For production server environments, it’s recommended that you run the Server Core version of Windows Server 2012 which lacks a GUI. The purpose of that recommendation is that it reduces the ...

I thought that it was especially interesting that Server Core was the default installation type in Windows Server 2012 and that even if you do choose to perform a GUI-based installation, you can ...

They want server apps to assume they're running on what we used to call "Server Core." The recommended way to run the Server OS is without the GUI. Didja see that?

Another sign of change was the fate of the minimal-footprint "headless" Nano Server deployment option of Windows Server 2016. Nano Server is now seen as a choice only for container images. It's not ...

The original Server Core was a welcome addition to Windows Server, but it wasn’t widely adopted. The lack of GUI made it difficult for administrators to work with Server Core if they didn’t possess ...

How many of you guys use server core? Thoughts on it? Worth the hassle of CLI-only? The benefits seem to have merit but I've not Shell experience. I do want to learn though.

Nano Server will forgo the whole GUI/non-GUI approach of Server Core in favor of a full remote management approach. Don’t think RDP — think PowerShell or, more appropriately, Core PowerShell ...

Windows Server Core is the epitome of this GUI-less mentality, where it's not possible to add a GUI to the server itself. Microsoft gives us other ways to manage our Windows servers using languages ...

Closely related was the development of Windows Server Core, which dropped the GUI in favour of a command line-driven experience (while still letting apps have their own GUIs).