“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.”
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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
You know Lemur2, this really begs the question just how good Linux is? Are you just truly and honestly unhappy with your beloved Ubuntu? If not, then why the f–k do you care so much about Microsoft? Are you forced into buying their products? Do you have to buy Windows to use FOSS? You have been arguing that FOSS is all anyone needs right? So why the concern about a f–king product YOU DO NOT USE?
Well you see the answer is simple. You are not merely a troll, but rather you have a serious psychological obsession with Microsoft. It is one thing in a topic involving Windows vs. Linux to share an opinion, but this not only has NOTHING to do with Linux, this topic has absolutely nothing to even due to your idiotic comment about interoperability. But that is not the point is it, just like any other thread you hijack about Microsoft with your long since discredited DRM complaints.
Face it, you have absolutely NO credibility posting here, why you continue to do so is merely done more to satisfy your own personal obsessions. While this is a public forum, it is beyond acceptable for us to have to deal with YOUR personal physiological problems.
Maybe it would be time better served to stop worrying about Windows and just be happy with your Ubuntu? If not then it is an admission in my opinion that just maybe Linux is not the answer? Well honestly I think the answer for you is to seek help from a professional and leave us alone. Unfortunately for this site, it is beyond possible to EVER have any discussion regarding Windows because almost of you exclusively. Sure there are other idiot trolls that pop in from time to time, but nobody has the guaranteed track record of destroying a promising discussion better than you.
I will say though that if I was named head of marketing for Microsoft, I could think of no better spokesman for Windows than you. You perfectly fit the whole stigma and stereotype that FOSS advocates and users are nothing more than nutjobs. You, Stallman, and the truly impressive nutcase ESR do a much better job of turning people away from Linux than Microsoft could ever do. Kudos.
Do I care about Microsoft? Not at all, apart from the fact that I wish that the problems they cause me would go away. The best way for that to happen as far as I can see is for Microsoft to go away.
Do I have to use Microsoft products? Yes I do, unfortunately. I certainly don’t have a say in the purchase decisions for all of the considerable amount of IT equipment that I must deal with.
What is my beef? Having a free market is my beef. Consumer choice is my beef.
How so? Well, my best example is the area of entertainment products for the home. There are many manufacturers involved … making TVs, CD players, DVD players, audio systems, digital audio systems, TV broadcasters, etc, etc.
In that arena, the industry can agree on interoperability. TV broadcasts use agreed standards, and any manufacturer can make equipment (either transmitters or receivers) that conform to that standard without getting sued by anybody. They all work just fine, in that any broadcast can be received by any TV. The same applies for CDs and CD players, DVDs and DVD players, and both of those work with audio systems.
This is the ideal. That is how a free market is supposed to work. Competition. Multiple suppliers. Price elasticity of demand and supply. Consumer choice.
It just doesn’t exist in the software industry for desktop software. There is one, and only one, reason for that.
Every time Microsoft try it on once again, and they come up with some exclusive-to-Microsoft little clique where one must buy Microsoft to process the data … you can bet I’m going to point that out and complain about it. It does affect me directly. Even if I myself have managed to avoid that lock-in, the fact that most people fall for it creates an interoperability problem for those of us who don’t fall for it.
Example of Microsoft “trying it on”:
http://www.infoworld.com/archives/emailPrint.jsp?R=printThis&A=/art…
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=200903271942004…
Now I put the inverse question back to you. Why do you troll for Microsoft? What exactly is the point in defending or denying their lock-in practices and their other numerous anti-consumer traits?
Edited 2009-03-29 23:22 UTC
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.
Ask the people who developed Samba if they share your opinion on this! Perhaps then it will dawn on you.
What will dawn on me? That the Samba devs did an incredible job? That they did it with no help from MS? That’s my point. A lot of the interoperabilty problems were solved by hardworking OSS devs, and the EU ruling was like closing the barn door after the cows have already left. It made their jobs easier, but they already had done most of the ground work anyway.
Same as this stupid browser investigation they have going on now. There is more competition in the browser market than ever before, and the EU is just wasting time and money. Oh, and Windows N? Not one person bought it. Maybe someday the EU will deal with problems when they are relevant, lets hope.
Good thing I am not an EU citizen, I would be pretty annoyed with them. They look like Opera’s and Googles bitches.
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.
I don’t know how you would expect to get away with that without any support whatsoever.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.