AT&T Tech Support 360Windows 7 Server to be 'minor release'
In a somewhat surprising move, Microsoft said Monday that the next minor update for Windows Server will be the server version of Windows 7, which will be known merely as Windows Server 2008 R2.
(Credit: Microsoft)Microsoft said on Monday that the server version of Windows 7 will not be a major release and will bear the name Windows Server 2008 R2.
The move is surprising, given that in the past, Microsoft has used R2 monikers to signify a product with a few new features, as opposed to major changes to a product.
Microsoft declined to discuss what will be in Windows Server 2008 R2, but a spokesman confirmed that it is the server version of Windows 7. The release is due sometime in 2010, Microsoft said.
The server move calls into question just how different Windows 7 is going to be from Windows Vista on the desktop side. Steven Sinofsky, the head of development for the desktop version of Windows, has said that Windows 7 on the PC side would not make major changes to things like the kernel and driver model, but has maintained that it would be a major release of Windows.
Microsoft has said that the desktop version of Windows 7 would include a new multitouch interface, but has not talked about other features.
The software maker confirmed its naming plans, following a report by ZDNet blogger Mary Jo Foley. Initially Foley reported that Microsoft was skipping its minor R2 release and moving straight to its next major release. However, Microsoft clarified that it indeed sees Windows 7 on the server side as a minor release.
On its server roadmap page, Microsoft describes its minor, or update releases this way:
Update releases integrate the previous major release with the latest service pack, selected feature packs, and new functionality. Because an update release is based on the previous major release, customers can incorporate it into their environment without any additional testing beyond what would be required for a typical service pack. Any additional functionality provided by an update would be optional and thus not affect application compatibility or require customers to recertify or retest applications.
The question is, if Windows 7 Server needs no more testing than a service pack, is it really possible for the desktop team to add enough features on top of it to make Windows 7 a big improvement upon the oft-criticized Windows Vista.
If you are having trouble reconciling Microsoft's server and client positions, you are not alone. I pressed Microsoft's server side for more details on how this could be understood, but didn't get much help. I'll also check in with some folks on the desktop Windows team and see what I hear back.
Microsoft has said it will share technical details on Windows 7 at its Professional Developers Conference in late October in Los Angeles.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina.
- Topics:
-
Windows
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
Everyone who I have heard wining about Vista..... either hasn't tried it, has tried installing it on hardware that I wouldn't even, in my wildest dreams, try to put it on (10 year old computers), or is buying what a 'friend of a friend' said about Vista who ALSO didn't try Vista.
Those machines that Vista chokes on can run smoothly a full version of Linux that has every bell and whistle of Vista(minus the massive security holes and DRM).
That is why Vista is a steaming pile of feces.
This is a bit ironic since you also have proudly claimed you have never used Vista before in your life and would never touch it. Which story to you want to go with? Pick one and stick with it, please.
And that, my dear Decider, is why your reputation as being truthful and honest is "a steaming pile of feces" as you so delicately put it.
If that's the plan, they're going to be hosed. Microsoft's entire business model relies on having at least a dominant position, if not a total monopoly. As their marketshare slips, the WWW will be forced to adopt open standards and to accommodate different operating systems. This in turn means that Windows/IE will have to compete on merit, which given the growing popularity of Firefox (even on Windows), and Apple's explosive growth, it obviously cannot do at this time.
If Windows fails, the rest of the scheme comes crashing down.
The real thing is, if Windows does ever fail...... BIG PROBLEMS COMING! Too many applications run on only Windows systems, especially some older games and newer games. If Windows/Microsoft ever does fail..... I see calamity of a huge form.... but I also don't see Windows or Microsoft ever failing for the next 50 years or so.
That software houses make windows only versions is simple shortsightedness that are going to cost them. It won't be a calamity, unless people and businesses remain 100% dependent on MS. Those with foresight won't even notice if MS collapses tomorrow.
Your argument is exactly why open source is so powerful, prevalent and gaining more traction every day. Dealing with MS you play by their rules and rise and fall based on what happens to them. With open source, a company controls its IT future by having the ability to add in features, and much more.
People always think that large corporations will always be there and be very powerful. People are always wrong. IBM is a good example, the monopolies of the turn of the century are another. Current companies that are on the same path today as MS include Starbucks and Blockbuster. MS is big enough that most people don't see the decline until it is too late, people who pay attention know it began around 2000, but was kept in check with XP. MS has nothing to replace XP so it is more obvious today. The fact that MS chases trends without understanding the reason or long term value of the trend. That is why XBOX360 has beeb riddled with problems, and why MS is a near total failure on the Internet and web.
That assumes that MS would know why it is investing in the web and its own desktops place in the increasingly web-centric world.
The WWW is already an OS-neutral set of protocols.
Windows may not be the best OS out there, but it is the best supported and best choice for the business world at this time. If Apple or the myriad of Linux distros ever get their act together this may change.... but it's been 20 years now and they haven't shown any signs of doing that yet. I'm not sure it will ever happen. Time will tell.
This is true - IE8 is moving towards standards-compliancy, but as long as the extension ".aspx" exists, there will always be sites (both on the Internet and in corporate Intranets) that will require IE to run.
If (or IMHO, "when") Windows fails, it will not be an overnight failure. This means that vendors have plenty of time to port their apps over to other platforms (as many are already doing right now). I can see Microsoft itself being forced to do this with MS Office if they really start losing their grasp.
Given the speed of the computing industry, Windows failing within 7-10 years is not an unrealistic figure, even for the most entrenched business. After all, most businesses ran just fine on Novell NetWare, Solaris, AIX, and a whole host of other non-Windows tech just fine as late as 1998, which is barely 10 years ago.
@Decider: I misspoke when I said "WWW", since what I wrote would apply to Intranets rather than the Internet at large.
I disagree with you as per Blockbuster and Starbucks as examples... they've figured out that brick-and-mortar-only stores to rent video won't keep their bills paid forever, and have made some really large pushes to get online. Starbucks isn't a tech corp at all - they just got stupid and expanded beyond their means, and are paying for it now.
@Vegaman_Dan: Not even 10 years ago, Windows was the absolute lousiest choice for anything beyond a small business LAN, and even then it would run Novell NetWare to get things done. You also seriously underestimate the speed and determination with which change happens. Also, you over-estimate the amount of time that Linux has been in the Enterprise. It was only 2001 when IBM first signed onto Linux as a serious Enterprise solution and promoted it as such (the first large corp to do so). That makes it only 7 years (at most) along. Before that, it was mostly a hobbyist OS.
By contrast, Microsoft first produced Windows in 1983 (Windows 1.0). It didn't gain any real business attention as a product until Windows 3.1 came out in 1992, and NT 4 (the first serious enterprise-attention-getting version of Windows) didn't come out until 1996... 13 years after Windows 1.0
PS: Your math is off, big-time. Linux 0.02 (the first iteration of a half-compilable kernel called "Linux" specifically) was released in October of 1991, and Linux 1.0 wasn't released until March of 1994 (source code here: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v1.0/ ). This makes Linux officially only 14 years old total, and it has been growing in the enterprise market on a serious level for 6-7 of them.
But...these are all tangents. Fact is, Windows will fail, though it will not fail overnight, causing the world to panic (which means that the "F" in "FUD" is what you're spreading, boyo). It will be a slow deceleration at first, increasing speed as marketshare shrinks.
Of course, this assumes that MSFT doesn't remove its collective head out of its institutional backside, and actually gets on with the business of making a product that competes.
Like the new file system they have been working on since 1996. That was one of the first victims, one if its best features was that it was self-defragging. The rest of the computing world has had access to self defragging FS since at least the late 80's, yet MS still can't do it.
That is the type of crap that has earned them so much scorn and ridicule.
* The SDK kept changing
* The APIs kept changing
* the model was too radically different, requiring drivers to be built from scratch (ever seen how long it takes to write a complex GPU driver from scratch? Hint: ".NET" is pretty much worthless at the level needed to write one ;) ).
* The OS requires hardware-level code extensions that simply do not exist in most hardware devices (to be fair, OSX requires SSE3 CPU extensions (think "Core" or newer), but since Apple sells their own hardware, it's not a problem for them). Vista easily has the same impediments, but since MSFT doesn't control or sell hardware, they're kinda screwed.
* MSFT's cert process is horked.
...or any and all of the above.
So yeah, I can see how two years to write drivers for an OS where bugs and changes are common could be way too damned soon for most device makers...
MS User: "And I'm a user of Microsoft products"
Troll: "So Microsoft is [insert latest C|Net headline here]. That will never work. They are Teh Suck and will fail because of it. Open Source and Apple are superior and are taking over the world so just deal with it."
MS User: "And what do you base that on?"
Troll: "You M$ fanboys never get it do you? When will you quit being zealots for Micro$haft and get a clue?"
MS User: "That's funny, I just use Microsoft products. I've never boasted that they were better or that Microsoft was a great company. Use whatever you like just don't spread baseless FUD"
Troll: "FUD?!?!? Are you kidding me? Didn't you read the blog about this that my best friend wrote?"
MS User: realizes he just wasted another 5 minutes of his day and moves on...
Troll: Lights another candle at his shine of Linus Torvalds and Steve Jobs and prays softly...
One (1337) word. PWNED
(*sound of crickets chirping*)
...thought so.
Don't pretend that you have ever successfully used a Windows product. If you've ever loaded Server 2008, I'm sure you would be floored. It's an AMAZING server release... even according to anti-Windows pundits. Just please keep your uninformed comments to yourself. Apple's server has nearly been decommissioned all together and was never anything more than a file and print box.
It is so amazing that MS just invested in Apache, the server that has been eating MS server lunch for many, many years.
I use the best server platforms there is: Linux and BSD
His comments are very flexible. They fit the subject of the moment and really have nothing to do with it either. Have a position? He's quick to argue against it regardless.
In truth, he would make a very good politician.
It may appear that way because of the offer for yahoo, but it was the search engine itself that interested microsoft the most in that deal. Maybe you should go Troll elsewhere because nobody seems to like you here (see all the above posts).
If you liked me, then I would be truly upset.
Don't cry because Vista, Xbox, Zune, Windows server, etc are failures. How about you stop cheerleading for an incompetent company that doesn't know why it does anything.
Those are some great failures. Big money for MS all the way around. Thank you pleas troll again.
Only one of those has ever turned a profit (Server), and even then just barely. MSOffice and XP (even now) are the only things making MSFT's money.
Quarterly profits for the Server division "even then just barely." 1 Billion dollars.
Quaterly profits from the Entertainment and Gaming division(Zune & Xbox360). 89 Million dollars.
Quaterly profits from the Clients Division(Vista) 3 Billion dollars.
My company would take those "failures" any day.
Wait, why am I arguing with a known shill?
nevermind.
They should call it "Windows Mojave Server". Microsoft has proven that everybody loves Vista when they think it's called "Mojave". Vista doesn't really have any design problems ... Microsoft just picked a bad name for it. The name "Vista" wrecked it.
http://www.mojaveexperiment.com/
Kind of like "Ishtar", "Waterworld", and "Joe Versus The Volcano". All fine movies wrecked by bad titles.
A driver model that no one can really use is not a design problem?
A heap manager that makes IE exploitable now and forever is not a design problem? Too bad MS fans don't have a clue what this means, or even what a heap is on a conceptual level. You ever wonder why technically literate people who have no vested interest in MS don't like them?
A 3D desktop graphics system that uses so much resources that only beefy systems run well on it is not a design problem?
I could go on, but people that are oblivious to Vista accept any and all punishment MS deems you deserve.
The name is not the problem, even though it is ridiculously retarded. Telling people that it is called Mpjave and let them use it for 10 minutes on a massively tweaked system is comical. It is even more comical that MS fans think it proves anything other then their own stupidity.
Was trying to keep it subtle though, so as not to be labelled a "fanboy". Guess I was too subtle, even though I supported the Mojave Excrement ... err, Experiment, and three of the most panned films in cinema history.
Many will disagree, however this 3-part Ars Technica article helps explain in exquisite detail exactly how Windows has decayed to its current state:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/what-microsoft-could-learn-from-apple.ars
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/microsoft-learn-from-apple-II.ars
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/microsoft-learn-from-apple-III.ars
=========
You misunderstand the story. We have no problem with Microsoft releasing sooner and minor, like Apple. But somebody is lying over at Microsoft. Server side says it's a quickie, minor release. (Probably the truth). Consumber side says it's a MAJOR release (probably the lie).
We wish is was MAJOR -- major in that they go back to XP with Service Pack 4 and stick areoglass on top of that. :) But instead it will probably be a minor Vista revision with lots of smoke and mirrors.
That is the only reason Apple is very relevant today. Because they had the foresight to realize they had boxed themselves in. Unlike MS they took the steps necessary to be able to move forward.
It seems you misunderstand the story. It is about Windows server not the consumer edition. Who needs/wants "areoglass" on a server?
@chazzsubscirbe:
It seems you misunderstand the story. It is about Windows server not the consumer edition. Who needs/wants "areoglass" on a server?
---------------------------------------------------------
M$ fanbois who think fista has falue?
Who needs/wants DRM on a server? Who needs/wants WGA on a server?
Hint: same answer as before.
No matter how much propagander MS puts out about Vista, the business community is not buying it.
It simply to costly to change 100 or a thousand seats and have new programs and utilities as well as printers and other hardware.
My estimate is about $1,000 per seat to move to Vista just for eye candy.
.
OTOH, it's not like Vista is making any great strides in sales...
the only thing irrelevant around here is you. Your constant stream of nothingness is like a gnat in my ear. stick to lan parties you twit, your inability to understand the business world boggles the mind. Now get to bed shill, it's way past your bedtime.
Server 2008 was such a big disappointment.
-
by Jordon Berkove
August 23, 2008 10:16 PM PDT
- Why is MS not using the kernal from08 server for 7 Desktop? Many of the best & most interesting comments are from people adopting 08 server as there desktop operating system even though the drivers are sparse and many of the programs must be the much more expensive server versions. I Think that 7 desktop should be a clean break from Vista if MS expects the true enthusiasts to hop onboard.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 48 Comments >>