Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Mar 2009 17:12 UTC, submitted by inkslinger
Windows "Even though Microsoft has, in the past, made marketing capital from synchronising its releases, group product manager Ward Ralston says that the desktop and server groups are two separate units that do not need to be released simultaneously. Windows 7 will should make its official appearance this year, but that major shift in the desktop experience isn't going to be matched with a similar sea-change on the server Operating System front. Microsoft has settled for only a minor upgrade to Windows Server 2008."
Order by: Score:
oh well...
by BluenoseJake on Thu 26th Mar 2009 18:18 UTC
BluenoseJake
Member since:
2005-08-11

It's not like 2008 or 2008 R2 won't work with Windows 7. Server costs a hell of a lot more, the feature set better be more compelling than the differences between Vista and Windows 7, or nobody will buy it.

Makes sense to me.

Reply Score: 2

Completely unimportant
by google_ninja on Thu 26th Mar 2009 18:47 UTC
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

The only reason for keeping things in sync is for marketing. The important thing is that the kernel stays the same between the server and the desktop

Reply Score: 2

RE: Completely unimportant
by lemur2 on Thu 26th Mar 2009 22:08 UTC in reply to "Completely unimportant"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The important thing is that the kernel stays the same between the server and the desktop


Why is this necessary?

My starting position would be that a server should serve all clients, and a client should be able to connect to all servers and be able to utilise all (authorised) services offered.

If Windows cannot do this ... then why bother with Windows servers? Clearly they are sub-par if they can only serve Windows clients, and even more so they are sub-par if they can only reliably serve Windows clients with a particular version of the Windows kernel.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Completely unimportant
by google_ninja on Thu 26th Mar 2009 22:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Completely unimportant"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

dude, I'm not interested in your opinions on anything to do with microsoft, since all you seem interested in is starting arguments.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Completely unimportant
by lemur2 on Thu 26th Mar 2009 23:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Completely unimportant"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

dude, I'm not interested in your opinions on anything to do with microsoft, since all you seem interested in is starting arguments.


Well, if you were at all interested in a way for Microsoft to increase its server share ... there is one right there for the taking. End users are, undeniably, interested in running "mixed" environments on their LANs, comprising Linux, Mac and Windows clients in various mixes. AFAIK, the only possibility to run a common set of servers that will serve all three client types equally well is to run Linux servers.

Microsoft have an opprotunity right there ... why not enable their server product serve all client platforms equally well, and out-compete against Linux servers that can do exactly that?

What does it tell you that Microsoft does not grab this opportunity? How well are Microsoft addressing your needs and choices as a customer by refusing to do this?

What does it tell you that some people are apparently so entrenched in Microsoft-think that they apparently accept the "need" to update all Windows servers and clients together (as opposed to expecting, nay requiring, that a server shoulld serve all possible clients)? After all, what exactly is this thread topic all about?

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Completely unimportant
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 26th Mar 2009 23:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Completely unimportant"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

. AFAIK, the only possibility to run a common set of servers that will serve all three client types equally well is to run Linux servers.


Are you implying that Linux clients can't connect to Windows machines? Or Mac clients? Shit, you should've told my home network of Linux/Windows/Macs.

Got an extra doze of teh crazy today, lemur2?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Completely unimportant
by lemur2 on Fri 27th Mar 2009 02:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Completely unimportant"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

". AFAIK, the only possibility to run a common set of servers that will serve all three client types equally well is to run Linux servers.
Are you implying that Linux clients can't connect to Windows machines? Or Mac clients? Shit, you should've told my home network of Linux/Windows/Macs. Got an extra doze of teh crazy today, lemur2? "

No, I'm claiming that Windows servers go out of their way to support Windows clients only, to the extent that the networking, messaging and authentication protocols were deliberately kept a trade secret for many years, until the EU eventually forced Microsoft to publish the specifications for same.

In other words, if Mac and Linux clients can connect to some services on Windows servers, it is not through Microsoft's interoperability efforts that that has come about. In fact, the opposite is true.

Do you deny this is so?

Edited 2009-03-27 02:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Completely unimportant
by t3RRa on Fri 27th Mar 2009 09:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Completely unimportant"
t3RRa Member since:
2005-11-22

Are you not the only one trying to say something useless thing? I mean its completely off-topic what you are trying to argue. I was reading through comments and at the first of your posts, I was like 'Huh???!' This article is not about interoperability with different platforms.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Completely unimportant
by lemur2 on Fri 27th Mar 2009 11:39 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Completely unimportant"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Are you not the only one trying to say something useless thing? I mean its completely off-topic what you are trying to argue. I was reading through comments and at the first of your posts, I was like 'Huh???!' This article is not about interoperability with different platforms.


Well, no, it isn't about interoperability between different platforms.

But it definitely does raise questions about the interoperability of Windows itself.

Both the title of the thread, and the first sentence of the intro, bring up that subject.

"Even though Microsoft has, in the past, made marketing capital from synchronising its releases, group product manager Ward Ralston says that the desktop and server groups are two separate units that do not need to be released simultaneously."

My question was ... why would it be necessary to synchronise the release of server and client products? Why can Microsoft make extra money if they do that? Why would Ward Ralston need to make special mention that it wasn't necessary this time ... has it been necessary in the past? Is there some problem where Windows on the server is fussy about what version of Windows clients it is serving? Because the Windows client/server protocol is, after all, very notoriously (and deliberately) obscured, with an apparent view to making it not work with some clients ...

Edited 2009-03-27 11:43 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Completely unimportant
by BluenoseJake on Fri 27th Mar 2009 15:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Completely unimportant"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I've been using samba and ssh and ldap and what have you for several years before the EU commandment, and I never found it hard to make linux or OS X talk to Windows or vice versa.

You can also install services for Unix if you need to access NFS from Windows. It's not been a problem for 10 years.

like always, the EU was trying to solve problems that OSS had already mostly solved.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Completely unimportant
by Ford Prefect on Sat 28th Mar 2009 01:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Completely unimportant"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

Ask the people who developed Samba if they share your opinion on this! Perhaps then it will dawn on you.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Completely unimportant
by ssa2204 on Fri 27th Mar 2009 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Completely unimportant"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

"The important thing is that the kernel stays the same between the server and the desktop


Why is this necessary?

My starting position would be that a server should serve all clients, and a client should be able to connect to all servers and be able to utilise all (authorised) services offered.

If Windows cannot do this ... then why bother with Windows servers? Clearly they are sub-par if they can only serve Windows clients, and even more so they are sub-par if they can only reliably serve Windows clients with a particular version of the Windows kernel.
"

This is my far one of dumbest posts you have made to date. You long ago crossed the line from a merely annoying and ignorant troll to just a downright loon.

Reply Score: 6

v RE[3]: Completely unimportant
by lemur2 on Fri 27th Mar 2009 02:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Completely unimportant"
RE[3]: Completely unimportant
by Tuishimi on Mon 30th Mar 2009 14:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Completely unimportant"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I think he just meant that it would be ridiculous to require in-step upgrades for client vs. server because there should be nothing about the current server OS that prohibits the client from advancing. Unless I misread him.

I DON'T think he was saying that Windows Server DOES require those things. He was being sarcastic or mocking.

On the other hand, I think a more interesting thing to talk about would be why DO server OS's seem to walk hand in hand with clients? For example, Mac OS X. Bug fixes are obvious. But why release major releases simultaneously?

One reason would be some sort of major feature set that requires changes in both the client and server to use the new feature set. Other than that I would think that it would be sort of disadvantageous in the sense that if I were purchasing an OS for my servers, I would want them to be as stable and mature as possible without needing major upgrades whenever the clients are upgraded.

BLEH! I ramble on again. Someone should give me a virtual slap.

Reply Score: 2

ugg
by poundsmack on Thu 26th Mar 2009 20:36 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

the kernel will be the same. and all the IT benefits from 7 will be in 2008 R2. it's a lot more synced up than they are making it seam. it just like how vista and 2008 were. and trust me it's worth the update IIS 7.5 and wayyy easier deploying of roles is just great. it is what 2003 R2 was to 2003 with even more goodies.

Reply Score: 3

Simultaneous Release
by thecwin on Fri 27th Mar 2009 00:24 UTC
thecwin
Member since:
2006-01-04

Microsoft should release Windows Server and standard Windows at the same time, with feature parity, full compatibility, and the same name.

Windows Vista, Windows Server Vista
Windows 7, Windows Server 7
etc.

OS X, Ubuntu work that way. Most Windows admins I've spoken to would prefer it to be this way.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Simultaneous Release
by steampoweredlawn on Fri 27th Mar 2009 04:08 UTC in reply to "Simultaneous Release"
steampoweredlawn Member since:
2006-09-27

Something to consider though is OS X and GNU/Linux distros are released much more frequently, and mostly incremental, evolutionary updates. It makes sense to release the client and server at the same time. Windows releases are often significantly different from their predecessors, and users need more time to adjust. By the time the server version of Windows is released, a large portion of workers already have the client at home, and are sufficiently familiar with it. This helps mitigate the burden of transition.

Besides, any enterprise that deploys software as soon as its released is downright foolish IMO, regardless of platform.

Reply Score: 1

Not out of sync
by PlatformAgnostic on Fri 27th Mar 2009 05:55 UTC
PlatformAgnostic
Member since:
2006-01-02

Server 2008 R2 is the Server version of Windows 7. There are changes there (especially the 'client' parts of the server like Terminal Services and the user interface), but I guess they can say that it's not a major release since the server specific bits have been improved but in a revolutionary way.

From a kernel perspective (which is quite a major part of the server scenario), there have been pretty large performance improvements for the server, so it's not exactly a worthless release.

Reply Score: 2