Microsoft: Server version of Windows 7 this year
SAN FRANCISCO--Windows Server boss Bill Laing said in an interview Friday that the server version of Windows 7 will ship this calendar year.
Using a little bit of deduction, I'd say that means Windows 7 continues to be tracking ahead of schedule. Although Laing's comments referred to Windows Server 2008 R2 and not to the desktop version, server products traditionally ship after desktop operating systems based on the same code base, owing to greater testing needs.
"We've really been executing," Laing said, noting that although the R2 product is a relatively minor release for the server unit, it still packs more features than he would have expected a year and a half ago.
As was the case with Windows 7, Microsoft shipped a beta version of the server update in January, after sharing it with some early customers in December. The next version, a release candidate, is due soon. Laing wouldn't say whether it would ship by next month, as is being speculated on the desktop side of things.
"I'm not sure yet," Laing said. "It's not far away, but we don't have a final date yet."
Microsoft's desktop unit has tried to give itself a lot of wiggle room by not committing to launch Windows 7 this year, although it has been working toward that goal for months. I've heard that the company plans to finalize the code as early as June if all goes well with the release candidate.
A spokeswoman for the desktop Windows unit did not immediately have any update to Microsoft's longstanding official comment, which is that Windows 7 will ship by next January.
I chatted with Laing about a number of other topics during an hour-long meeting Friday, including prospects of a Sun-IBM merger, the sorry state of the server market as well as the story behind Microsoft's new version of Windows for cheap servers. I should have more on all that shortly.
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. 
On the desktop, it's a whole new Operating System than Vista. Completely different.
But on the server, it's barely an R2 release?
I'm just hoping Windows 7 has less DRM issues than Vista, which is what stopped me from using it. I don't like downgrading the resolution of my pictures and videos just because I don't have a new monitor.
MS is keeping Vista 'bad' just to present Seven as the good.
So yes, I'd take a photo with a 17MP camera and view it on analog, I want to know what it's going to look like in print.
abcd9009, MS have already stated that it's an artificial number for stoopid programs which would have a fit if they saw any major version number for Windows above 6. If you're going to criticise, make it accurate.
It's 2009 now, the vast majority of professional design houses have switched to LCDs a long time ago. Look at the high-end pro monitors from Eizo, Lacie, NEC, etc., virtually 100% of them are LCD.
Even specialty reference monitors, which require the utmost color accuracy, have switched to LCDs. See the Barco RHDM-2301 for example. Or the eCinema DPX line. These LCDs easily beat CRTs in terms of gamut, contrast, black level, etc.
Especially now that we live in HD world, no one is going to stick with CRT for much longer because CRTs can't even reproduce the HD color gamut (i.e., Rec 709 color space).
If you take a photo with a 17mp camera and have to view it "on analog", it just means you have no idea what you're doing.
This current tech rolled out like this....
Vista (thanks for paying to be a beta tester)
Vista SP1 and Windows 2008 server same kernel (Vista RTM, thanks for helping test 2008 with Vista RTM)
Vista SP2 and Windows 2008 SP2, 99% of the code base for 7.
Windows 7 and Windows 2008 R2 same kernel.
They want you to think that 7 is way far away from Vista. They dont want you to think that with 2008 vs 2008 R2, corporate users dont like to deploy the latest and greatest server technology.
they can release all the SKUs this year at the same time. happy spending money
on crap...
Here is an idea for you... Actually install a windows client and a windows server. Then try to make an intelligent comment.
Now, I'll be the first to say that I run Linux on servers because I get more for less but this guy's just ridiculous (and yes, sometimes Windows Server is necessary anyway).
I actually have found the opposite; My windows servers have been extremely reliable while my Linux servers are prone to issues. Maybe this is just due to ease in which you can screw a Linux server with a typo.
You should confuse "OS up time" with "operational time". I find Windows better...other may have different experiences but not me.
If all they've had to do it implement under-the-hood changes to support newer features rather than making major alterations to what's already there then I guess they would want to take the opportunity to make it easier for customers to have full Windows 7 support on their networks as and when they want it by making it available for the full lifecycle.
Keep a consumer on the same product for too long and you get another XP, Server 2003 fiasco
- by headshotted April 19, 2009 9:54 AM PDT
- im waiting for applerocks to come in this conversation. he's gonna mess this delightful post all up.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(26 Comments)boo for trolls(applerocks1963)