Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Aug 2008 21:48 UTC, submitted by rlem6983
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.
Thread beginning with comment 327273
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.
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.
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?
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
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!!