Users may need Vista to make most of Server 2008

Companies installing Windows Server 2008 may have to buy extra Microsoft software, such as Windows Vista, to use more advanced features, analyst firm Gartner has said. John Enck, research director at Gartner, said that although making additional investments would not be a barrier to using the operating system, companies should be clear that installing Windows Server 2008 could influence their future choice of software applications.

"Combining Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 in the same environment strengthens TCP/IP networking, network access protection and administering policies as well as quality of service settings. However, Windows Server also provides 'plumbing' that influences the selection of other products," he said. Enck said companies using an existing combination of Microsoft applications may find that this drives the move to Windows Server 2008.

View: Full Article @ Computer Weekly

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft in slip-up over Vista service pack

Next Story

Windows Home Server Review

15 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

hummm... windows server :
-allow and host .net?. yes on both system.
-allow domain features?... yes on both system.
-exchange or another ms bloated email server?.... yes on both system.

So, is it really need to change?

FYI network access protection will be made available on XP as well later on.

BTW n_K you clearly don't know what you're talking about, so just stop, no one here likes you. 2008 also requires higher specs because of the great new features available...

Evolution said,
FYI network access protection will be made available on XP as well later on.

BTW n_K you clearly don't know what you're talking about, so just stop, no one here likes you. 2008 also requires higher specs because of the great new features available...


i never said people here like me, if you can find a quote then do so, until them ASSUMER you can get stuffed. and the great new features... humm yes like no gui, erm... a bunch of lamesoft homeboys that will never use anything but the latest and gayest wind0ze product because your all imbred homeboys missing so much dna and when you go for job interviews for system administrators, you get turned down because they all use decent servers (*nix or bsd based) which dumbasses like you know buggar all about. go spend $2000 on server 08, im sure my old trusty IBM x330 that is `so old and wayyy to crap and slow to even think about running server 08` with white box enterprise (free may i add) will outlast you suckers by years... hell i bet its even more secure than 08, and im not even running a firewall on it and server 08 probably comes with one, not that you can turn it off, with it requiring a GUI for the stupid wizard and server 08 command line version having no gui whereas a simple `kill` command will stop any running service from the command line... Heres something you ******* can bitch about, *nix having an LS command, yeh thats right, ms love you so much they cant even add colours to command prompt because they really are thick, when really all windows is, is a dos window and you click a folder it runs a command in that dos window, unless they rewrote the, what was it, 120gb of source code, yeh 120gb, most linux source code fits to 3 CDs, 2.1gb so theres a HUGE speed difference for you already, fast and accurate MY ASS, whats the extra 117gb needed for...

`and makes you a mug for paying a high price for a pile of garbage that is inexpliticy insecure and poorly implemented with child-like coding method that only an idiot would use`

n_K said,
`and makes you a mug for paying a high price for a pile of garbage that is inexpliticy insecure and poorly implemented with child-like coding method that only an idiot would use`

That makes little sense. Windows Server is extremely complicated, well written and not purchased buy mugs...

mrmckeb said,
That makes little sense. Windows Server is extremely complicated, well written and not purchased buy mugs...

If it's so well written and perfect, why does "a certain other operating system" consistently prove that it can operate with less resources, handles most server operations faster than any Windows server, has scalability that makes the cluster version of Windows look like a joke and doesn't cost a dime?

Ah, I know - you actually need to have a grasp of real IT skills instead of having "a certification" that proves you can click the left mouse button a few times through a wizard. That's most likely what you meant with the "well written".

mrmckeb said,

That makes little sense. Windows Server is extremely complicated, well written and not purchased buy mugs...

i was referring to the vista part... windows server 2003 is great, i use it, perfect for my needs... got 2008 beta and what a piece of ****, it wouldnt even install, hell i had to get a torrent of it cos the d/l on microsoft connect didnt work, it downloaded a few mb and failed. Lets take the command line only version which needs much higher specs than server 03 with a full gui, explain that: oh oh wait, **** coding. There you go, prooven. Stop moaning
and heres a little disclaimer if it will make you happy:
These are my opinions, and actaully are fact, most people in the world agree, even microsoft, so therefore, we can see positive corrolation, hint hint

n_K said,

i was referring to the vista part... windows server 2003 is great, i use it, perfect for my needs... got 2008 beta and what a piece of ****, it wouldnt even install, hell i had to get a torrent of it cos the d/l on microsoft connect didnt work, it downloaded a few mb and failed. Lets take the command line only version which needs much higher specs than server 03 with a full gui, explain that: oh oh wait, **** coding. There you go, prooven. Stop moaning
and heres a little disclaimer if it will make you happy:
These are my opinions, and actaully are fact, most people in the world agree, even microsoft, so therefore, we can see positive corrolation, hint hint

You're the only person I've ever heard of with issues with the Server '08 beta. Since the first beta after Vista's launch, when I first started looking into it, I've seen nothing but people impressed with it, and it still had a year of development left to go. Hell, I'm running it on my home server right now, and it's great.

Higher specs because 2008 is actually 5 years older than 2003, in which time hardware changes happen too you know...

Microsoft should pull the plug on this product now because Mr n_K here is the man boy.

SK[ said,#1.7]Higher specs because 2008 is actually 5 years older than 2003, in which time hardware changes happen too you know...

Microsoft should pull the plug on this product now because Mr n_K here is the man boy.


your one clever person, although i find 2008 - 2003 is 5 meaning it is 5 years newer, how you got 5 years older I do not know, fail your gcses... oh no wait, thats not even gcses, hell its not even sats... i bet most 5 year olds could work out the answer to that question, duh
I have my old 500mhz amd k6-2 behind me, it isnt running atm but it works fine if i power it on, 128MB ram and a 5gb h/d running fedora core perfectly FINE and that hardware is... let me think, 10 yeard old, yes thats right, the developers of linux aren't a bunch of lamers that annoy you by forcing you to get un-needed system upgrades you dont need, just because some companies (probably dell) pay them to ensure it doesnt work on old hardware

n_K said,
SK[ said,#1.7]Higher specs because 2008 is actually 5 years older than 2003, in which time hardware changes happen too you know...

Microsoft should pull the plug on this product now because Mr n_K here is the man boy.


your one clever person, although i find 2008 - 2003 is 5 meaning it is 5 years newer, how you got 5 years older I do not know, fail your gcses... oh no wait, thats not even gcses, hell its not even sats... i bet most 5 year olds could work out the answer to that question, duh
I have my old 500mhz amd k6-2 behind me, it isnt running atm but it works fine if i power it on, 128MB ram and a 5gb h/d running fedora core perfectly FINE and that hardware is... let me think, 10 yeard old, yes thats right, the developers of linux aren't a bunch of lamers that annoy you by forcing you to get un-needed system upgrades you dont need, just because some companies (probably dell) pay them to ensure it doesnt work on old hardware

in a war against your machine a new windows server machine that you despise so much, i'm putting my money on the windows server is more secure, powerful and useful.

balupton said,
in a war against your machine a new windows server machine that you despise so much, i'm putting my money on the windows server is more secure, powerful and useful.

well in theory my CPU speed will be higher and I will have more RAM because server 08 will hog much more to provide the same features... Yes its been updated, but my firewall uses a minimal amount of ram and cpu and works fine on server 03 (BTW its a quad server and still server 08 wont install, shows how much dell or whoever has paid them) so no, i completely disagree with your point