Remote Server Administration Tools (RSAT) for Windows 7

There are a bunch of Microsoft forum questions related to installing the Remote Server Administration Tools on both Windows 7, Windows Vista, and even the server products, Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2. Why? There are three major reasons:

1. RSAT installation is not the same as adminpak.msi installation for Windows 2000 and Windows XP client computers

2. RSAT installation is different for the server products than it is for the client products.

3. RSAT installation does not automatically install the tools after you install the package.

All of the resolutions to these issues are covered in the recently posted TechNet Wiki article

Remote Server Administration Tools (RSAT) for Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows Server 2008, and Windows Server 2008 R2 (dsforum2wiki),” which was inspired by all the questions happening on the Microsoft forums, such as:

Comments (5)

  1. Anonymous says:

    Can someone at MS please explain why using an MSI like the previous versions was abandoned?

    The primary problems I see are a) this method is clunk. Install update. Go into AddRemove Features, check twenty checkboxes, wait for install. b) This breaks at LEAST one other key microsoft technology.

    In regards to the first point, in the time it takes to install the update I could have had AdminPak.msi installed and I'd be done. I have to sit through another install phase, PLUS check a ton of boxes. What was the thinking here? How does this make my life easier? Why do you guys insist on doing everything different everytime you update something? If it isn't broke, DON'T FIX IT.

    To the second point, the technology I refer to is App-V. Your sequencer doesn't pick up the method of install for almost all the files, and this toolset which would otherwise be EXACTLY what we want to sequence (I go to a users machine, need the tools, pull them down, no permanent install needed) gets relegated to the ever growing bin of things that cannot be sequenced thanks to the utter lack of a big picture.

    You know, these days my job is literally nothing, and I mean nothing, but trying to make microsoft products work with each other in spite of themselves, and it's always the same thing "well it used to work but they changed it" and nobody seems to get any real benefit from the "new" ways, it's just "new"…IIS6 for instance. Your own documentation for App-V setup can only be followed on IIS5, 6 they changed where things are so you have to translate where this simple setting might be nowadays.

    Please stop. Do you think an admins job isn't hard enough without relearning everything everytime you update a product?

  2. Anonymous says:

    We are sorry that this is inconvenient for you. We have submitted your feedback for review to another team that deals more closely with this technology, but we do not have insight into the actual decision process that resulted in the change. We do realize that it has been a challenge for many customers, which is why we focused on writing the RSAT instructions.

  3. server administration says:

    A blog can’t be better than this one. What kind of elements a person needs from a blog all of those things are be found from this blog. This blog contains all the information about the topic. Thanks to the people who did a very hard job behind this blog. I really appreciate their work; I like to thanks those people from my heart. Thanks.

    <a href="">server administration</a>

  4. Gaby_MSFT says:

    @Alcaron:  The product team implemented the current install-on-demand process in response to customer complaints about how customers needed to remove unused tools that were installed by the old AdminPack, especially tools that increased security risks.  The RSAT team published a KB about how to hack out tools customers didn’t want.  That’s why they switched to the current installation process.

  5. thehinac says:

    Or to keep users from using Orca to remove it’s requirements for install and allowing to be installed on windows versions other than Pro. Hmmm sounds more plausible.