- This topic has 9 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
-
Microsoft has confirmed that Server version on Windows 7 will be called as Windows Server 2008 R2. Meanwhile, this windows 7 server version will not be major update or release compare to current Windows Server 2008 OS.
This has added a lot of confusing why the Windows 7 Server edition call as Windows Server 2008 R2. However, Zdnet Marey Jo blog has an anonymous reader comment as below :
“Okay, I don’t know how someone on our side could have miscommunicated this or if you are purposely reporting this incorrectly, but let’s be clear on this: Windows 7 Server is and has always been Windows Server 2008 R2.
“Furthermore, Windows 7, despite it’s rather pretentious sounding code name (a result of Sinofsky’s like of big round numbers) is NOT Windows NT 7, but rather 6.1(current builds are numbered 67xx as a direct continuation of the longhorn codebase). Put simply, it is not a big jump as a codebase revision and the new changes, on both the client and server, will be focused on user features, not core OS components. The big core OS changes are WDDM 2 and a kernel scheduler update to remove the simple bitmask enumeration of processors so that the OS can schedule more than 64 concurrent threads.
“Finally, and I can’t be more clear on this, ‘Windows 7? client and Windows Server 2008 R2 will RTM simultaneously (and just so you are 100% clear on this) and are based on exactly the same codebase (just as Vista SP1 and Server 2008 are based on an identical core OS codebase).
“As for the next major release (meaning a full revision of the NT codebase) that will not occur until well after the current Win7 wave.”
Plus more, the Microsoft spokesman confirmed that server version of Windows 7 will be release was due sometime in 2010, Microsoft said.
For me, this Windows naming has confusing a lot of Windows user. So, do you think about this naming problem ?
Via Zdnet
When I found out that Windows 7 isn’t even Windows 7, and that Microsoft are just being retarded again with their naming convention of consumer OS’s, I was seriously about to CRY.
NO IM NOT JOKING.
I was so looking forward to having NT v7.0 kernel to fiddle around with :'(
I guess this is the reason how they managed to pull the release date from the initial 2011 to 2009 😛
@JonusC wrote:
When I found out that Windows 7 isn’t even Windows 7, and that Microsoft are just being retarded again with their naming convention of consumer OS’s, I was seriously about to CRY.
It is the 7th Windows release to use the NT kernel if you count XP 64-bit (it did have a modified WS2003 kernel so its not a far stretch), Windows 2000, XP, XP 64-Bit, WS2003, Vista, WS2008 and then Windows 7.
Yeah, its the Seventh Version of Windows. Marketing wise. But there was a Windows NT 3.x and NT 4.x too remember! But Windows 7.. with a NT 6.1 kernel… 😮 It’s just a marketing name. I mean really – “Vista” got so much flak when it was announced. Well it still does haha.
Windows 1.x
Windows 2.x
Windows 3.x
Windows 3.x NT
Windows 4.x [95, 98, ME]
Windows 4.x NT
Windows 5.0 NT [Windows 2000]
Windows 5.1 NT [Windows XP]
Windows 5.2 NT [Windows 2003]
Windows 6.0 NT [Vista and 2008]
Windows 6.1 NT [WINDOWS 7!?!?!?!]It’s the first time they’ve actually given it a plain ol’ number since Windows 3.11 it’s so wierd! Well, except for 9x but thet resembled the years really didn’t they much like 2000 and so on 😉
I guess this is kind of a good thing. Because us users of Server 2008 can probably upgrade to R2 without having to do a full reinstall, and hopefully many of our workstation conversion stuff will still be relevant and/or useful 🙂
@malik22 wrote:
Does it use less ram then server 2008?
I highly doubt it! Well maybe, never say never of course – but Micro$oft releasing a new major OS using LESS than the last one!?! That’d be a very welcome first! However I remember reading that some MS guy said something along the lines of “All PC’s which are Vista certified will be able to run Windows 7 straight out of the box at a similar speed, if not faster”. Interesting.
@valorisa wrote:
A new link :
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?***CENSORED***Umm… I checked it out… Question 01) Is that real? 😮 Question 02) I noticed there are no “Forum Rules” per se that Arris has written up… but I think he might have something to say about that link….. 😯
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
