Not even gonna bother with this one...
Even though I'm a sysadmin and quite frankly am both intrigued and fascinated with some of the stuff Microsoft has done on Windows administration. For example; I really enjoy working with stuff such as PowerShell. And don't cut MMC short; "remote desktop service management" on my Win7 workstation. I have both of my Win2k3 added in a group thus allowing me with one click of a mouse to check up on both servers (who are logged on, open sessions, etc.).
Win8 can't be run using MS' own virtual PC. SO I don't think this critter will fare any better. Oracle's VirtualBox did it, yet this evening I actually ran into a BSOD on Win7. The very /first/ time that has ever happened after running Win7 for roughly one year now. As such I won't be keeping it around.
To me Win8 server shows the same shortcomings as Win8 client; MS is fully staring themselves blind on a single goal or motivation and everything else has to make room for it, no matter the cost. Win8 client should be obvious; tables & touch. How the desktop users are to cope is totally unimportant (note; this is only how I perceived things).
Win8 server seems to have Unix and previous Novell servers in mind. CLI is the way to go. Now, I do agree that you can do a lot on the commandline, PowerShell is a very good example of that. But a CLI only gets you so far, esp. on a GUI based OS.
And that's even ignoring that PowerShell 2.0 does /not/ even allow you to edit files on a remote server. Its not supported, perhaps using an edlin-like client or "copy con" commands. But a full screen editor such a vi? Forget about it.
So quite frankly. I'm gonna read about this one, but am not gonna bother trying.