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 355269
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 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[3]: Completely unimportant
by lemur2 on Thu 26th Mar 2009 23:43 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 Parent Score: 0

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

RE[3]: Completely unimportant
by lemur2 on Fri 27th Mar 2009 02:15 in reply to "RE[2]: Completely unimportant"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: Completely unimportant
by Tuishimi on Mon 30th Mar 2009 14:04 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 Parent Score: 2