How do I use desktop experience on server 2016?

There is nothing wrong with either edition.

It all really depends on what you are doing and what you want to achieve.

Server core is good for say hosting a domain controller. Something you can manage almost exclusively remotely via RSAT.

However, some components still require a GUI and for you to remote into the machine. [Looking at you NPS]

However, server core will do you little to no good if you can't effectively manage it without GUI tools. You should use the version that will help you achieve what you are looking to do.

As for the updates, WS will get monthly updates as a whole GUI or No.

Powershell is a great tool to have in your bag. It can help automate and do bulk operations in your environment and ease administration. Powershell in a month of lunches is a good book to start with.

That is very good to know. Thank you, thank you. Shall I take it that RSAT adds the GUI to a lot of the Server Core tools when used from Win10?

Hot_Rod wrote:

That is very good to know. Thank you, thank you. Shall I take it that RSAT adds the GUI to a lot of the Server Core tools when used from Win10?

The RSAT tools are all tools you probably have used before. It just allows you to turn your Windows workstation into a management station. So you don't have to RDP into Server X to manage feature Y.

Some common tools you probably have used would be the DHCP console, DNS console, ADAC, ADUC, Sites and Services, Domains and trusts, print management, etc.

It just gives you all those tools on your workstation.

I'd totally recommend using them now. They should still work on your 08 servers.

I hardly RDP into servers, like I said NPS is a pain cause you have to RDP into the server to manage that.

That makes perfect sense. Thank you very much for all of the information. I'm going to check that book out, too. I've winged some Powershell here and there when I've had to, but I'm all for learning without having to have Google on the 2nd monitor. I deeply appreciate your insight.

I've never seen anyone enable the Desktop Experience for a production server. i have done it at home before, but the normal desktop version of the OS is just the same thing without a lot of registry entries and certain modules installed. Enabling the desktop experience is opening security concerns for your server especially if it has internet access.

Windows Server Core is too limited for normal use and should only be used for appliances.

Use your PluralSight and learn PowerShell and RSAT as you have suggested. That is a lot to do for now and you will know where to go later.

Re: Powershell

It is absolutely worthwhile learning PowerShell. It is growing in popularity rapidly and is apparently the defacto standard for server core.

Here is a good starting point://youtu.be/wUnYLfXm81s

It is based on PowerShell 3.0 but it gets you the fundamentals right from Jeffrey Snover, the inventor of PowerShell, and Jason Helmick.

You can also check outchannel9.msdn.com

The only really common downfall of using the desktop experience is that you waste some resources and lose a small amount of performance. You do also add some extra attack surface, but if you need a GUI you need a GUI. RSAT tools are great to know as well as powershell if you want to go without the desktop experience.

If you can afford that: Plan on a Test Server with GUI. That way you can test all the things you need to do via Powershell and check via GUI and deploy some ready to use Scripts for the live-Core Server. [I am doing that here {2008 MCSA here, we had the basics of PS}]

Powershell is powerful and definitely worth learning.tflhas written a good book on that. But this is Powershell advanced.

RSAT I use to manage every Server I got. Powerful Tool but I try to do mostly on PS-remote

• tfl

  Mace

I'm running a couple of VMs at home, one Win10 and the other Server 2016 w/ GUI. That's a good idea. I was just using it to make sure I could administer 2016 just as effectively as 2008, but I see there is potential for even greater testing that never crossed my mind. Thanks for the ideas, gentlemen!

In my opinion, most folks asking this question should be using the Desktop Experience GUI. Why? The attack surface isn't THAT much larger... and according to one report, few issues are actually exploited... //www.zdnet.com/article/only-5-5-of-all-vulnerabilities-are-ever-exploited-in-the-wild/ so I would argue that the increased attack surface doesn't make an appreciable difference to MOST organizations. Further, the performance hit taken by the extra services running to support the desktop experience are also likely to be negligible to MOST organizations, even when virtualizing.

Additionally, while there are many tools that you can use to manage remotely... and powershell available locally... if you are not a powershell expert - or at least very comfortable with it, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage in most disaster scenarios. In instances where you can't reach the server over the network or something isn't responding, or, or, or, it's REALLY useful and even comforting when your boss is yelling at you to get the g*d d*mn server running again to have all the useful, familiar tools you know how to use directly on the console to work with. Instead of having to google that powershell command to restart a service or disable the firewall or, or, or.

If you are an "expert" in powershell or other methods of Windows server management and you want that extra inch of security, go core... of your not, you'll save yourself some headaches with the full desktop experience.

Just for clarity sake I want to point out that there's a difference between some terms.
There's core, which is shell only. Shell-GUI, which is similar to a traditional install with a graphical shell. Then there is the desktop experience role which adds the bells and whistles of the traditional desktop OS.
Typically you'll only see the full blown desktop experience used in RDS environments where you want/need a more traditional end user experience rather than the stripped down shell-gui environment.

The question is that if you already have the hardware ? Then how many servers will you be "migrating" ? And if you have the server licenses & CALs as well ?

I would think to use Hyper-V 2019 or ESXi then have the OS[es] install in the type-1 hypervisors....at least with VMs, easier to change as compared to installing on physical servers...

Biggest question: What are you going to run on the server? Some applications will only work on the desktop experience, for example, Exchange 2016 couldn't run on a core install amazingly enough.

Other than that, the RSAT tools cover what you need really so core isn't an issue if you're just running AD/DHCP/DNS.

As for learning powershell, I tried for a while and didn't get all that far [I'm a bash person], so in the end I stopped trying to learn it as an academic excercise and instead just got on with looking at how to accomplish tasks I'm actually faced with, once you've got that basic familiarity you'll then find constructing loops and using variables easier to deal with trickier things. Powershell still annoys the bells out of me at times though, for example some Exchange cmdlets which show data on the screen but when you export to CSV the data is missing, because you have to parse the object for output to text but it can display on screen. Despite the bits the annoy me, I'm happy we're no longer in the 2003 days of making my arm ache with mouse overuse.

As others have said it really depends on what you're doing with it. For a lot of the Windows builtin roles you can set it up and get things running with the GUI, such as Hyper-V switch it to command line and do what you need to remotely.

Can't you turn it on and off now without having to reinstall everything anyway? I thought I read that you could do that now. So maybe spin up a trial and try it for a while both with and without it.

I'd say although Justin1250 makes some excellent posts, MultiverseIT nailed it. You can still use RSAT and Powershell to do all of your domain work remotely. But, if you might ever need the GUI, it does not hurt to have it available. You can still shut down RDP if you are that worried about it [even if only available internally to your network]. Then just use a KMS connection or vCenter [or HyperV equivalent] to access your server for the GUI when you absolutely have to have it. Can't hurt and gives you a fallback to a comfortable position.

The only real downside I can think of to installing the GUI, a crutch is still a crutch. Although it might be a pain to carry around, sometimes we still have a hard time putting them down.

Scott4074 wrote:

Can't you turn it on and off now without having to reinstall everything anyway? I thought I read that you could do that now. So maybe spin up a trial and try it for a while both with and without it.

No. You are stuck with the selection you choose during install. You can't switch back and forth like you could in 2012.

You gentlemen are absolutely tremendous. Just tremendous. I thank you all.

I am not a Powershell Expert so I personally would recommend the Desktop GUI version.

I think you mean Server Core vs GUI version. If you are this inexperienced do NOT install the Server Core version. That is something you can learn over time.

I agree with most folks that you should use what is most comfortable to you. However, I also would encourage you to learn as much Powershell as you can. It is not difficult to learn and there is so much information available out there to help you. For my Virtual Environment I am running Server Core and I have had very little issues as a matter of fact it just runs. I am using the Windows Admin Center to manage My Hyper-V nodes and cluster as well as the VM's that are running on them. I am finding that I use RSAT less and less. Again, if you need to get something going in production and have a tight time line and not enough time to experiment, I would go with what you know. But I would also suggest that you start getting proficient in Powershell and server core. Good Luck!

I think that Windows Admin Center makes server core less daunting for organizations with inexperienced staff.

As someone who works with both Windows and Linux, i do most of my work in powershell anyway, or use RSAT.

Needing to work directly on a server is rare.

Yes you do need a GUI for some applications but for many use cases it's really not necessary these days.

Another argument is if you're running servers in the Cloud there is less RAM overhead to use server core.

This reduces costs by being able to run smaller VMs and support the same workloads.

If you do have an inexperienced team as others mentioned maybe try to move to server core in baby steps.

First prohibit access to VMs except in "break glass" scenarios and force your staff to do their work remotely.

Once they are used to working like that they'll find that not having a GUI on a server is not that big of a deal.

Old dog, old tricks. I don't like Core. I'm used to the GUI, and PowerShell only works about half the time in our environment. Funny thing, most of the old LAN Mangler commands still work, and in some cases, are the *only* way to get things working. Plus one for the "run what you know" camp. When you've got four sockets with twelve cores each and half a terabyte of RAM, the overhead on a GUI gets lost in the SNR. Have fun!

The biggest advantage with core over full GUI for most organizations is less windows updates and less that require a reboot, For servers that have a specific task [like being a Hyper-V host or domain controller or file server] you really only miss the GUI stuff when you are first setting up the server [installing drivers under Core is a little tricky as you can't run Device manager "remotely"]. Once you figure out the "basic" powershell commands you will be using with the server though [most of them involve installing windows updates] you never need to really remote into them. Just don't forget sconfig.cmd and Control-Alt-End to bring up Log Out option when you accidentally close the single remote desktop command window.