Windows 2008

If you are having a problem using Vault, post a message here.

Moderator: SourceGear

nemoby
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 4:34 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Windows 2008

Post by nemoby » Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:35 am

Any information on Vault running under Windows 2008? Info on Client and Server would be great. Thanks,

lbauer
Posts: 9736
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:25 pm
Location: SourceGear

Post by lbauer » Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:06 am

We've done some preliminary testing of Vault 4.1 beta with Windows 2008 server, and we didn't run into any issues. This operating system is very similar to Vista.

Before installing Vault Server on Windows 2008 servier enable IIS meta-base and IIS 6 configuration compatibility. This setting is in Start -> Control Panel -> Programs and Features -> Turn Windows Features On or off -> IIS Web Management Tools -> IIS Metabase and IIS 6 Configuration Compatibility.

When installing Client or Server, run the installer as Admin.
Linda Bauer
SourceGear
Technical Support Manager

gsmalter
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 11:13 am

Vault is really holding us back

Post by gsmalter » Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:52 pm

When is Vault going to support IIS7 without compatibility mode?

Between this and the fact that we have to run IIS in 32-bit mode in order for Vault to work, we are seriously considering not installing Vault on the new server we are about to get.

jeremy_sg
Posts: 1821
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:39 am
Location: Sourcegear
Contact:

Post by jeremy_sg » Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:59 am

We haven't set a timeline for supporting IIS 7 without compatibility mode, or distributing 64bit server installers. I understand your frustration, but we've made the decision in this case that it's better for us to work on making our product better and more feature-rich than to chase the bleeding edge technologies which only a few customers use. The compatibility mode and 32-bit mode solutions have worked well so far.

gsmalter
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 11:13 am

Chicken or Egg?

Post by gsmalter » Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:31 am

I'm not trying to be difficult, and I understand that this isn't going to be done until it's done, but you have to understand that the primary reason that 64-bit is a technology that "only a few customers use" is precisely because vendors choose not to support it, basing their argument on that fact that only a few customers use it. Please stop this vicious cycle.

Also, I think that the Vault community is blessed with a relatively large number of cutting-edge users, and that's why they sought out Vault to begin with.

jeremy_sg
Posts: 1821
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:39 am
Location: Sourcegear
Contact:

Post by jeremy_sg » Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:35 am

Please don't take my answer as "never", but as a reflection of the fact that we have been investing all of our energy into Vault/Fortress features. We're hoping to get a chance to investigate this once we ship 4.1, but I won't promise a date for when we ship it.

norsten
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:59 pm

Post by norsten » Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:28 pm

lbauer wrote:We've done some preliminary testing of Vault 4.1 beta with Windows 2008 server, and we didn't run into any issues. This operating system is very similar to Vista.

Before installing Vault Server on Windows 2008 servier enable IIS meta-base and IIS 6 configuration compatibility. This setting is in Start -> Control Panel -> Programs and Features -> Turn Windows Features On or off -> IIS Web Management Tools -> IIS Metabase and IIS 6 Configuration Compatibility.

When installing Client or Server, run the installer as Admin.
if you get a "Request is not available" error after installing then goto this link... http://support.sourcegear.com/viewtopic.php?p=39232

lbauer
Posts: 9736
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:25 pm
Location: SourceGear

Post by lbauer » Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:33 pm

Thanks for posting that link.
Linda Bauer
SourceGear
Technical Support Manager

lfonlfonlfon
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:01 am

Post by lfonlfonlfon » Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:45 am

I had to chime in on this thread...

The response that "we're devoting time to other features and that's more important" is silly. Remember, SourceGear, your customers (us developers) DO what YOU do. We write code, build databases, work in IIS, etc. too. It is trivial in every modern IDE to compile x64 versions, update releases for newer metabases, and test against new constructs.

IIS7 is vastly easier to work and test in than anything before it. I say that as someone working in and around it (and IIS6) 6 days a week. My point is not about how many of your customers might be using it. It's that IF you spent the time looking at the API for it, you'd find that your server installation would most likely be considerably cleaner, easier and more streamlined.

The earlier comment that "your customer are about the cutting edge" is right on the money. There are many good choices for SCM. Some are even free. Implementing those cutting edge standards, particularly when they are wide RTMs, is inexcusable.

Before you make responses like the ones above, remember.... We WORK with IIS7 and Server 08 and the latest stuff. We KNOW how easy it is.

This issue of not keeping up easy standard upgrades, coupled with the unecessary complexity you put into SQL connections, has driven me to recommend Subversion to some of our customers. At the moment, I am considering moving all of our development divisions to SVN and not looking back.

gmagana
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:51 am
Location: Santa Ana, CA, USA

Post by gmagana » Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:11 am

Agreed... It is downright silly of SourceGear to not even consider a "new" technology before it's realeased. SourceGear had all the time in the world to adapt to Vista before its release, as it did to VS2008. Preview versions and betas abounded a long time before the official release. Then SG tells us "you can't expect us to support a new technology on the day of its release". Then there is a hurried beta release that everyone is forced to use (ie, Enhanced client VS2005 support).

SG, you are not fooling anyone. We have MSDN subscriptions too, you know?
gabriel magana-gonzalez

jeremy_sg
Posts: 1821
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:39 am
Location: Sourcegear
Contact:

Post by jeremy_sg » Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:58 am

Good points all around. I can only say "we're working to do this better." You'll note that the release notes of 4.1.1 state that we support IIS7 out of the box now. We're currently testing a 64 bit server as well, which we'll release when we feel it's ready (that is after we've moved our internal dev server to 64 bit and lived with it for a while).

Since we're all developers here, I'll be honest with why I personally don't jump up and down with every new bit of tech that comes along. It _never_ makes anything easier. We still support Windows Server 2000 and SQL 2000. IIS7 will never make our install cleaner, because we still install on IIS 5. We don't like being so mired in the past, but that is the only way to maintain a mass market application. As a corollary, when the next major version of Vault is release, expect .Net Framework 3.5 to be the minimum requirement for the server, so that we can _finally_ take advantage of AJAX.

Again, I can really only agree that we haven't been quick to offer support for the last three big changes that MS threw at us (Vista, VS 2008 and Server 2008). I'm trying to do better. Given that the next big tech that we need to support is SQL 2008, and I'm going to try to make sure that we don't drop the ball. Watch how we handle it, and call me out if we mess up again.

lfonlfonlfon
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:01 am

Post by lfonlfonlfon » Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:13 pm

Fair enough.

As a suggestion... Maybe you could push out quick betas for new MS paradigms and then clearly denote "this is not supported; use at your own risk". I have no idea how your code is organized, but it might be easier to branch off a version of the installers as quick-and-dirty betas where you only allocate a day or two of time to "get it working" for the new paradigm. It would also give you the upfront research required to integrate it later on.

I'm trying the 4.1.1 instsaller now. Didn't see this earlier.

lfonlfonlfon
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:01 am

Post by lfonlfonlfon » Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:42 pm

I've moved this reply to it's own topic here:
http://support.sourcegear.com/viewtopic.php?t=9965
Last edited by lfonlfonlfon on Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:55 pm, edited 3 times in total.

gmagana
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:51 am
Location: Santa Ana, CA, USA

Post by gmagana » Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:43 pm

Jeremy, I agree with you... it sucks to have to stay compatible. One client of mine still wants support for Windows NT, and that causes a bit of a headache, to say the least.

My problem is with SG's attitude: SG seems to be focusing on what is difficult/convenient for SG, not for its customers. If SG addressed things as "what do our customers want and how can we address it" rather than "what's easy and convenient for us to do right now," we would all be happy.

I don't think I am making a baseless assumption on this... I saw this when Vault switched to a web-based admin tool. Seriously, how many compliments have you received on the web admin tool? How many complaints from the admin tool having gone away from a native Windows app? I see the logic behind the move: You had Fortress to release, and you wanted a product whose base was web-based and then charge additionally for the Windows native app / VS client "add-on". This makes complete sense for SG, but it took all of your clients a step backwards because now the admin tool is somewhat inconvenient to use (and in a computer science class might make the perfect example of then NOT to create a web app). If we could use the old admin executable with the new server, the vast majority of us would do so.

Same thing when you released the Enhanced client for VS. It baffles the mind why SG removed so many features from the old client, and then did not even plan to put them back into the new client ASAP... Yes, it is a complete redesign of the API, but from our point of view, we would still like the old client's features that had little to do with the underlying technology (VSIP vs MSSCCI). All of us who upgraded to the enhanced client lost the other features we liked.

I'm basing all of this just on keeping up with the forum posts. (By the way, you get huge points on my book for keeping the forums open. Full disclosure truly sets SG apart from the other 95% of software companies)

And then all we get is a "it'll be ready when it's ready." It's not really reassuring; though it's the best answer to give... Again, from SG's point of view. I'm sure it's comfortable for SG, you've never missed a delivery date because you have never really publically promised a solid one.

To me, SG's focusing on itself and its problems rather than on SG's clients is the real problem, not limited resources, time, or whatever else. I know about looking for new markets and growing a company, and the conflicts doing so brings...

Just don't forget your customer base.
gabriel magana-gonzalez

lfonlfonlfon
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:01 am

Post by lfonlfonlfon » Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:59 pm

gmagana wrote:I saw this when Vault switched to a web-based admin tool. Seriously, how many compliments have you received on the web admin tool? How many complaints from the admin tool having gone away from a native Windows app?
The web-based admin client is far better. Why would you prefer a winform client if you could get a web client? It doesn't have any less functionality, and you can access it remotely. I'd prefer a web app for ALL the clients, even the main one. With ajax and the proper xhtml design, it could be done. No features would have to be lost, if you know what you're doing. So customers only stand to gain the addition of remote management.

Post Reply