Submitted by 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.
As the ZDnet article already mulls, this brings up a few questions about just how different Windows 7 is going to be from Windows Vista. Microsoft’s Steve Zinofsky has already explained that Windows 7 will not make any major changes in kernelland and the driver models, but that it will include a number of major features (of which the multitouch framework is about the only one we know).
It’s not uncommon for Microsoft to release major versions of Windows that internally are pretty much alike. Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003 are very alike underneath, to the point that drivers are cross-compatible. For instance, if you are looking for nVIDIA drivers for your videocard, you need to pick the Windows XP version if you are running Windows Server 2003.
In any case, Microsoft will shed more light on Windows 7 later this year during its Professional Developers Conference in Los Angeles.
… it follows the principle “if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it”. And it is a sound principle too. Windows 2008 was well received, and the server world does not like “vista type” surprises…
Is server 2008 based on vista?
Edited 2008-08-19 00:14 UTC
Yes. And 2008 Server is totally awesome. Its basic memory footprint is just over 200 MB (and you could cut that down to about 50 if you really tried). Its networking performance is excellent.
It doesn’t play sound, it doesn’t have Aero, it doesn’t have SuperFetch or protected media path.
You can install all that if you like, and then it’ll look more like Vista.
vista was based on 2k3, 2k8 was based on vista, and with vista sp1, vista and 2k8 share the same kernel
Windows Server 2008 is pretty good for a MS product.
Damn that was hard for me to say! linux ftw!!
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.
Does a server OS have to worry about sound or video skipping during a file copy?
Depends, if the server is running a video or sound streaming service, then yes. Otherwise, unlikely.
But it doesn’t matter wether a multimedia service, a database service, a webservice or what else a service stocks. In call cases service quality is effected.
pica
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
,.,.
From what we know right now (little), Windows 7 seems to be a minor update even for the desktop.
Vista + bug fixes + Multi-Touch = Win7
OR
Vista + Service Pack 4 + Plus! Pack = Win7….
Servers don’t need Multi-Touch. So yeah, Win 2008 R2 is a good name.
Edited 2008-08-19 11:34 UTC
What I do not understand is why the desktop OS environments, which are closely related, have so many issues compared to the Server OS side.
Windows Server 2003 makes for an excellent workstation that has quite awesome performance, and can use XP’s drivers. Windows XP Professional x64 is Server 2003 x64 with a different UI, and can use the same drivers. At least they released it as a workstation OS, albeit quietly.
Windows 2000 Server was actually much more stable than Windows 2000 Professional as a desktop OS, and could use the desktop drivers. It was the last desktop OS they released that claimed to be a crippled version of the server OS, unlike XP x64.
Windows NT 4.0 Workstation had the same hardware support as NT 4.0, which was little at best. It was also crippled compared to its server OS companion.
I’ve been running Windows Server 2008 with the Desktop Experience enabled, and it looks and acts like Vista, with apparently a bit less RAM usage. It’s definitely faster, even in a VM.
Somehow I think that Windows 7 Server will follow the same path, and offer a minimal UI on top of a stable OS kernel with device drivers that have less issues than the desktop ones.
as far as I have heard so far. So it is a minor release.
BTW: 6+1 = 7
pica