Microsoft's New Baby!

[leo-rcc]

R2 releases are NOT service packs. It's not Server 2008 SP2. It's Server 2008 R2. SP2 is a free update, R2 is the server version of Windows 7, which is a paid (not free) upgrade.

[Edwardo Piet]

If Adrian and Kyu really ARE going to get into a 'MY OS vs YOUR OS' battle - then I'm getting the popcorn lol.

No, we're not ... I'm ducking out rather than get into that it's pointless and it proves nothing.

Kyu

---

I was joking lol.

I know, I know - you took it as serious because what I said wasn't remotely funny. Oh well.

Note I said 'IF' and: if you are'going to get into' not; 'if you are getting into' lol

If you are going to 'duck out' you don't need to tell ME so lol I was just making a harmless joke. I know, pity it wasn't funny I tried lol.

EvF

[Demonaura]

One thing for the original topic. Firstly I have had no problems with Vista at all, runs far better for me than any OS I've used thus far but, OS choice is a rather personal thing. I mmay also be biased because every problem I've seen first hand with vista was the user doing something stupid or messing with things they don't understand. But, that's a seperate point.

One of the things work pointing out is that MS uses a particularly odd tactic for building OS. XP for example, is oft noted as the second finished OS they produced. DOS being the first. 95, 98 and 2000 (plus variants) were all building up to XP and were essentially just early versions of it. Vista would be the first progression of the next OS, Windows7 is likely just a refinement of Vistas features that they experiented with in Vista.

This method builds the company more money which of course lets them hire larger teams to work on their products. But, for the users it means you don't want to get each release nessesarily, while I have had zero issues with vista (save disabling UAC of course) it is version one of the next OS and is the experimental sandbox for the new OS. W7 should refine the features and add a few new ideas they are working on. Eventually we will have the stable version, whatever it's name and everyone will repeat the whole song and dance they did with XP and vista, whining away while talking about how upgrading is a bad idea. By this point, XP will be in our memory and used on old machines for low budget clients the same way 2000 is now.

[Rob]

R2 releases are NOT service packs. It's not Server 2008 SP2. It's Server 2008 R2. SP2 is a free update, R2 is the server version of Windows 7, which is a paid (not free) upgrade.

Paid or not, its still not significant enough to warrant its own version number. Its an upgrade to the existing solution, exactly the sort of thing a service pack offers. Which was what I was saying before. Not that it is just a service pack but like a service pack.

I suppose I'll have to evaluate it when its available, but in the mean time I'm not going to jump to s08 in anticipation.

[leo-rcc]

Windows 2003 R2 is a vastly superior server solution to Windows 2003 standard. Just because the exterior may look the same the base is completely different.

[Kyuuketsuki]

One of the things work pointing out is that MS uses a particularly odd tactic for building OS. XP for example, is oft noted as the second finished OS they produced. DOS being the first. 95, 98 and 2000 (plus variants) were all building up to XP and were essentially just early versions of it. Vista would be the first progression of the next OS, Windows7 is likely just a refinement of Vistas features that they experiented with in Vista.

That's interesting ... I always thought DOS, Win 3.1, 95, 98 & ME were regarded as the same technology whilst NT through to Vista (& W7) were regarded as another.

Kyu

[leo-rcc]

That's interesting ... I always thought DOS, Win 3.1, 95, 98 & ME were regarded as the same technology whilst NT through to Vista (& W7) were regarded as another.

That is correct, all versions from windows up to ME are DOS based, Where as NT4, 2000, XP, Win2003, Vista, 2008, etc are based on progressions of the NT kernel.