Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Aug 2008 21:48 UTC, submitted by rlem6983
Windows We've covered Windows 7 quite often already - on the desktop side of the fence, that is. Continuing tradition, there will also be a Windows 7 Server release, but until now, Microsoft has remained fairly tight-lipped about the server counterpart of Windows 7. Until now, because Microsoft has stated that Windows 7 Server will be a "minor release" - and named accordingly: Windows Server 2008 R2.
Order by: Score:
To put it simply...
by sonic2000gr on Mon 18th Aug 2008 22:27 UTC
sonic2000gr
Member since:
2007-05-20

Microsoft has stated that Windows 7 Server will be a "minor release"


... it follows the principle "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". And it is a sound principle too. Windows 2008 was well received, and the server world does not like "vista type" surprises...

Reply Score: 1

What is server 2008 based on?
by MrEs on Tue 19th Aug 2008 00:14 UTC
MrEs
Member since:
2008-04-02

Is server 2008 based on vista?

Edited 2008-08-19 00:14 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: What is server 2008 based on?
by zlynx on Tue 19th Aug 2008 00:43 UTC in reply to "What is server 2008 based on?"
zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

Yes. And 2008 Server is totally awesome. Its basic memory footprint is just over 200 MB (and you could cut that down to about 50 if you really tried). Its networking performance is excellent.

It doesn't play sound, it doesn't have Aero, it doesn't have SuperFetch or protected media path.

You can install all that if you like, and then it'll look more like Vista.

Reply Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

vista was based on 2k3, 2k8 was based on vista, and with vista sp1, vista and 2k8 share the same kernel

Reply Score: 3

Windows 2008
by zenulator on Tue 19th Aug 2008 03:44 UTC
zenulator
Member since:
2008-06-29

Windows Server 2008 is pretty good for a MS product.
Damn that was hard for me to say! linux ftw!!

Reply Score: 0

RE: Windows 2008
by shotsman on Tue 19th Aug 2008 05:24 UTC in reply to "Windows 2008"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

Both Server 2003 & 2008 are indeed good products. So why the hell does Microsoft insist in totally messing them up when they move the kernel from the server room into the living room?
If the Server O/S copies files perfectly why can't VISTA.
That (and dozens of others) is the real question.
That is one of the reasons why I now use Server 2008 on my Laptop that came with Vista.

Vista, the Edsel of the Computer world.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Windows 2008
by joshv on Tue 19th Aug 2008 13:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Windows 2008"
joshv Member since:
2006-03-18

Both Server 2003 & 2008 are indeed good products. So why the hell does Microsoft insist in totally messing them up when they move the kernel from the server room into the living room?
If the Server O/S copies files perfectly why can't VISTA.


Does a server OS have to worry about sound or video skipping during a file copy?

Reply Score: 5

v RE[3]: Windows 2008
by pica on Tue 19th Aug 2008 13:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Windows 2008"
RE[2]: Windows 2008
by google_ninja on Tue 19th Aug 2008 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Windows 2008"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

In vista, I can play a dvd, download a torrent, and install an os on VMWare, and the dvd will be smooth as silk. Same machine can't handle a DVD + intensive VMWare operation in 2k8 (linux is even worse, can't play an mp3 in the host if the guest is doing something HD intensive)

Edited 2008-08-19 19:34 UTC

Reply Score: 4

v Vista R2?
by netpython on Tue 19th Aug 2008 08:15 UTC
Minot....
by truckweb on Tue 19th Aug 2008 11:32 UTC
truckweb
Member since:
2005-07-06

From what we know right now (little), Windows 7 seems to be a minor update even for the desktop.

Vista + bug fixes + Multi-Touch = Win7
OR
Vista + Service Pack 4 + Plus! Pack = Win7....

Servers don't need Multi-Touch. So yeah, Win 2008 R2 is a good name.

Edited 2008-08-19 11:34 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Server 7 will be quite good, I think
by mbpark on Tue 19th Aug 2008 12:01 UTC
mbpark
Member since:
2005-11-17

What I do not understand is why the desktop OS environments, which are closely related, have so many issues compared to the Server OS side.

Windows Server 2003 makes for an excellent workstation that has quite awesome performance, and can use XP's drivers. Windows XP Professional x64 is Server 2003 x64 with a different UI, and can use the same drivers. At least they released it as a workstation OS, albeit quietly.

Windows 2000 Server was actually much more stable than Windows 2000 Professional as a desktop OS, and could use the desktop drivers. It was the last desktop OS they released that claimed to be a crippled version of the server OS, unlike XP x64.

Windows NT 4.0 Workstation had the same hardware support as NT 4.0, which was little at best. It was also crippled compared to its server OS companion.

I've been running Windows Server 2008 with the Desktop Experience enabled, and it looks and acts like Vista, with apparently a bit less RAM usage. It's definitely faster, even in a VM.

Somehow I think that Windows 7 Server will follow the same path, and offer a minimal UI on top of a stable OS kernel with device drivers that have less issues than the desktop ones.

Reply Score: 2

Windows Se7en is NT 6.1
by pica on Tue 19th Aug 2008 12:56 UTC
pica
Member since:
2005-07-10

as far as I have heard so far. So it is a minor release.

BTW: 6+1 = 7

pica

Reply Score: 1