Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:00, 31 October 2012

ReFS was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 06 January 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Windows Server 2012. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Windows Server 2012 is currently a Computing and engineering good article nominee. Nominated by Jasper Deng (talk) at 00:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC) An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article.

Microsoft Windows: Computing B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

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)

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 Misplaced Pages has to take copyright matters more than seriously. (It cannot afford being sued.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Windows Server 2012/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ErrantX (talk · contribs) 08:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to review this. Upon a first pass I think it needs a little work to hit GA status, I will leave some comments below and go through the prose later:

• The lead is very short of an article of this length and does not actually cover very much of the actual article content. See WP:LEAD
• Similarly, material exists in the lead that does not appear to be covered in the article. So that all needs some work (some sort of introductory section could use most of the lead, and let you rewrite the whole lead).
• I don't see any reaction/reviews or response, merely technical details. Although fairly new, such coverage should exist - e.g. this example.

I'll place the article on hold for the time being --Errant 08:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

All understood, except the part "some sort of introductory section could use most of the lead, and let you rewrite the whole lead)".--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just meant that the material currently in the lead should be in the history section and all of that then summarised as part of a new lead. Make more sense? --Errant 10:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A more detailed review of the current prose:

History

• build; does this word need explaining on first use (not sure)
• was reportedly leaked to file-sharing sites in ; is WinRumours a RS? Also, that source is the one doing reporting - so "reportedly" seems to be editorialising.
• window style; this could be confusing (window vs. Windows). If I understand it right this relate to Metro, so perhaps bring the Metro comments up to here, explain what it is, and say that this was the first look
• Most of the first paragraph appears to lack any source!
• goes to a 404 page, and is probably not a reliable source anyway.
• Naming section is rather short - it also seems like the original name should be noted at the beginning of the history section.

Features

• Windows Server 2012 includes a number of new features or feature changes.; what purpose does this sentence serve? Can it be expanded on (perhaps with critical coverage to the overall feature-set).
• Server Manager has been redesigned with an emphasis on easing management of multiple servers.; what is server manager? Also, sounds like marketing release :D consider rewording.
• Server Core mode'; details of this mode??
• There is also command auto-completion; sentence fragment, consider revising.

More later. I hope I am not being too harsh here - I'd say the core of the article is there, it just needs finesse. --Errant 10:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

"build" probably does not need explanation, beyond perhaps saying that it is a development revision of the software. Probably we can delete WinRumours references, as well as Winunleaked. I don't believe "There is also command auto-completion" is a fragment, but I should try to revise that too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a fragment because the subject is at best vague (sentence clauses require a subject and a verb). In this case what is the fragment referring to? Windows 8, Metro UI or Command Powershell - it could reasonably all of them (though I think you mean the former on careful consideration). --Errant 18:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Hi. There is an active dispute in the article. This dispute has been active since 12 October 2012. See this talk page and this DRN case and finally article's talk page (in chronological order). Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there likely to be any movement on this in the nest couple of days? Usually nominators are given 7 days to address GAR notes, but I like ot leave it a little longer. However, after 20 days there seems to have been no significant work on the points above so I am inclined to archive this. --Errant 09:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, ErrantX. For the time being, the issue seems resolved. We achieved a consensus, albeit a weak one. I inserted an RfC and sent notices to WikiProject Microsoft but received no input through those channels. So, I went ahead and implemented the consensus, which for the time being seems uncontested. That is the situation as I see it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about what colour is picked, that is "bike shedding" and not really relevant to this GAR :) --Errant 21:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. There is little doubt that this issue is not a GAC#5 barrier. There isn't really an edit war going on and although there is a content dispute, there isn't day to day changes. So, yes, I concur with you. But then, why did you ask this question in the first place? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, yeh. I meant it as a general question on this GAR. --Errant 15:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Given all the edits due to the above issue, I'm not sure if the issues have been addressed. In either case, this article should now be passed or failed based on if the reviewer is satisfied. Wizardman 00:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Color guide in editions table

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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 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)

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)

• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees currently on hold
• Good article nominees on review
• B-Class Microsoft Windows articles
• High-importance Microsoft Windows articles
• B-Class Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• WikiProject Microsoft Windows articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment