Building Unreal games. Running windows containers.
Windows server is actually kind of awesome for when you need a Windows machine. Linux is great for servers but Windows server is the real Windows pro. Rock solid and none of the crap.
The worst part of Windows server is knowing that Microsoft can make a good operating system and chooses not to.
Mine is a ~10-person bank consultancy without time or energy to deal with elite neck beard problems. Windows server, mssql and .NET are a great combo.
I wish we could separate the paid/oss aspects from the technical ones because Microsoft absolutely runs circles around every other stack when it comes to serious business software solutions, especially in resource constrained teams. I agree that oss and free software is conceptually ideal, but I also see why you might want to try different models.
Much of the Microsoft hate seems to come back to this notion that paid, COTS software is inherently evil or bad. Also, windows 11 is genuinely bad, but at least it boots up without weird issues that take an entire afternoon to resolve. I've never had a Linux experience that didn't kick me in the balls in some way. Not even the Steam Deck was smooth.
I happily throw my wallet at Microsoft if they solve my problem. Adobe, IBM, Oracle, The Empire, etc. Doesn't matter anymore. If it provides value to me and my clients, I'm going to use it or advocate for it. Spending money on good tools is not a bad thing. This world is about to get way more competitive than many of us would like for it to be. This level of petty tooling tribalism is going to become absolutely lethal.
I have no longer used Windows servers for a very long time, but when I still worked in a company that used Windows servers, the problem was not that we had to pay for it.
The problem was that the cost was not fixed and predictable, because every now and then we wanted to extend our activities, and that was conditioned by buying extra Microsoft licenses, for additional users, additional CPU cores or sockets, additional services, and so on.
This was extremely annoying in comparison with using a FreeBSD or Linux server, where the operating costs were the same regardless of how we decided to use it.
I agree that in a less dynamic environment, where the requirements for the server are stable and unlikely to ever be changed, using a Windows server may be OK.
However in any organization where this is not true, I believe that using any Windows server is a loser strategy, due to the financial friction that it causes against any improvements in the IT environment.
I feel like this is a very common attitude amongst people who actually have delivered software as a day job for a few years. The raging sports-fan-esque Linux vs Windows fanboy battles are mostly fought by unemployed kids who still have time to customize their desktops.
In practice, Windows is still the de facto standard in industrial software.
At least in my experience
I’m based in Korea and have worked on code that goes into enterprise systems — most MES and related systems are still built around MS SQL. SQL Server is very much alive in that space. It may feel outdated from a modern app development perspective, but the reality is that it’s deeply embedded through vendor lock-in.
What’s often called “legacy” is also, in another sense, a massive accumulation of layers built on top of it. That history has weight.
In most environments I’ve seen, the architecture ends up being hybrid: Windows on one side (for equipment control, MES, vendor tools), and Linux on the other (for backend services, data processing, etc.).
From the perspective of the companies I’ve worked with, there’s also a different way of looking at Linux. I often hear that “there’s no clear owner” — meaning no single vendor they can hold accountable. With Windows-based stacks, they feel like there’s at least a defined support boundary.
Not a business use case, but I run it for my home server. I've got some QNAP JBOD SAS enclosures that only support firmware updates via Windows (or QNAP NAS). Every other disk enclosure I looked at involved some compromises (e.g. rackmounted, or non-SAS, or a custom-built thing that I'm not really interested in.)
The next best alterative would be a Mac Studio with Thunderbolt enclosures, but that would be notably more expensive, and macOS isn't great as a server OS.
An application that is only supported on MS Windows. Yes, those still exist. One project I am working on is supporting such an application that is a mix of desktop and web application talking to industrial monitoring devices.
It's a beast in terms of complexity, in my opinion. But the vendor only supports running it on specific configurations.
Questions like this show the incredible disconnect between HN and the widely deployed tech that the world depends on. The use case for Windows Server is running a centrally managed office: from operating your own certificate authority and deploying PC images, to managing resources like virtual desktops, print and file servers, all the way down to individual browser settings and even the ordering of items in the Start menu.
You can recreate Windows Server on other platforms by stringing together bits and pieces, but there is nothing that comes even close in terms of integration and how everything works together. Nothing.
Yeah, I worked at a company with a Windows application dating from the early 1990s - I suspect it was a case of them needing to move off some ancient hardware and software and Linux was in its infancy and Unix was probably still quite expensive.
Building Unreal games. Running windows containers.
Windows server is actually kind of awesome for when you need a Windows machine. Linux is great for servers but Windows server is the real Windows pro. Rock solid and none of the crap.
The worst part of Windows server is knowing that Microsoft can make a good operating system and chooses not to.
Yes I only recently understood why people use Windows Server as a desktop operating system - it looks and feels like old Windows.
LTSC is even better !
This has been the case for ever. I recall opting to use Windows Server 2003 over XP back in the day for desktop/workstation use.
Could even enable XP themes IIRC.
Mine is a ~10-person bank consultancy without time or energy to deal with elite neck beard problems. Windows server, mssql and .NET are a great combo.
I wish we could separate the paid/oss aspects from the technical ones because Microsoft absolutely runs circles around every other stack when it comes to serious business software solutions, especially in resource constrained teams. I agree that oss and free software is conceptually ideal, but I also see why you might want to try different models.
Much of the Microsoft hate seems to come back to this notion that paid, COTS software is inherently evil or bad. Also, windows 11 is genuinely bad, but at least it boots up without weird issues that take an entire afternoon to resolve. I've never had a Linux experience that didn't kick me in the balls in some way. Not even the Steam Deck was smooth.
I happily throw my wallet at Microsoft if they solve my problem. Adobe, IBM, Oracle, The Empire, etc. Doesn't matter anymore. If it provides value to me and my clients, I'm going to use it or advocate for it. Spending money on good tools is not a bad thing. This world is about to get way more competitive than many of us would like for it to be. This level of petty tooling tribalism is going to become absolutely lethal.
I have no longer used Windows servers for a very long time, but when I still worked in a company that used Windows servers, the problem was not that we had to pay for it.
The problem was that the cost was not fixed and predictable, because every now and then we wanted to extend our activities, and that was conditioned by buying extra Microsoft licenses, for additional users, additional CPU cores or sockets, additional services, and so on.
This was extremely annoying in comparison with using a FreeBSD or Linux server, where the operating costs were the same regardless of how we decided to use it.
I agree that in a less dynamic environment, where the requirements for the server are stable and unlikely to ever be changed, using a Windows server may be OK.
However in any organization where this is not true, I believe that using any Windows server is a loser strategy, due to the financial friction that it causes against any improvements in the IT environment.
> without time or energy to deal with elite neck beard problems
> This level of petty tooling tribalism is going to become absolutely lethal.
dude I think this tribalism might be self-perpetuated
I feel like this is a very common attitude amongst people who actually have delivered software as a day job for a few years. The raging sports-fan-esque Linux vs Windows fanboy battles are mostly fought by unemployed kids who still have time to customize their desktops.
Companies that are bigger than startups vibecoding food delivery apps?
Even Apple and Google run AD internally.
Gotta support all those CAD workstations running Windows.
Is Apple hardware still designed on Windows PCs?
Im not really in the space but all the CAD things I see lately are browser based "cloud offerings"
Im not sure is CAD stuff is just served by a basic graphics card at this point or if there is some server side work going on.
OS doesnt mean that much when every industry decided that Chrome was going to be their VM
No one is using that cloud crap professionally. The bread and butter of the CAD world is Windows PCs with tons of RAM and certified GPUs.
1 reply →
Hardcore CAD systems like Solidworks or CATIA still aren’t browser based.
1 reply →
In practice, Windows is still the de facto standard in industrial software.
At least in my experience I’m based in Korea and have worked on code that goes into enterprise systems — most MES and related systems are still built around MS SQL. SQL Server is very much alive in that space. It may feel outdated from a modern app development perspective, but the reality is that it’s deeply embedded through vendor lock-in.
What’s often called “legacy” is also, in another sense, a massive accumulation of layers built on top of it. That history has weight.
In most environments I’ve seen, the architecture ends up being hybrid: Windows on one side (for equipment control, MES, vendor tools), and Linux on the other (for backend services, data processing, etc.).
From the perspective of the companies I’ve worked with, there’s also a different way of looking at Linux. I often hear that “there’s no clear owner” — meaning no single vendor they can hold accountable. With Windows-based stacks, they feel like there’s at least a defined support boundary.
In the end, I think it comes down to perspective.
SQL Server is an amazing RDBMS. Expensive as hell, too.
AEC companies.
Our GIS clients run WS as a Deskstop OS with ESRIs ArcGIS Pro. Incredibly common.
And once you have that - add in Active directory, DFS and random Windows Servers for running archaic proprietary licensing services.
Not a business use case, but I run it for my home server. I've got some QNAP JBOD SAS enclosures that only support firmware updates via Windows (or QNAP NAS). Every other disk enclosure I looked at involved some compromises (e.g. rackmounted, or non-SAS, or a custom-built thing that I'm not really interested in.)
The next best alterative would be a Mac Studio with Thunderbolt enclosures, but that would be notably more expensive, and macOS isn't great as a server OS.
An application that is only supported on MS Windows. Yes, those still exist. One project I am working on is supporting such an application that is a mix of desktop and web application talking to industrial monitoring devices.
It's a beast in terms of complexity, in my opinion. But the vendor only supports running it on specific configurations.
Questions like this show the incredible disconnect between HN and the widely deployed tech that the world depends on. The use case for Windows Server is running a centrally managed office: from operating your own certificate authority and deploying PC images, to managing resources like virtual desktops, print and file servers, all the way down to individual browser settings and even the ordering of items in the Start menu.
You can recreate Windows Server on other platforms by stringing together bits and pieces, but there is nothing that comes even close in terms of integration and how everything works together. Nothing.
Companies that aren't technology companies but use technology that has been doing the job for 20 years.
What was the reason 20 years ago?
(I know, I know. That question might be a bit too loaded. I'm really very sorry. No, there's no need that; I'll see myself out.)
Those don't exist. I was told (over and over again) that every company is a technology company.
mild \s
I hope we migrate our stack to Linux soon, but I think that’ll take few years.
I know big company that run their core on Windows Server 2012, I’ve no idea how they manage the software assurance and compliance
Actually Windows Server 2012 or just Windows Domain functional level? https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/identity/ad...
- Proprietary embedded hardware compilers that only runs on windows
- Building windows GUI apps
Many companies only have legacy software/server/services running on windows.
Yeah, I worked at a company with a Windows application dating from the early 1990s - I suspect it was a case of them needing to move off some ancient hardware and software and Linux was in its infancy and Unix was probably still quite expensive.