I'm still waiting for somebody who can explain me the advantages from a core installation.

 

I just saw you can't manage everything (for example IIS), you have to use another server to open snap-in and log on remotely... THE HELL!!!

 

What's the point? Really, I use Windows and I like it, but WHY develop a core install if you can't actually manage your server?!?!?!

 

 

I'm really disappointed!

It's lean and easy on resources and preferred way to run Hyper-V. This very forum runs on Windows 2008 R2 Standard server core. I use server manager on my home install of Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise to manage the server remotely.

It's lean and easy on resources and preferred way to run Hyper-V. This very forum runs on Windows 2008 R2 Standard server core. I use server manager on my home install of Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise to manage the server remotely.

 

This is the point. You have to install a GUI to manage the server...

 

What I mean is that in linux you can install a webserver without the GUI and manage it trough SSH.

 

I think MS should implement something more...

You can manage it from command line with terminal services or power shell.

You can manage it from command line with terminal services or power shell.

 

This is interesting, never heard before.

 

I've developed some scripts with PS but I never tried to use it to manage the server!

 

Have you any resource for that? Commands,...

You use all the same commands that you would if you were working locally.

Ok I will try :)