Sign in
Microsoft.com
 
Microsoft
 
 
 

locked
ISO files on MSDN? RRS feed

 > 

  • Question

  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    Any idea when the install disk will appear on MSDN?  It's been several weeks since it went RTM.

     

     

    - Daryl

    Thursday, August 2, 2007 2:49 PM

Answers

  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    If you search there is already a discussion on this, but it has been stated that WHS v1 will not appear on MSDN.

     

    Gordon

    Thursday, August 2, 2007 3:06 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
     Daryl wrote:

    it has been stated that WHS v1 will not appear on MSDN

     

    That's outrageous.  I hope someone from the WHS team is reading this forum and can talk some sense into these people.

     

    The dev group I'm part of spends over $20,000 a year on MSDN Universal subscriptions (soon to be "Visual Studio Premium" or whatever they've renamed it at $2,600 a pop).

     

    Now Microsoft is telling us in effect, "Send someone to go stand in line at Circuit City and shell out another thousand dollars per unit if you want to develop for WHS.  By the way, the machines won't be usable for anything else."

     

    If Microsoft wants professional development shops to write professional software for WHS, not just hobbyists running Visual Studio Express, they had best get an ISO onto MSDN.  I thought that's what we were paying five-figure annual subscription fees for.



    Those with unrealistic expectations are often disappointed.

    There's a WHS SDK, for the meantime.

    You can say "they best" do something but they've already said they're not. Your ultimatum and demands mean nothing.


    Good luck with that...

    Thursday, August 2, 2007 6:16 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    That is a pretty ridiculous thing to say, Daryl. 

     

    For a start, WHS won't be anything near a thousand dollars. Secondly, it will be available on 6 month eval, which is plenty of time to write something at no cost. Indeed, you can d/l the RC and start now for free. Thirdly, if the minimal cost of WHS is more important than the cost of Windows Server, Vista, SQL Server, Sharepoint, Office et al then maybe MS should give WHS away and charge for the other stuff.

     

    By the way, the machines will be useful for all sorts of other things - remote access, easy backup, sharing media, etc etc and will be available as OEM software so no need to send someone out to queue for it.

    Thursday, August 2, 2007 7:20 PM

All replies

  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    If you search there is already a discussion on this, but it has been stated that WHS v1 will not appear on MSDN.

     

    Gordon

    Thursday, August 2, 2007 3:06 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    it has been stated that WHS v1 will not appear on MSDN

     

    That's outrageous.  I hope someone from the WHS team is reading this forum and can talk some sense into these people.

     

    The dev group I'm part of spends over $20,000 a year on MSDN Universal subscriptions (soon to be "Visual Studio Premium" or whatever they've renamed it at $2,600 a pop).

     

    Now Microsoft is telling us in effect, "Send someone to go stand in line at Circuit City and shell out another thousand dollars per unit if you want to develop for WHS.  By the way, the machines won't be usable for anything else."

     

    If Microsoft wants professional development shops to write professional software for WHS, not just hobbyists running Visual Studio Express, they had best get an ISO onto MSDN.  I thought that's what we were paying five-figure annual subscription fees for.

    Thursday, August 2, 2007 5:10 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
     Daryl wrote:

    it has been stated that WHS v1 will not appear on MSDN

     

    That's outrageous.  I hope someone from the WHS team is reading this forum and can talk some sense into these people.

     

    The dev group I'm part of spends over $20,000 a year on MSDN Universal subscriptions (soon to be "Visual Studio Premium" or whatever they've renamed it at $2,600 a pop).

     

    Now Microsoft is telling us in effect, "Send someone to go stand in line at Circuit City and shell out another thousand dollars per unit if you want to develop for WHS.  By the way, the machines won't be usable for anything else."

     

    If Microsoft wants professional development shops to write professional software for WHS, not just hobbyists running Visual Studio Express, they had best get an ISO onto MSDN.  I thought that's what we were paying five-figure annual subscription fees for.



    Those with unrealistic expectations are often disappointed.

    There's a WHS SDK, for the meantime.

    You can say "they best" do something but they've already said they're not. Your ultimatum and demands mean nothing.


    Good luck with that...

    Thursday, August 2, 2007 6:16 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    That is a pretty ridiculous thing to say, Daryl. 

     

    For a start, WHS won't be anything near a thousand dollars. Secondly, it will be available on 6 month eval, which is plenty of time to write something at no cost. Indeed, you can d/l the RC and start now for free. Thirdly, if the minimal cost of WHS is more important than the cost of Windows Server, Vista, SQL Server, Sharepoint, Office et al then maybe MS should give WHS away and charge for the other stuff.

     

    By the way, the machines will be useful for all sorts of other things - remote access, easy backup, sharing media, etc etc and will be available as OEM software so no need to send someone out to queue for it.

    Thursday, August 2, 2007 7:20 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

     SME wrote:
    Those with unrealistic expectations are often disappointed.

     

    I didn't realize my expectations were unrealistic.  Here's the product description for MSDN Universal (link):

    • Microsoft servers test platform - development and test versions of the latest Microsoft servers
    • Microsoft Operating Systems, SDKs and DDKs - the complete set of Microsoft Operating systems

    This begs the question: If WHS is neither an operating system nor a server, what is it exactly?  Or is Microsoft just reneging on their promises?

     

    SME, is it "unrealistic" for companies to assume that Microsoft will provide the service they agreed to, rather than trying to nickel and dime them after they've already paid?

     

     Crash2975 wrote:
    if the minimal cost of WHS is more important than the cost of Windows Server, Vista, SQL Server, Sharepoint, Office et al then maybe MS should give WHS away and charge for the other stuff.

     

    If the cost of WHS is "minimal", then why is Microsoft trying to welch on their MSDN subscribers and make them pay for it a second time?

     

     Crash2975 wrote:
    By the way, the machines will be useful for all sorts of other things - remote access, easy backup, sharing media, etc etc

     

    You must be joking.  You think corporate environments and professional developer shops will backup their data on Windows Home Server, when they're not testing software on it?  Are you nuts?

     

    These things won't even fit in on a rack in our machine room, for goodness sake.

    Thursday, August 2, 2007 10:15 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
     Daryl wrote:

     SME wrote:
    Those with unrealistic expectations are often disappointed.

     

    I didn't realize my expectations were unrealistic.  Here's the product description for MSDN Universal (link):

    • Microsoft servers test platform - development and test versions of the latest Microsoft servers
    • Microsoft Operating Systems, SDKs and DDKs - the complete set of Microsoft Operating systems

    This begs the question: If WHS is neither an operating system nor a server, what is it exactly?  Or is Microsoft just reneging on their promises?

     

    SME, is it "unrealistic" for companies to assume that Microsoft will provide the service they agreed to, rather than trying to nickel and dime them after they've already paid?

     


    Oh, you want to play the semantics game? OK.

    Microsoft Operating Systems, SDKs and DDKs - the complete set of Microsoft® operating systems, including Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP

    Does it say, "including everything in teh future forever and ever?" Does it even say, "including WHS?"

    Why didn't you provide the complete quote? NM, we know. The fact is, MS has the *right* to exclude anything it wants, despite your rant. I'm sure there's legalese to support that. Wink

    EDIT:
    Check this link out:
    http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/developers/products/msdnsubscription/comparison.aspx

    Do you see WHS there?



    Hope that helps...

    Thursday, August 2, 2007 10:49 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    It won't be available on MSDN for the forseeable future, and that's that. You can jump up and down all you like, but it won't be there at launch. I'm sure there are valid reasons, to which neither you nor I are party, as to why it'll not be there at launch, but we'll have to wait and see what happens later on. Nobody's said it'll never be available.

     

    You can download it for free and use it for whatever you need for 6 months. How is that different from downloading it from MSDN for free and using it for whatever you need? If it times out, install it on a fresh VM. You'll be doing that enough times if you're developing anyway.

     

    "These things" would fit on a rack in your machine room if you chose to install it on one. As I said, it is available now and on release in software-only form. 

     

    I don't expect "corporate environments and professional developer shops" will backup their data on WHS, but it's not designed for them - and corporates wouldn't get the DVD out of the slip case even if they had a copy.

    Thursday, August 2, 2007 11:10 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
     Crash2975 wrote:

    You can download it for free and use it for whatever you need for 6 months.



    Very well said except, I thought they said the RTM Eval was only 120 days instead of 180 days like the betas. It'll still be available and, as you said, they can re-install it, for development, even on rackmount HW.

    Thursday, August 2, 2007 11:35 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
     SME wrote:
    Very well said except, I thought they said the RTM Eval was only 120 days instead of 180 days like the betas. It'll still be available and, as you said, they can re-install it, for development, even on rackmount HW.
    I can't find the quote, but yes, the eval will be 120 days. Note that if you want to keep installing it, you'll need to keep obtaining new product keys, just like you would have to do with RC1.
    Friday, August 3, 2007 12:25 AM
    Moderator
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    Thanks, both

    Friday, August 3, 2007 12:34 AM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
     Daryl wrote:

     SME wrote:
    Those with unrealistic expectations are often disappointed.

     

    I didn't realize my expectations were unrealistic.  Here's the product description for MSDN Universal (link):

    • Microsoft servers test platform - development and test versions of the latest Microsoft servers
    • Microsoft Operating Systems, SDKs and DDKs - the complete set of Microsoft Operating systems

    This begs the question: If WHS is neither an operating system nor a server, what is it exactly?  Or is Microsoft just reneging on their promises?

     



    Daryl, I agree with you.

    People can say there are alternatives to getting what we paid for with our MSDN subscriptions, and that we shouldn't be disappointed. Their bottom line seems to be caveat emptor when dealing with MSFT. Their point is well taken.

    Flatus
    Friday, August 3, 2007 8:37 PM
  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote
     Flatus wrote:


    People can say there are alternatives to getting what we paid for with our MSDN subscriptions, and that we shouldn't be disappointed. Their bottom line seems to be caveat emptor when dealing with MSFT. Their point is well taken.

    Flatus


    The problem is that you (and others) think you paid for more than you did. As I said, unrealistic expectations often lead to disappointment.

    Good luck...


    Friday, August 3, 2007 9:08 PM