Well, I'm an IT consultant that works for a services provider that supports MS products among others. I have no doubt most of my clients are eager to put WS08 into their environments. I've never seen so much interest in a server OS release. Now, Vista is another story. I don't see much interest in it beyond piloting and testing for the first half of 08 at least.

The spelling and number crunching are equally horrendous. If you go into the executive suite with this kind of information, you'll be laughed out of the room.
Even if your hardware is up to speed and you don't have any backend problems, you're talking truckloads of money. Very few IT people have that much faith in Microsoft to fulfil their promises. You don't have to be running a huge shop for the cash to get extremely serious. Using a phrase from the 80's drug wars: "Just say no."

Troll much?

Hi everybody
My machine runs Vista 64, and it runs very good. On the same machine I have a seperate hard drive and I am running 2008 (Beta). I would recommend it, because it runs very smoothly, has great feaatures and so far...no crashes! With the Sub $1,000 dual 2 core machine it is a bargain! When the final release arrives....definitely go for it!

...it's a server OS...

The anecdotal evidence in that direction is strong. "I understand tha major coprporate users have told Microsoft there is 'no way' they will be adopting Vista. I also hear that Microsoft is working furiously to develop a Vista succesor," wrote one user on an Internet message board.

Well, we know it's an internet forum poster...he/she can't spell for squat.

...and anecdotal evidence? Really? You're going to try and tell me that anything "anecdotal" can be called "evidence"?

In the real world, we call that wild speculation, rumormongering, and FUD.

I think more companies will go over to 2008 compared to what the deal was when 2003 came out, and I think that allot of the extras will upgrade simply because the Core versions.

IMHO there's a big gain for you when you find your own way to get free from the permanent upgrade bandwagon.

"wrote one user on an Internet message board."

You're kidding me, right? That's what counts as a legitimate source these days?

We will not be upgrading until it was forced on us. And Microsoft is pretty good at it.

Heck, we only upgraded to XP recently cos Microsoft Exchange requires Outlook 2003. And Outlook 2003 needs XP.

Most of the XP's in my company running on 256MB RAM and 40GB HDD.

Pff, then your IT staff need kicking out. Cos thats pretty pathetic.

How so? The IT department if like mine gets an allotment of funds once or twice a year, and most corporate executives don't view hardware upgrades as a priority.
So F1Racer until you are there standing in front of the CFO trying to get some funds released so you can upgrade some systems, then you shouldn't be calling any IT department pathetic.
I have worked for a major company that still has 486 with Windows 3.11 installed and running, and it even had a few OS/2 work stations as well.

I completely disagree, still running Windows 3.1 and OS/2 is pathetic. How do you expect to support an operating system that is no longer even supported by the manufacturer? It is easier trying to explain to the CFO that upgrading is cheaper in the long run due to ongoing support costs then why systems are down when windows 3.1 fails and productivity is lost.

"I have worked for a major company that still has 486 with Windows 3.11 installed and running, and it even had a few OS/2 work stations as well."

In the last 5 years? I VERY much doubt that...

Quit.

Find a better job with a company that is relevant and has realistic IT budgets.

Following on from what PC_Tool, Niro and CMSTech have said, and which I agree with, let me tell you that I've worked in IT for 25 years and the past 20 of those I have been IT Manager for an International Law firm.
I know all about asking the bosses for funds m8.
But IT is the backbone of the company and we, like many others, cannot function without it. We don't have a set budget. We buy as and when we need and the workstations we provide our staff with atm are nothing less than dual cores. They are not expensive.
Dealing with dog-slow computers is counter productive for staff and IT admins alike.

Having computers that have not been upgraded since the dark ages is nothing to brag about let me tell you.
A lot of bosses have little understanding about IT and how it needs to be maintained properly and its up to the IT staff to tell them. Next to the staff themselves, the IT is the most important thing in the company.
You`ll find bosses will find hardware upgrades a major priority once they have a major failure that causes them even the slightest inconvenience or a period of down time.

You`ll find bosses will find hardware upgrades a major priority once they have a major failure that causes them even the slightest inconvenience or a period of down time.

I've known a few who would sooner lay blame on the staff than shell out the $1200... even when it was there for the taking.

The problem lies in many of the old-guard management still around that are incredibly resistant to change. Like I said, the only real option there is to quit or wait it out until some new blood shows up. Convincing the old-guard of the need just doesn't work. Been there.

I am sure my staff would probably accuse me of the same, but at least I make sure nothing is over 3 years old. (I just don't buy the bleeding edge, damned whiners) :p

"The problem lies in many of the old-guard management still around that are incredibly resistant to change."

Yep. This doesn't happen where I work, but I have seen this in other companies. People don't want to spend on IT and yet want everything smooth, quick and working at the same time.

Your 3 years philosophy is not a bad one. Definately wouldn't want to have it more than that. We do have a couple of computers over that age but they are kept because they are used for really minimal tasks and are not in constant use.

We do have a couple of computers over that age but they are kept because they are used for really minimal tasks and are not in constant use.

Heh... Just got rid of an ancient OS/2. Sitting in the closet. Supporting an app 3 people used. I am amazed it took 3 meetings to get rid of the thing.

Personally, I'm waiting on 64bit support to improve before I roll out Vista. Bitlocker and Address Space Layout Randomizer are only available on 64bit, and if I'm going to go through the pain of migrating, I want all the benefits.

As far as server 2008 is concerned, I'm going to move mostly for virtualization. I'm going to wait for the real release of Hyper-V and if the VMs are easily moved to VS 2005 (for a fall-back in case of 2008 has issues) I'll make the leap pretty quickly.

Bitlocker works on 32-bit Vista, and I'm pretty sure that ASLR does as well. One thing that is 64-bit only is PatchGuard (kernel patch protection). (It was actually introduced with XP/2003 x64 editions.)

We're in the process of ordering some 2008 servers already. But we were beta testing stuff for quite a while.

We have clients that cumulatively have 50,000 installed Vista seats.

I have a virtual environment set up running a bunch of 2008 servers, very solid. I love the guiless Core, and I love the fact that powershell is integrated.

I heard it is based on Vista. If Vista SP2 fixes the sluggish performance of Vista SP1, I'll consider it. Otherwise I'll stick with Windows XP and Windows 2003 R2.

I'm not about to upgrade the hardware on a couple hundred servers to get a transparent border on windowed apps - any more than I'm going to upgrade a few thousand workstations for the same thing. Vista even with SP1 is crap - I have my doubts Windows 2008 server is anything special but I'll at least test it.

CDW who wants people to buy software, OSs and hardware claims some numbers based on customers that buy crap - not based on regular customers - trying to get others excited about a dud. They posted some seriously dubious info about companies upgrading to Vista as well.

"I'm not about to upgrade the hardware on a couple hundred servers to get a transparent border on windowed apps "

Uhm...Windows Core would have no GUI. I guess you forgot to read that little bit of information over the past 1.5 years or so...

Actually...by you making that comment pretty much proves you're not an admin, and if you are, I hope you're not a well payed one, because if you are well payed the company you work for is being ripped off. You need to do a little bit more research on server products before writing them off as "pretty transparent borders on my servers".

...and who are you working for ? You can't even spell 'paid'.

"I heard it is based on Vista."

You heard wrong. It does share the same kernel as Vista but that doesn't mean it is "based on" Vista.

I have never heard of a server OS being based on a desktop OS, it is always the other way around.

"and who are you working for ?"

I'm not an English or a spelling teacher...and this is not a formal forum....I'm sorry that spelling and grammar is so important to you in a place like this.

Take it as a compliment, that's the only thing he could find that his brain was capable of arguing.

It's not mate :)

I just was being lightly flippant after your unnecessarily patronising comments to CMSTech.

If you can't take it man, don't be dishing it out - or find a better way to make your point.

You're not far from wrong there as I had just woken up :)

eh...I can take it. :)

I just hate when people claim to be admins and make idiotic comments like that.

And I was chastising boe, not CMSTech. :)

lol.

Wow, a sense of humor? Here? ;)

Try an IV drip that kicks in about 30 minutes before the alarm kicks in. Works wonders. :p

(Actually nice to have someone not so easily offended show up once in a while.)

He heard right. They're the same thing (NT 6.0 SP1). Probably around 90% of the files installed by Server 2008 are also installed by Vista SP1, and are identical bit-for-bit. The remaining 10% or so would be features specific to one SKU or the other (e.g. Media Center in Vista, various services in Server, etc.)

It's exactly like the relationship between Windows 2000 Professional and Windows 2000 Server. It's UNLIKE the relationship between XP and Server 2003 (those were completely forked codebases).

Actually - the GUI is one of the features 2008 is attempting to "improve" - guess you haven't been testing it - hopefully you aren't getting "payed" much.

But had you attempted to read between the lines - Vista offers little reason to upgrade - 2008 better have more compelling reasons. Yes I know there is more to Vista than the gui - the question is - does it merit an upgrade? Many people consider Vista a downgrade. I can't afford to downgrade performance on a server.

boe, yeah sorry man :)

We've just put in a new 2003 R2 and for a flashing moment I did wonder if to wait for 2008 Server.
But nah, I'm sure we made the right move in not doing so. Although I am interested in delving into virtualisation on 2008, its way to early to upgrade. Next year maybe.

But we have beta tested it and I did like what I saw of it.

Good point about the virtualization - I'm hearing good things about it myself but my experience with it is very limited. I'll be building a new test server within a month so I'm looking forward to finding out the pluses and minuses.

Both OSes were built from the same Windows Server 2003 core.

Similarity explained.

Built on Server 2003? Well, kind of, but that doesn't explain where we are today. Here's what happened:

2001: XP (NT 5.1) ships.
2002: Work on Longhorn begins, having forked off from XP.
2002: Server 2003 is forked off from the XP codebase to become NT 5.2.
2003: Server 2003 (NT 5.2) ships.
2004: XP SP2 ships. This is NT 5.1 SP2. They port these same fixes to the NT 5.2 codebase in order to make 2003 SP1.
2004: Meanwhile, Longhorn was originally based on XP (NT 5.1) WITHOUT all the changes in XPSP2. The XPSP2 changes were huge enough that the current Longhorn codebase is extremely out-of-date, so they decide to scrap the current codebase and start over by forking the 2003 SP1 codebase. NT 5.2 SP1 was forked into NT 6.0.
2005-2006: Work on Vista/Server 2008 takes place in the same codebase (NT 6.0).
2006: Vista ships: NT 6.0 SP0.
2007: Work continues on Server 2008, as well as on Vista SP1, under version 6.0 SP1.
2008: Both Server 2008 and Vista SP1 release simeotaneously, since they are simply different SKUs of the same codebase.

The original basis on Server 2003 SP1 has nothing to do with the final result. They could have just as easily chosen to fork off Server 2008 into NT 6.1, but they decided to keep client and server in sync so that patches & future service packs can be shared between the two. This is the same as what happened with Windows 2000 (NT 5.0). This is NOT what happeend with XP & 2003 (5.1 and 5.2).