As announced to me this morning by no less than 4 identical emails from their aggressive marketing machine...
On a more serious note, I find windows server 2012 to be pretty unusable remotely thanks to the new UI. The moment you log in via RDP, it goes to hell. The only way out is server core which after login pops up a cmd.exe window.
Not impressed, especially considering as an MS partner, this will pretty much be forced on us soon.
I regularly remote into a 2012 machine here, and for my uses it works just as with every other machine.
Maybe I'm always ctrl+alt+break'ing into full-screen and you don't, so that my accelerators/shortcuts/whatever are working as expected? Can you provide more details about the pain points you experienced? We're thinking about a bigger 2012 deployment as well and maybe I'm missing flaws that are just outside of what I expect/usually do.
Yes. This can certainly be done. It's not ideal but it can be done.
The problem is that this a standard complaint everywhere, and that this is the standard response given everywhere.
In doing everything they could to force Metro down users' throats in Windows 8 (which is a decision I disagree with, but can understand), Microsoft completely failed when repeating that same judgement for a server OS.
Server-admins doing RDP does not want Metro. They have nothing to benefit from metro. They will never use metro. They will not install "apps" on their servers.
This decision has done nothing except harm Microsoft's perception among people who would normally be the proponents of their technology.
I can almost let the decision to have Metro on enterprise desktops slide, considering I use Windows 8 everyday in the enterprise and can almost fully ignore Metro (except for the broken desktop search).
But Metro on Windows Server? It just warps my brain trying to justify that. I cannot think of a single technical reason for it to be there. Except maybe consolidation of shell code, and that's a crappy reason.