Windows 7 Server to be 'minor release'

Microsoft said on Monday in the US that the server version of Windows 7 would not be a major release and will bear the name Windows Server 2008 R2. In the past, Microsoft has used R2 monikers to signify a product with a few new features, as opposed to major changes to a product. Microsoft declined to discuss what will be in Windows Server 2008 R2, but a spokesman confirmed that it is the server version of Windows 7. The release was due sometime in 2010, Microsoft said.

The server move calls into question just how different Windows 7 is going to be from Windows Vista on the desktop side. Steven Sinofsky, the head of development for the desktop version of Windows, has said that Windows 7 on the PC side would not make major changes to things like the kernel and driver model, but has maintained that it would be a major release of Windows.

Microsoft has said that the desktop version of Windows 7 would include a new multitouch interface, but has not talked about other features. The software maker confirmed its naming plans, following a report by ZDNet.com blogger Mary Jo Foley. Initially Foley reported that Microsoft was skipping its minor R2 release and moving straight to its next major release. However, Microsoft clarified that it indeed saw Windows 7 on the server side as a minor release.

View: Full Article @ ZDNet Australia

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft hints at "private browsing" feature in IE

Next Story

UK to invest in massive 'spy' database

31 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

What too many people fail to realise is that under the hood, Vista is a great upgrade. For the skeptical ones, you know how Server 2008 is being hearalded as "what vista should have been"? Well that's actually Vista under the hood with a few different features thrown in.
Windows 7 could be an excellent OS, all they have to do is take the bad points of Vista and fix them and everyone should be happy.

Who cares what kind of release it's going to be. Are you oh so desperate to upgrade your operating system? I'm still using XP. I don't even care about Windows 7.

Agreed. Vista and Windows 7 can rot in OS hell for all I care.

XP does everything I need it to do, and I'm already familiar with the GUI. If Microsoft would have given us the option to run Vista with the 2000/XP GUI I might have transitioned to it. But, no: They HAD to force everyone to learn a whole new menu system that didn't need to be there. They re-aranged everything when nothing needed to be re-aranged, and that's very annoying.

You add to that that there's nothing new or compelling enough in Vista to make me need to buy it, and is it any wonder that I'm sticking with XP? Why spend money on something you don't need?

(Airlink said @ #12.1)
Agreed. Vista and Windows 7 can rot in OS hell for all I care.

XP does everything I need it to do, and I'm already familiar with the GUI. If Microsoft would have given us the option to run Vista with the 2000/XP GUI I might have transitioned to it. But, no: They HAD to force everyone to learn a whole new menu system that didn't need to be there. They re-aranged everything when nothing needed to be re-aranged, and that's very annoying.

You add to that that there's nothing new or compelling enough in Vista to make me need to buy it, and is it any wonder that I'm sticking with XP? Why spend money on something you don't need?


I guess I don't understand the point to continue using software that is almost 8 years old. Yes vista wasn't that great when it came out, but right now it's really good. I don't use it as I use windows 2008 server 64, but it's still mostly vista. I don't understand why people really think that they can continue to use Windows XP for about two, or three more years. Vista runs great with 4gigs of ram and atleast 2.4gig dual core. That's really cheap hardware, and I mean if you can't run vista then it's probably time to upgrade anyway.

I hate to say it, but Windows 7 client is beginning to sound like a minor release indeed. With both the Server and Client expected to RTM the same time, it pretty much adds up that Windows 7 will actually be version 6.1. The reason I am hearing for the code name is because Steve Sinofsky likes whole numbers, but at the same time, it just does not add up why you would call the codename 'Windows 7', unless the Windows Team is considering it a 7th release of the Windows product, not technically a 7th 'version' of the NT kernel itself. We must take into account, Microsoft stop using the NT version in its branding with the release of Windows 2000 which was 5.0, XP 5.1, Server 2003 5.2.

Here is the problem I just discovered after writing the above, Microsoft could not use that logic, since it would mean that XP was the 6th release of Windows, Vista the 7th and 7 being the 8th.

Microsoft needs to explain themselves. If it continued with the 6.1 version by Beta 1, its definitely a Vista R2 release.

I believe that Microsoft are out of ideas about new release of Windows and now they are trying to add new skins, beauty visuals but nothing really from scratch, they are just releasing the same crap WINDOWS NT with the same register and new themes, new security, new tools and really nothing new to me. I am really glad that I switched to another platform which have much better performance and security than the Windows platform, I am tired of the same bull****.

(Lasker said @ #10.1)
I believe that Microsoft are out of ideas about new release of Windows and now they are trying to add new skins, beauty visuals but nothing really from scratch, they are just releasing the same crap WINDOWS NT with the same register and new themes, new security, new tools and really nothing new to me. I am really glad that I switched to another platform which have much better performance and security than the Windows platform, I am tired of the same bull****.

Right right, because tacking a candy-coated shell on top of a 1960s OS is oh-so-innovative, right? Regardless, I'm glad you 'Switched' too.

I feel that if windows 7 just does some minor improvements i would be happy. Vista is a great start and they should continue what vista did and continue to get rid of more legacy support. Fix the performance (even though i dont have this performance problem) and they should be fine.

Microsoft could make changes to explorer, photo software, search, Aero, services, etc.

That's all I expect with the short time they have to produce it. It will be Vista R2.

Windows 7 is just a code name, it's just the 7th OS developed, the real name is still unrevealed...
The version could be 6.1

(UAC said @ #7.1)
Windows 7 is just a code name, it's just the 7th OS developed, the real name is still unrevealed...
The version could be 6.1

Isn't Vienna a codename?

How people have such short memories Windows 7 was supposed to be an entirely new OS, based off of a "micro kernel". With the failure of Vista, MS probably decided they had to take action quickly and couldn't afford to develop yet another OS from scratch (see Vista's seemingly endless delays). Their plan is now to pare down Vista's kernel and make the whole OS more modular.

FYI -- I have preferred Windows OS's for a while, and I develop for Windows OS's. Vista is imploding under its own weight (too many legacy APIs, too many new APIs that have little reason to exist other than as something shiny & new). There is good reason the market is rejecting Vista, and it has little to do with the extreme fanatics of any camp. Personally I think Linux will establish an irreversible foothold due to this Vista debacle. It'll be painful, but in the end the market will be better for it.

Boho,

I'd hardly call the 95/NT days "great", at least not in terms of Microsoft's image. Windows 95 was the butt of many jokes back then, though the market wasn't nearly as competitive. The Linux/OSS movement was still in its infancy and was regarded as a geeky niche. Mac OS, while a somewhat viable competitor, was tethered to a piece of hardware that had non-standard ports, could only run one OS, and had very limited overall software support - especially in the games arena. Not to mention that many analysts and industry pros were uncertain of the future of Apple. No, I'd say that Windows 95 was really the only choice for most users. On the corporate level, NT4 was more of a "me too" effort than anything else. It built on the mostly stable, though immature and quirky, foundation of the NT 3.x line...but for all the new features it brought and the quirks it fixed, it also brought in a whole new array of issues.

I'd say to look beyond the desktop for a moment - there's already a healthy amount of competition going on there; market forces should do their thing and hopefully Microsoft will wise up and restructure their desktop efforts. On the server end, things are a bit different. Since the release of 2000, MS has done a phenomenal job of ramping up its server offerings. NTDS..err..Active Directory, which many of us scoffed as an eDirectory wannabe, has evolved beautifully - now greatly surpassing Novell's offering and then some. No doubt that Microsoft has scored points with all but the biggest *nix stalwarts and MS bigots throughout the past few years - compare that to their laughable offerings of a little over a decade ago.

Yes, the company and their codebase has gotten undoubtedly bloated. This happens to everyone. Don't forget that Microsoft is competing on many fronts. The consumer desktop, the enterprise desktop and data center, the living room, the pocket....the list goes on. What's the OSS movement focusing on? How about Sun? Novell? Apple? Exactly. If I could address MS's board, I'd tell them to strongly consider "Microsoft Home", "Microsoft Entertainment", "Microsoft Business Core" as the mediating branch between: "Microsoft Small Business" and "Microsoft Enterprise".

Just my 78 cents.

-Berz

I think that the Windows 7 client will be a minor release as well. I think their strategy is basically wait for hardware to catch up with Vista's requirements and then release Windows 7 with few extra features so that the performance is accepted.

They really hit a problem with Vista and the popularity of netbooks hence the extension of XP's life cycle for them. It would be nice if they addressed this and made Windows more modular.

Microsoft is doing what Bill Gates feared most... turning into IBM! :nuts:

With the shear quantity of code involved with Vista Win2008 Microsoft are bogged down. Their software bloat has grown just as (discontented) employee has bloated, this is widely recognised. Microsoft is unable to employ the best and brightest (as acknowledged by Gates and Ballmer over the last few years). When Vista / Win2008 was panned (by many) their SECOND reaction was to immediately talk up Windows 7.

Those working in the Microsoft Windows IT sector (most of us! ) are quite mature, and have heard all the waffle and empty promises, time and again. Microsoft O/S is not finished yet, but you only have to look at their stock price, and dividends over the last 5 years, to realise where they are headed. Microsoft are stuck with a legacy (we still run Win2000, and have no need to change), they are never likely to see the heady days of Win95 / WinNT / Win2000 again. They are now just "holding the fort", and not doing a great job! Microsoft is going the way of the US economy (and as we British did in the first part of the 20th century) "Night Night Vienna!"

(boho said @ #3)
Microsoft is doing what Bill Gates feared most... turning into IBM! :nuts:

With the shear quantity of code involved with Vista Win2008 Microsoft are bogged down. Their software bloat has grown just as (discontented) employee has bloated, this is widely recognised. Microsoft is unable to employ the best and brightest (as acknowledged by Gates and Ballmer over the last few years). When Vista / Win2008 was panned (by many) their SECOND reaction was to immediately talk up Windows 7.

Those working in the Microsoft Windows IT sector (most of us! ) are quite mature, and have heard all the waffle and empty promises, time and again. Microsoft O/S is not finished yet, but you only have to look at their stock price, and dividends over the last 5 years, to realise where they are headed. Microsoft are stuck with a legacy (we still run Win2000, and have no need to change), they are never likely to see the heady days of Win95 / WinNT / Win2000 again. They are now just "holding the fort", and not doing a great job! Microsoft is going the way of the US economy (and as we British did in the first part of the 20th century) "Night Night Vienna!" :cry:

Take your meds. Hardly any of that made any sense, and what did is wrong. Employee bloat? Are you suggesting we need to send some Gas-X to the Redmond compound? You do understand how the stock market works, yes? A million shares at $5 is worth more than a hundred at $10. They have MUCH more stock issued than other companies.

windows 7 client is minor too

that why it will bear a lot of stuffs with vista

should we says vista R2

Very true from a technical point of view and if Vista was a popular and widely accepted OS then I'm sure that would be how they are selling it. The fact that Vista has gotten a bad reputation is why they are claiming Windows 7 Client/Desktop is a major release; they want to distance it from Vista in the public's eyes. It is all about marketing. Both Server and Desktop use the same Kernel so the fact that one is minor and the other is 'major' is proof that it’s nothing but a marketing ploy.

OF COURSE They aren't going to divulge features this early on!! Did you see what happened last time they did that? (FAIL! - and vista has a bad image because of it - and it doesn't deserve that)

Good stuff Microsoft, don't promise us features, then don't deliver. It's like a surprise birthday present or something, it's really not exciting if you get told before you get to open it.