locked
WHS like Server 2003 and Not 2008, why? RRS feed

  • Question

  • I have Server 2008, Codename "Longhorn" and it has some AMAZING features as well as the same basic graphical setup as Vista.

    Why are we developing new software around an old model when we have the 2008 Model to go off of?

    I know it is not a release yet either, but would make more since to have a WHS based off of the new system instead of the old.

    JCM
    Sunday, June 3, 2007 3:41 PM

Answers

  • At Microsoft, we can't ship a product that includes beta (CTP, RC, etc.) code of another product.  Since the first version of Windows Home Server will ship before Windows Server 2008, then we as a team had to figure out what OS to start with.  Windows Home Server has Windows Server 2003 SP2 under the covers.
    Monday, June 4, 2007 1:46 PM
  • because it is not release software yet and might not be fully stable.  WS2003 is a long-established and solid platform to base the first iteration of WHS off of and then they can migrate to 08 when the feeling has become comfortable.
    Sunday, June 3, 2007 3:58 PM
  • Personally, and please don't take offense at this, but I wouldn't want it even if W2k8 was RTM. I want a dependable platform with some miles under it rather than a brand new release of an OS that hasn't been extensively installed, tested and used. Face it, some Microsoft platforms have offered less than iron-clad reliability; however, W2k3 is out there in the industrial and government markets, and that doesn't happen until their IT pros are satisfied that the system is stable. My office's installation of W2k3 has been running fine without any hiccups in a year and a half of 24/7/365. That's remarkable, even for Microsoft, and a home user with no technical background (and no inclination to get one) will appreciate that factor. And meanwhile...
    Tuesday, June 5, 2007 12:18 PM

All replies

  • because it is not release software yet and might not be fully stable.  WS2003 is a long-established and solid platform to base the first iteration of WHS off of and then they can migrate to 08 when the feeling has become comfortable.
    Sunday, June 3, 2007 3:58 PM
  • Future versions will probably launch in-sync with the other members of the Windows Server family.  However, Home Server uses new advanced technology not available (or at least, not configured) like other members of the Home Server family. Developing Home Server on a finished platform first was a really smart idea.

    Plus, as advanced as Windows Server 2008 is, most of the new features wouldn't be used.  Graphical setup is nice, but most Home Servers will be sold in headless, pre-setup configurations.  Yes, I'm sure you'll be able to dig up a list of 100+ features that "we" would want to use... but the typical home user?

    I have access to Longhorn server... I passed it up for Home Server... it does what I need it to do in my home.
    Monday, June 4, 2007 3:38 AM
  • WHS is based on the current, released version of Windows Server.  It seems logical that any future version of WHS would be based on the current Windows Server release at that time, be it WS2003, WS2008 or whatever.
    Monday, June 4, 2007 10:51 AM
  •  Lancelot6870 wrote:
    I have Server 2008, Codename "Longhorn" and it has some AMAZING features as well as the same basic graphical setup as Vista.

    Why are we developing new software around an old model when we have the 2008 Model to go off of?

    I know it is not a release yet either, but would make more since to have a WHS based off of the new system instead of the old.

    JCM



    Granted 2008 does have some very interesting and promising new features for business application, WHS only needs an underlying OS that is proven and reliable to build upon. While 2008 will probably become this after a period of time, 2003 is established and still very current so it fits the bill quite nicely.
    Monday, June 4, 2007 12:58 PM
  • At Microsoft, we can't ship a product that includes beta (CTP, RC, etc.) code of another product.  Since the first version of Windows Home Server will ship before Windows Server 2008, then we as a team had to figure out what OS to start with.  Windows Home Server has Windows Server 2003 SP2 under the covers.
    Monday, June 4, 2007 1:46 PM
  • Personally, and please don't take offense at this, but I wouldn't want it even if W2k8 was RTM. I want a dependable platform with some miles under it rather than a brand new release of an OS that hasn't been extensively installed, tested and used. Face it, some Microsoft platforms have offered less than iron-clad reliability; however, W2k3 is out there in the industrial and government markets, and that doesn't happen until their IT pros are satisfied that the system is stable. My office's installation of W2k3 has been running fine without any hiccups in a year and a half of 24/7/365. That's remarkable, even for Microsoft, and a home user with no technical background (and no inclination to get one) will appreciate that factor. And meanwhile...
    Tuesday, June 5, 2007 12:18 PM
  •  Technogeez wrote:
    Personally, and please don't take offense at this, but I wouldn't want it even if W2k8 was RTM. I want a dependable platform with some miles under it rather than a brand new release of an OS that hasn't been extensively installed, tested and used. Face it, some Microsoft platforms have offered less than iron-clad reliability; however, W2k3 is out there in the industrial and government markets, and that doesn't happen until their IT pros are satisfied that the system is stable. My office's installation of W2k3 has been running fine without any hiccups in a year and a half of 24/7/365. That's remarkable, even for Microsoft, and a home user with no technical background (and no inclination to get one) will appreciate that factor. And meanwhile...

     

    I do tend to agree.  I do love a stable software over unproved.  I do understand the idea of not doing a beta with the underlying being also in beta. 

     

    I have ALWAYS loved SBS 2003.  I have it running in one of my servers now.   It is a far less expensive candidate for me then running the full blown server, however, still expensive for a home environment.   I currently have that server shut down and have the WHS running (2nd server)  I could not get WHS to run in the other server.  Might have been an issue with the DVD drive.   WIll have to test that later....

     

    Tuesday, June 12, 2007 2:35 AM