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.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2007-05-20
Member since:
2008-04-02
Member since:2005-07-20
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.
Member since:2006-02-05
Member since:
2008-06-29
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
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:
2005-07-06
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
Member since:
2005-11-17
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.
Member since:
2005-07-10
