Login:
Password:

Windows Server 2008 Versions Announced, with Few Changes

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

November 12, 2007, 11:27 AM

The breakdown for the various editions of Windows Server 2008 was revealed this morning by Microsoft, and the big news there is the almost total lack of change: Retail server software editions for the next Windows Server will fall right in line with the current Windows Server 2003 R2 editions, including the number of client access licenses (CALs) provided in the basic package.

The Standard, Enterprise, and Datacenter editions will continue to retail for $999, $3,999, and $2,999 respectively, just as their 2003 R2 counterparts do today. Licensing terms will also apparently remain identical, with 5 CALs minimum for the Standard edition and 25 CALs for Enterprise. The Datacenter edition will apparently retain its hybrid licensing model, which is divided into a "server license" (per-processor) and "client license" component, since that edition was designed for installation on multi-processor clusters.

Windows Web Server Edition will continue to be a low-priced alternative, and is expected to now include a Server Core option that enables it to be installed without the overhead of a graphical environment. It will continue to be offered through an "Open NL" license arrangement (without user seats and without a box), though its price actually has risen a bit: by $70, to $469.

The one big change comes with respect to Microsoft's plan for its virtualization component, formerly code-named "Viridian." In an apparent concession to regulators who may be making sure Microsoft plays fair with respect to competitors VMware and Citrix Xen in the virtualization space, the company will be offering WS2K8 licenses without the virtualization component - now called Hyper-V - built-in.

Virtualization, of course, does not mandate a per-user license. But server administrators may have plans to use a different brand. So Microsoft will now give them the option of subtracting $28 from their retail sticker price for WS2K8 versions without Hyper-V, while at the same time the option of purchasing it again later for $28.

Today's announcements come during the first day of Microsoft's TechEd conference in Barcelona, which is typically one of the largest shows it produces in Europe, and whose current schedule includes a truckload of demonstrations of virtualization. The company had made similar plans to demonstrate Viridian last spring in the US at WinHEC in Los Angeles, but scratched those demos just hours before the company found itself announcing many of the features those demos would include were canceled.


Update ribbon (small)
3:00 pm EST November 12, 2007 - A Microsoft spokesperson notified BetaNews this afternoon that, despite the company's earlier statements that Hyper-V would be valued at $28 retail, it actually will not be available for that price. In fact, the spokesperson said, "Windows Server 2008 with Hyper-V and without Hyper-V are separate products with no upgrade path from the without Hyper-V to the full version of Windows Server 2008."

The spokesperson went on to say that a separate, virtualization-only version of Windows Server 2008 will be made available, called Microsoft Hyper-V Server. But that version will be greatly scaled down, capable only of acting in the virtualization role and no others (e-mail, Web server, file or print server, etc.). The omission even of the word "Windows" suggests that its sole function in life will be to be a hypervisor.

Hyper-V Server (as opposed to just "Hyper-V") will not be available retail, however, so presumably it will only be available to volume license and enterprise clients.

Add a Comment (18 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By TemporalBeing

posted Nov 13, 2007 - 9:08 AM

"Server Core option that enables it to be installed without the overhead of a graphical environment."

Uhh...sorry...but Windows Server Core does still carry the weight of a GUI - it's just that instead of using explorer.exe as the shell, it uses cmd.exe as the shell. So you basically log in as always, through a GUI interface, and then are presented with the command-line interface of cmd.exe. They still leave all the libraries, etc there so that applications you run from the command-line can still provide a GUI interface if they so choose. Please get your facts right.

Score: 0

By RCS

edited Nov 13, 2007 - 10:10 AM

Uhh...sorry...but Windows Server Core does NOT still carry the weight of a GUI. Its whole reason for being, is to cut down on the resources used by the GUI. Had you been paying any attention over the past few months, you would have seen that admins are angry that they won't be able to use Powershell with WSC, because Powershell requires the .NET libraries, which will not get loaded. Please get your facts right.

EDIT: Forgot the linky: http://www.microsoft.com...ver2008/servercore.mspx

Score: 0

By dlab21

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 12:34 PM

well software isn't free. so if they want it included then they can pay the extra $28.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 12:55 PM

Ahhh...

So the 100 versions of the OS bit isn't a problem for you?

Score: 0

By uberfly

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 5:19 PM

This new server OS is very modular, which makes this kind of "custom" purchase or configuration possible. I wish all software worked in this way.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Nov 12, 2007 - 6:30 PM

(Posted by the infamous MS Shill)

They are only doing this nickel and dime crap with one "module". Why? Why not just either drop the $28, or not? Why not include it on the CD as an "extra" at the very least?

If they want in the market, this ain't the way to do it. Not when VMWare is already miles ahead.

Don't want it part of the standard install for fear of "monopoly abuse"? Fine. The CD "Extra" works. Forcing the admins to explain another charge, another installation, etc... is just senseless.

Score: 0

By dlab21

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 1:51 PM

not my place to comment on how a company markets (or fails to) and sells their products.
Im sure they would be more than happy to include it and charge everyone for it and if you don't want to use it then to bad, but it would be anti-competitive.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 2:11 PM

"but it would be anti-competitive."

How so? Server virtualization is a server product. It's being included in other operating systems. If they'd been the first to do it, possibly, but they are not.

I believe many people are simply trigger-happy when it comes to Microsoft and this whole "anti-competitive" bit. It's been blugeoned into them for so long they immediately assume any action on their part fits that same bill.

IE was seen as an anti-competitive action because it was believed at the time that the browser and the OS were two separate markets. This is not the case with Server Virtualization. It is by definition part of the server OS market, so the IE bit doesn't hold.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 5:45 PM

It's because Microsoft is a monopoly that they have to follow different rules. The other operating system manufacturers don't have monopolistic power: so them bundling software is neither here nor there. I know Microsoft's presence in the server market isn't as pronounced as it is in the desktop area, but they're still a monopolistic power (particularly if you forget about web servers).

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Nov 12, 2007 - 6:31 PM

Do we really need to hold a legal class here?

He's right.

It is only an abuse of monopoly if the bundled product in question is in a different market.

The server OS and Server Virtualization are part of the SAME market. Anti-monopoly laws should not (not saying they won't be abused here themselves) be applicable.

"them bundling software is neither here nor there"

The whole claim of being anti-competitive is BASED on the bundling of products. Were you paying attention to the previous posts, or did you just see the words "monopoly", "bundling" and post?

Hint: reading the posts above the one you are replying to in a thread can do wonders.

Score: 0

By djhayman

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 9:59 PM

Serious question here -

If Microsoft are considered a monopoly for client operating system software, do they have to follow special rules for every other product they produce as well?

I fail to see how being a monopoly in the client OS arena should affect server OS components, considering the large market share of Linux-based servers out there.

Score: 0

By GordieT

edited Nov 13, 2007 - 7:50 AM

I'm glad you said "considered a monopoly". That actually makes some sense, since that's what people are posting. That they consider Microsoft a monopoly. I fail to see how that is so.

mo·nop·o·ly
–noun, plural -lies.
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5. a company or group that has such control.
6. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.

Score: 0

By djhayman

posted Nov 15, 2007 - 1:33 AM

Oh - I agree 100% that Microsoft is *not* a monopoly, but what with all the trolls around, it's hardly worth expressing that opinion out loud ;-)

I was just wondering if everybody is going to get up-in-arms (once again) over new Windows Server features, when Microsoft is nowhere near the definition of a monopoly in this market.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 12:14 PM

"The one big change comes with respect to Microsoft's plan for its virtualization component, formerly code-named "Viridian." In an apparent concession to regulators who may be making sure Microsoft plays fair with respect to competitors VMware and Citrix Xen in the virtualization space, the company will be offering WS2K8 licenses without the virtualization component - now called Hyper-V - built-in.

Virtualization, of course, does not mandate a per-user license. But server administrators may have plans to use a different brand. So Microsoft will now give them the option of subtracting $28 from their retail sticker price for WS2K8 versions without Hyper-V, while at the same time the option of purchasing it again later for $28."

???

Why not just include it on the Disc and allow the user to decide? Ya know, a modular install? Express and Custom? Why dink around with the whole $28 bit?

Score: 0

By patryks

edited Nov 12, 2007 - 12:39 PM

They would love to include it, but as soon as they do that, then they're being anti-competitive.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 12:54 PM

Leave it disabled for the "Express" install.

Problem: Solved.

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 1:22 PM

Because of the anti-competitive measure, so they have to sell it and not everyone will want it.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 2:06 PM

That only applies to products bundled, and only when the product is for a different market than the product it is bundled with.

Server virtualization is, well... a server product.

Even those who argue that web-browsing isn't an OS "feature" (The IE bundling fiasco) cannot argue that. Scratch that, I'm sure they could. Just not without looking like complete asshats.

Score: 0