Jump to content
RESET Forums (homeservershow.com)

8 Ways Windows Server 8 Handles Storage Better


tinkererguy
 Share

Recommended Posts

There is no doubt it is more flexible and has more features, but as it stands now, it need an adrenalin boost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt it is more flexible and has more features, but as it stands now, it need an adrenalin boost.

 

That's my concern. I seriously wonder if all the flexibility and features make it impossible to make it faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my concern. I seriously wonder if all the flexibility and features make it impossible to make it faster.

That's a darn good question. While I liked Vista overall, there was no question it was slow, real slow. There were times I thought frozen molasses moved faster. But Windows 7 was a lot faster, even to the point I thought it was on par with Windows XP in terms of responsiveness, booting up and shutting down, etc. A nice OCZ Octane Solid State Disk made it even faster. And for the most part, Windows 7 included all the same eye candy that Vista brought to the party.

 

So it is true Microsoft was able to speed things up. Whether Vista was a product of sloppy, inefficient coding or the product of trying to do way too much and then forgetting to do code optimization is open to debate. The point is that they were able to speed it up. So I'm hoping that translates into them being able to speed up storage.

 

If you remember back to Windows 2000, there seemed to be some growing pains with Microsoft merging the "consumer" platform (95/98/Me) with the "business" platform (NT). Windows 95/98/Me touted the plug and play capabilities, whereas NT 4 was a bear when it came to installing hardware and it didn't even support USB! But NT4 was also rock solid, while 95/98 and especially Me were much more crash prone. Plug and play support was tough for MS to implement; for awhile it seemed that plug and play and stability were inversely proportional. No doubt there was a lot of work that went in to getting true plug and play support without sacrificing stability. How else do you get an OS to happily accept almost every piece of hardware ever built and still be solid? Especially since Windows 2000 still allowed legacy ISA devices with DIP switches and manual IRQ jumpers (anybody remember those?). Ooh...IRQ conflicts! My favorite!

 

Of course, after a couple of service packs, Windows 2000 was pretty solid, and Windows XP took a good thing and made it a lot better. I've never kept count, but between XP and 7, I'm not sure which produced fewer crashes. Both are very reliable OSes and if I'm seeing blue, it's almost always a piece of McAfee software to blame.

 

MS had a good thing with Drive Extender, and even that had growing pains in its first year. But in the end, it was pretty fast and mighty reliable. I never had a lick of trouble with it. If Microsoft deviates heavily from the DE code base, or tries building Storage Spaces from scratch, those growing pains will be back all over again. On the other hand, if they're just trying to improve on that technology, leaving the pillars of DE intact, then maybe the end product will be solid and fast. From the sounds of things, they've got a ways to go.

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...