|
|
Windows 7 a "minor release"
Author: Gareth HalfacreePublished: 19th August 2008
Contrary to previous rumours, the Windows 7 Server release due in 2010 will be a 'minor' update to Server 2008.
According to CNet, the software giant is talking down just how important a release Windows 7 will be – on the server side, at least. Rather than getting its own version number, the server edition of Windows 7 – due for release some time in 2010 – will be known as “Windows Server 2008 R2.” Hardly a ground-breaking release if you go by the name.
Indeed, the 'update releases' usually given an 'R' suffix are described by Microsoft as integrating “the previous major release with the latest service pack, selected feature packs, and new functionality. Because an update release is based on the previous major release, customers can incorporate it into their environment without any additional testing beyond what would be required for a typical service pack.”
The differences between the Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2003 R2 were, as described above by Microsoft, minor improvements and additional functionality. The change was so minor, in fact, that R2 was distributed on two CDs – the first was a copy of Windows Server 2003, and the second was the patches and upgrades to turn it into Windows Server 2003 R2. If, as the name suggests, Windows Server 2008 R2 is going to be that little of an upgrade it does call into question all we've heard about the future Windows 7 release on both the desktop and the server.
Clarification on exactly what Windows 7 is going to be, and where it sits in terms of releases, is due at Microsoft's Professional Developers Conference in October. It looks as though we might have to wait until then to get a better idea of what is going on with Windows 7, and whether it really will spell the end for Vista.
Have you been looking forward to the release of Windows 7 and are now thrown into confusion as to whether it will really offer any improvements over Vista, or do you believe that the server and desktop versions will be sufficiently different to render this a non-issue? Share your thoughts over in the forums.
Related articles on bit-tech.net
Comments (36)Stats: 0.151 seconds
I think I'll be waiting for launch before I make up my mind about it..
just like 2000 was a huge step forward from NT and XP is like a feature enhanced version of 2000.
people never stop to hope, and they are always disappointed. just use the latest version and be happy with it!
betareleaseBut OpenOffice is free and runs on Windows and Linux, so why bother?
7 will be same or more resource "hog".
basically, a smoother, better vista (not that i mind vista. Have been running it since it came out)... at least that's my suspicion
+1
Hmmm 98SE ran pretty stable....certainly compared to 95...
(and also faster/more stable than XP before SP1)
DOS, however, doesnt run what I want to use, XP does. See my point? No point upgrading to something that uses more of my system for no gain to me.
+1
That's the point, people go on about how Windows needs a fresh start etc- Vista is the 'fresh start' in which they fixed security etc, which is why people have had all these problems with compatibility. Windows 7 will probably just build on that, add some nice cloud and touch features, and generally give people a decent enough incentive to upgrade.
no OS works flawlessly for me :p
but Vista works better than XP for me....
so +1
another +1 here.
I find the people who complain about vista being a resource hog, are the same people who complained about XP being a resource hog when it first arrived. Agreed the difference is bigger than either ME/2000 to XP than it is XP to Vista, but the points the same.
Computers move on. Vista is new, and runs very well on new hardware. Its memory management is a lot better than previous versions, and the more Ram you feed it the more it prepares stuff at boot to make everything quicker.
In 2002, you may have bought a base model car with no air-con, PAS electric windows etc and a new base model may have them. Do you go off on one how it adds loads more weight, or do you appreciate the new comfortable features and improved engine efficiency and so on....
just my 2 pence
MinWin was this radical slimmer kernel which allowed for a fully modularized kernel. According to Microsoft, Vista is already modularized (in that you can add/remove OS components or features).
The fresh start, that maintains virtually all backward compatiblity etc (thus isn't very fresh). As for the security... as someone who supports a lot of users, the only thing that the new security features are good for is teaching users not to read and just click yes... how many have moaned that the UAC is annoying, and they just click yet to get rid of it, completely defeating the point of it.
I can see Windows 7 needing even more resources than Vista, granted we may be able to get more ram etc... but why should we when its not NEEDED.
I am quite happy with 1GB for working with web designs in Photoshop, under linux (where i spend most of my time) 512MB would suffice. I don't want to have to buy more RAM just cos the OS has got a lot more bloated.
Resources are there to be used
Why would you buy a HUGE system only to have 5% of it being used 95% of the time????
http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/default.aspx
Interesting read.
But...
Why don't you get your facts straight?
The only thing holding most systems back nowadays is the hard disk. If you throw RAM at Vista, it will do its best to try and lessen that bottleneck.
I'd be interested to know exactly what tweaks will be made for Windows 7 though...
im a geek and i dont even know what they are all for.
Mmmm so it's like Windows 98SE all over again? I wonder how much we'll have to pay for the upgrade.... :|