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."
Thread beginning with comment 355237
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Completely unimportant
by google_ninja on Thu 26th Mar 2009 22:44 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 Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Completely unimportant
by ssa2204 on Fri 27th Mar 2009 00:17 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 Parent Score: 6