 * If it means "license required", then the entire table should be cyan because any production use of any feature of Windows Server 2012 requires a license
 * If it means "CALs required", then processor chip limit and virtualization rights need not be cyan but many other items which are set to yes (green) need CALs and must b cyan. Your acceptance of my item #3 hints to this alignment of mind
 * If it means "limited only by per-processor licensing scheme", then "User limit" and "Remote Desktop Services limits" must not by cyan. Your items #1 and #2 suggest this alignment of mind
 * If it means a combination of the above, then a whole lot of items in Standard and Datacenter columns need re-coloring.


 * In my humble opinion, however, extensive coloring (even a valid and well-defined one) confuses the reader. I say let's stick to KISS principle: Either remove all colors from the disputed upper part of the table (let users face cold written facts) or drop the use of light red and cyan. In both cases, "Licensing model" cell should handle explaining licensing intricacies (footnote [d] should be split; part of only attached to Licensing model and part to RDP).


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Cyan means any sort of license is required, but this is only for features directly affected by licensing restrictions. If it's too confusing, a legend table or another footnote can be made.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Just saw this message. At the moment, it does not mean directly affected by licensing restrictions because everything that needs CAL is directly affected by the licensing restrictions as well. It is Windows Server after all: Breathing in it is restricted by licensing restrictions. And no, I am not in favor of complicating the matter. I am in favor of eradicating this mess. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not true. As I've made it clear, I will not accept KISS-based arguments here and I will not accept anything that doesn't color-code direct licensing restrictions. Alas, though, we should not color-code file services, etc., because these are covered by "user limit", while for IIS it's irrelevant as CALs aren't needed. (btw, you don't have to sign every comment with "Best regards," as you aren't writing a letter to us!).--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, Jasper
 * It is time to wrap this up. We already have a 2 to 1 consensus. It is weak but a weak consensus is still a consensus. And the RFC has not come through yet. So, let me ask frankly: What it'll be? Should we act according to the established consensus or should we proceed down the chain of dispute resolution?


 * And by the way, I advise you to start and end your messages as I do. It makes you feel a lot better about everything. It makes you smile. You will feel you cannot help but love the recipient of your message.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1: 2-1 does not consensus make. 2 - Wait for the RfC. 3 - Nope, I politely decline, as "best regards" is tiresome, and doesn't have the desired effects.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello
 * Okay. I gave you a fast option of getting out of the dispute quick and you just refused. No problem for me. I am just worried about your GA nomination. It will probably not go through until there is active disputes.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not my decision, not my problem, and not my choice. The GA nomination doesn't consider this to be overly important, so we can just wait for the RfC to conclude. I won't spend any more time considering your invalid arguments here. I have better things to do (including on this article).--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Colours pointlessly over complicate things. I agree with Lisa. --JetBlast (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Far from pointless. They make the hierarchies visually apparent (though I can jettison light red if you want, but cyan will stay).--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. There seems to be 2 to 1 in favor of color removal, so I am calling an RFC to receive additional input. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I think we've waited for RfC long enough. I have sent a notice for WikiProject Microsoft too, but no response yet. So, I'm acting according to the obtained consensus. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, RfCs typically run for a full month or longer. Again, 2-1 does not consensus make. If you need more commentary, open another DRN entry.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed wikipedia runs form a consensus not voting. --JetBlast (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, Jasper. I can wait for another 15 days, no problem. But I personally don't bet on it. I can notify other projects as well. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion (if this has already been considered and discarded feel free to tell me so and ignore it, I'm having to post in a rather tight window so I've not fully reviewed the discussion sorry): The way it's laid out currently does have a meaning with the different colours but it's quite unintuitive. Yellow is always partial, I can't think of any other table I've encountered on wiki using a sliding scale for yellow as partial implementation is entirely subjective to the requirement. While numerically better, if you only need 10 users then the 25 limit of essentials isn't subjectively better. Partial is partial, limited is limited, and we're not supposed to be formatting it as if we were selling the product. TL,DR: it may have meaning, but without context it looks inconsistent and sloppy and doesn't actually convey the reason for being so.
 * Change all the cells on the rows "Processor chip limit" to default grey. This isn't a feature you "can have" or "can't have" but rather just a number.
 * Change all the Unlimited cells from Cyan to green. Adds clarity and consistency.
 * Change the remaining Foundation and Essentials cells that are pink to be yellow.
 * I personally would have the Virtualisation row as is but with the red/yellow/green instead of pink/yellow/cyan.
 * And finally, on pure personal preference on what I consider well formatted, I would split "Network Policy and Access Services limits" in to 3 rows, one for RRAS, one for IAS connections and one for IAS groups.

Opinions? Nazzy (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. As far as the color goes, I think it is a good compromise. So, I agree. As for your logic, again, I agree. But about splitting the "Network Policy and Access Services limits", I have no opinion at the moment. Maybe later. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Plaigirism
I have failed this article's nomination due to plaigirism being present in the article.

More details can be found on the assessment page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Windows_Server_2012/GA2 Retrolord (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to hastily fail it when the issue has been fixed rather quickly.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Failure or weak content?

 * 1.) Server 2008 is based on the NT 6.0 codebase (Server 2003 was NT 5.2 codebase); Server 2008 R2 was based on NT 6.1 cdoebase; Server 2012 is based on NT 6.2 codebase. Programatic errors in Server 2003, e.g. DPC Interrupts ("to be fixed in 6.1"), are still un-fixed in Server 2012.
 * 2.) Windows codebase NT 6+ virtualizes the Windows OS itself. "Bare metal" Hyper-V itself can be run as a Vdisk from EFI boot. The article implies Hyper-V capabilities are new with Server 2012. On the subject of Hyper-V, Server 2012 and Win8 Hyper-V have radical hardware requirements that exclude older legacy software (this is a critical point for many businesses, also reinforcing the article's blatant parroting of Microsoft press releases.)
 * 3a.) Itanium, MS Devs were told by Intel that it was still an "alpha" product. MS taking the same stance when designing NT for the (missing in action) Intel N-10 (codename for the i860). Intel was getting on the bandwagon for "massively parallel computing" based on HP PA-Risc designs; we currently see that in GPUs that perform many tasks per instruction, and Military systems like the Cray. They require special recompiler compilers and MS (and Intel) programmers are just not that smart (i.e. parallel computing streams require synchronization). The AMD 64-bit extensions and multi-core CPUs killed the need.
 * 3b.) Microsoft continues to write the x86 HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) however CPU manufacturers write the HAL for their CPUs (hence no windows 8 or server 2012 on ARM). The HAL provides support for Windows "Native Mode" (e.g. XBox), of which everything else is built (well that also brings up EFI and BIOS support). HP did Itanium HAL, just as DEC did Alpha HAL, IBM did PowerPC HAL, NEC did MIPS HAL, etc. Note that AMD contributed to the Windows x64 HAL (and Intel copied the x64 extensions), otherwise we would still be running 32 bit Windows. (If you use the MS Embedded tools, there are emulators and code support for Windows Compact Edition on other CPUs, but MS notes that it is provided by manufacturers of embedded hardware, not by Microsoft.)
 * 4.) "Installation options" section it a bit confused, could use a rewrite. And PowerShell 3.0? Powershell can be run at the command line but does require that user mode GUI components be installed.
 * 5.) "Essentials" is the follow-on to Small Business Server 2011 Essentials and as such does allow Active Directory integration with Microsoft Online Services AKA Office365. HyperV role will install but need to turn off error messages/system complaints. Ditto with running Essentials atop Hyper-V.
 * 6.) Server 2012 "bare metal" Hyper-V can be installed at no cost. As I noted in #2 above, the VLAN IP Address control is part of HyperV and Native Windows virtualization.
 * 7.) The Server 2012 beta had Active Directory dependencies on IPv4 (similar to Server 2008 R2) configuration. I question "full support for IPv4 and IPv6". This may be too technical, but the Server Migration Tool (and Forefront Identity Manager) does create an Active Directory federation between two servers (e.g. SBS to Essentials).
 * Shjacks45 (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you have reliable sources for that allegation? In my opinion it does not merit mention in the article per WP:DUE.
 * Hyper-V Server 2012 is internally the same as Windows Server 2012, and it was in this fashion that Microsoft introduced Hyper-V here.
 * But what do you suggest for the article here?
 * Please be specific.
 * Do you have reliable sources for that? Note that if Microsoft doesn't officially support installation of Hyper-V, we can't include it in the chart just based on that.
 * But what does that suggest for the article?
 * IPv4/IPv6 full support only applies to IPAM.
 * --Jasper Deng (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Merging in Windows Server 2012 R2
Before I begin the merge that's prescribed by the result of the deletion discussion, I'm seeking feedback on how we should lay it out. I know it should be mentioned in the History section, but how are we going to accommodate the new features of Windows Server 2012 R2? The way the Features and Editions sections are organized now doesn't yield immediate answers to this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Just open a "Windows Server 2013 R2" section before "Reception" and move almost everything there. (History can be dealt with when there is enough contents to add.) The infobox needs to go. Wordings need to change so it no longer look like a lead section. Oh, and the most difficult thing is associating one footnote for each feature. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The section should be opened after "Reception" (and all other sections), not before, for consistency with Windows 8.1. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (@Codename Lisa) The problem is that in my opinion, the article would be rather disorganized in that form. I wouldn't think that could work if this article is to keep its GA status.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. We will eventually have additions to history section, but at this time, you'll find the merged contents shrink. Anyway, you worry too much. Just dive into action and you see how things begin to fit nicely. There is no person more capable of deciding what fits best than one who is already involved with it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge. This is more than just a service pack. It's between the way 2008 and 2008R2 differ and a typical service pack. Also: "Unlike the client Windows 8.1 update, which will be free to existing Windows 8 users, the new wave of server updates are all paid updates, including Windows Server 2012 R2. This means that customers who paid full price for their licenses will have to pay again to upgrade. Software Assurance customers, however, will receive the new versions as part of their subscription."Hceuterpe (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I compared it to Windows Server 2003 R2, which was a pretty minor update. Consensus was to make the merge in the deletion discussion of the article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, Hceuterpe. I am afraid you are late; twelve years late, to be accurate. You should have been present at the time WP:CRYSTAL was ratified, although I offer no comment as to whether you could do anything to stop it from being effective. In any case, this is the decision of Articles for deletion/Windows Server 2012 R2. It is out of our hands now, unless sufficient independent sources to substantiate a split comes to the light. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://download.microsoft.com/download/0/4/B/04BD0EB1-42FE-488B-919F-3981EF9B2101/WS2012_Licensing-Pricing_Datasheet.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Codename Lisa (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. I am sorry for copy-paste --WikiCle (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"Boot from SCSI" as new feature in R2
So the plain/non-R2 2012 couldn't? When was this removed (2008?) Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi.


 * A very strange assertion. Virtual machine usually use SCSI hard disk controllers and virtual machine boot up just fine. In fact, so long as BIOS or UEFI can find it, it boots up. This assertion lacks source. I am deleting it.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * P.S. Maybe it is iSCSI. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Codename Lisa (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Windows Storage Server?
Dumb (obvious?) question - how come none of these latter Windows Server articles mention the Windows Storage Server SKU? The latest version's article to mention Storage Server is the Windows Server 2003. Nor are there any redirects to catch the term "Windows Storage Server", and searches end up at the aforementioned page. 49.183.84.41 (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a dumb question. But the answer is: No one has got around to add it.  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 07:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Gateway only
In the edition comparison chart... What does "gateway only" mean? Does it mean it can only act as a gateway to Remote Desktop connection? Is that a limitation of Server Essentials compared to Server Foundation? There isn't even a cite note in that box. WorldQuestioneer (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Re: Merger of Windows Server 2012 R2
Recently, (notice how I attempted to revert it because I found it a bit dubious) by an anonymous IP user seems to have redirected the  to  in this article. I'm not sure what to think of this because while it's labelled as a 'Merger', I don't really think much of a merger has taken place. The previous article contained a lot of content that does not seem to have been merged into this article. I figured I'd bring this up to see if any folks working on this article can see if anything needs to be done. Satricious (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)