“Microsoft is getting ready for what it calls its biggest IT launch in history. I’m not sure everyone will agree with that notion, but the launch of Windows Server 2008 and the next version of Visual Studio is clearly an important one for Microsoft, given that the server and tools unit has been one of Microsoft’s fastest-growing businesses in terms of sales and profits (Microsoft is also ‘launching’ SQL Server 2008 at the event, but the product itself won’t actually be ready until the second half of this year). Ahead of Wednesday’s launch, I had a chance to talk with Server and Tools boss Bob Muglia. Here are some of the highlights from our interview.”
I’m confused… Visual Studio 2008 has been gold since before christmas. MSDN subscribers could download it then, and the DVD turned up about 3 or 4 weeks ago in the post. I know he only mentions VS in passing, but it is already a shipping product, well at least to MSDN subscribers.
this is the public launch of the 2008 product line. MSDN is more private.
Microsoft Servers might not be a very wise investment(You can have a OpenBSD server for just HW -which can be far cheaper- and maintenance costs), but the Windows that runs on them is not your regular home edition with server additions. Their kernels are different. And the difference is noticeable(S2003 vs XP, anyone?)
If they really share the same code, I can tell you that the parts involved in speed, stability and memory management are full of ifdefs.
I think you can compare the hashes of the kernels and find them to be the same. It’s more a matter of what sits around the kernel that might give you a difference in perceived and real performance.
Actually Vista SP1 and WS 2008 have the same kernel.
Edited 2008-02-27 06:31 UTC
So the Vista kernel has no built-in limits in the amount of adressable phisical memory, for example? Or is that not part of the kernel now?
It looks http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/compare-specs.aspx like not even Server editions share the same code. Maybe it is a registry key? /HKEY_MACHINE/SECRET_KEY/Use_2TB_RAM
Windows Server 2003 really was a perceived and a real improvement over XP and my bet is that Server 2008 in its various flavors is too a real improvement over Vista, even when you use it for non-server applications.
Edited 2008-02-27 08:50 UTC
I don’t know, or care, because I won’t be using Vista or WS 2008. But one of the features of Vista SP1 was to upgrade the kernel to the same version used in WS 2008. Perhaps they’ve just disabled certain server features in it for Vista?
how much does thing cost ?
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/pricing.aspx
The cheapest one 999$ in the US.
No, the cheapest version is the Web Server edition, $469 (from your link).
Btw, the IIS7 comes with built-in support for FastCGI that can run PHP. It works in Server Core installation, too. Obviously it aims to compete with the LAMP.
Oops, but where’s the catch? Vista Ultimate pricing with the most bloat you get being a Web-server, and purportedly 100% Vista compatible?
Sounds like the Windows I’ll be getting for the next PC I build if Win6 isn’t obsolete by then.
MSDN has been having major stability problems, and there was a 6-hour hotmail outage last week. It all makes sense now!
[/troll]
I realize its sarcasm and you did add the [/troll] tag but some people will actually think thats true. I wish those people would realize there is more to the network than just servers themselves. Take into account routers, load balancers, and the ISP.