Microsoft: Windows 7 Server Is Windows Server 2008 R2????
-
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Windows-7-Server-Is-Windows-Server-2008-R2-91922.shtml Oh,I start to miss Bill now.. :doh: How do you think?:confused:
Undeniable:More information,more abilities,more energies,more time! http://www.blogjava.net/tidelgl
-
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Windows-7-Server-Is-Windows-Server-2008-R2-91922.shtml Oh,I start to miss Bill now.. :doh: How do you think?:confused:
Undeniable:More information,more abilities,more energies,more time! http://www.blogjava.net/tidelgl
Who really cares about the naming? Maybe this is a chance for Microsoft to bring together their server and consumer versions of Windows. Remember: XP and Server 2003, and Vista and Serve 2008 are different beasts. Windows Server 2008 R2, if it were an actual R2 of 2008, is not a replacement for Vista. It may, however, be a "Windows 7 Server" edition or something.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
Who really cares about the naming? Maybe this is a chance for Microsoft to bring together their server and consumer versions of Windows. Remember: XP and Server 2003, and Vista and Serve 2008 are different beasts. Windows Server 2008 R2, if it were an actual R2 of 2008, is not a replacement for Vista. It may, however, be a "Windows 7 Server" edition or something.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
and Vista and Serve 2008 are different beasts
Nope. Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008 use the same kernel (Windows Server 2008 even identifies itself as SP1), and the same updates largely apply to both operating systems. Updates are named Windows6.0-KBnnnnnn.msu. Now, there may be some combination of options that makes Windows Server 2008 'feel' nicer than Windows Vista, but a double-blind test, to remove observer and subject biases, might not show any significant result. If there was enough work in the next version of Windows to justify a 7.0 kernel number (and it wouldn't be the first Windows version) I wouldn't expect it to be designated R2. In fact the R2s have generally not had any core changes so far. Virtual Server 2005 R2 was originally going to be SP1 (R2 SP1 is a crappy naming convention) and Windows Server 2003 R2 is SP1 with some new features bolted on, as a separate install disc.
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
and Vista and Serve 2008 are different beasts
Nope. Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008 use the same kernel (Windows Server 2008 even identifies itself as SP1), and the same updates largely apply to both operating systems. Updates are named Windows6.0-KBnnnnnn.msu. Now, there may be some combination of options that makes Windows Server 2008 'feel' nicer than Windows Vista, but a double-blind test, to remove observer and subject biases, might not show any significant result. If there was enough work in the next version of Windows to justify a 7.0 kernel number (and it wouldn't be the first Windows version) I wouldn't expect it to be designated R2. In fact the R2s have generally not had any core changes so far. Virtual Server 2005 R2 was originally going to be SP1 (R2 SP1 is a crappy naming convention) and Windows Server 2003 R2 is SP1 with some new features bolted on, as a separate install disc.
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
Kernal? Kernal? I don't see Movie Maker in Server 2008. Or the Home Theatre thing. Or the intro that introduces you to the interwebz thing. If we're going to debate the differences in OSs can we please stick to the important stuff?
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP