FN-GM Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 I have just been told that Windows Server 2008 is to be released 27th February 08. Can anyone confirm this? Z
FN-GM Posted February 10, 2008 Author Posted February 10, 2008 (edited) Just found this looks like he was correct. The response from IT professionals and developers has been strong (over two million beta and evaluation versions have been requested) as the company moves toward the February 27 worldwide launch of Windows Server 2008, Visual Studio 2008, and SQL Server 2008. Source: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/default.aspx Look at all the versions, its like vista! - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/editions-overview.aspx Whats Hyper-V? Edited February 10, 2008 by FN-Greatermanchester
eejit Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 It's already available on MSDN - I've had it for a few days, but no 64bit hardware to test it on
Lithium Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 Hyper-V sounds like a fancy Virtual Server application http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/virtualization-consolidation.aspx 2
john Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 Yes its then, got a Vista Gadget counting down the days till Server 2008 / Vis Studio 2008 and SQL 2008. 16 Days to go But already had it since the day it hit RTM, running well on a HP Proliant Server. Its very Green
Lithium Posted February 10, 2008 Posted February 10, 2008 The tech specs list 32bit Processors min 1ghz and max of 4gb of RAM... so I would assume it is, I guess certain aspects are locked out if you aren't running on 64bit proccies. If it doesn't, surely that would seriosly hurt the adoption rate of Server 2008 - even when BECTA say its ok... 1
FN-GM Posted February 10, 2008 Author Posted February 10, 2008 I think i will download it tomrrow at work and have a play. Cheers
srochford Posted February 11, 2008 Posted February 11, 2008 The tech specs list 32bit Processors min 1ghz and max of 4gb of RAM... so I would assume it is, I guess certain aspects are locked out if you aren't running on 64bit proccies. If it doesn't, surely that would seriosly hurt the adoption rate of Server 2008 - even when BECTA say its ok... Running it on 32 bit here (in a VM) If they had made it 64 bit only I don't think it would particularly cause problems; if you're buying new servers I can't see any reason not to buy 64 bit now and this has been the case for a while. We tend not to upgrade server software during the life of a server (so we still have a small number of 2000 servers running which work fine so there's no point in the hassle of upgrading)
john Posted February 11, 2008 Posted February 11, 2008 Its in both 32 and 64bit flavours this time, and this time is the LAST time it will be, next version is 64bit only. This one was supposed to be 64bit only but they did a 32bit one.
localzuk Posted February 12, 2008 Posted February 12, 2008 It makes sense really to use this one as a transition version. Much like Vista is a transition version of the client end. XP's 64bit offering was useless. It gives companies plenty of time to alter their software to work with 64 bit and vista - thus making it work with the next release... I hope. Roll on 64bit, vista compatible SIMS.net with all it's gubbins such as System Manager...
sidewinder Posted February 12, 2008 Posted February 12, 2008 Cool, didnt realise it was being released so soon! Downloading the final version from Technet now..will put it on a physical test box rather than a VM now
apoth0r Posted February 12, 2008 Posted February 12, 2008 At a recent Microsoft Conference (5th Feb) they said they were releasing for purchase within 180 days. Microsoft well within a deadline?!?! Oh wait they were supposed to release it 3 years ago
cookie_monster Posted February 12, 2008 Posted February 12, 2008 Why did you think XP's 64bit offering was useless? It seemed to be very fast and excellent for it's purpose it's just a bit short on drivers and software neither which is the fault of the OS.
zag Posted February 12, 2008 Posted February 12, 2008 Why did you think XP's 64bit offering was useless? It seemed to be very fast and excellent for it's purpose it's just a bit short on drivers and software neither which is the fault of the OS. Was exactly the same speed as 32bit as far as I could see, no improvement at all. Seemed pointless to me.
cookie_monster Posted February 12, 2008 Posted February 12, 2008 (edited) Oh ok i had a different experience it seemed to of lost allot of baggage and was generally much faster, although i suppose allot of it depends on what you're running. Interestingly you can see that XP 64 is ver 5.2 so it's actually 2003 server. Edited February 12, 2008 by cookie_monster
localzuk Posted February 12, 2008 Posted February 12, 2008 Why did you think XP's 64bit offering was useless? It seemed to be very fast and excellent for it's purpose it's just a bit short on drivers and software neither which is the fault of the OS. Very short on drivers, major problems installing anti-virus software (when I tried it anyway, which was about 6 months after release), generally buggy and blue screened randomly. I tested it for a computer shop, and they decided not to stock it based on what I experienced... It was just terrible.
cookie_monster Posted February 12, 2008 Posted February 12, 2008 Of course it's worth remembering that almost all apps that you run will be running in WOW64 so you won't see any benefit unless you run 64bit apps. As it's based on 2003 x64 the reliability should be very good so your blue screen issues will almost certainly be down to poor drivers. Makes a good workstation but i imagin not a great general purpose machine OS. Yet
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now