Jump to content

Talk:Windows Server

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Windows 2025

[edit]

It's out https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/blog/2024/11/04/windows-server-2025-now-generally-available-with-advanced-security-improved-performance-and-cloud-agility/

Windows 2000

[edit]

Did Microsoft really ever refer to Windows 2000 Server as Windows Server? Josh 20:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the "Windows Server" brand came out tin 2003 with the introduction of windows server 2003. however seing as hough NT 4 is listed here it should be included. --Charles E. Keisler (talk), Network+ 17:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows NT Server

[edit]

Why is Windows NT Server not listed in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.50.124 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 22 March 2014‎ (UTC

There's no such thing as "Windows NT Server". The article now mentions NT 3.1 Advanced Server, NT 3.5 Server, NT 4.0 Server, and W2K Server, although they didn't use the "Windows Server" brand, they just used brands that had both "Windows" and "Server" in them, but not consecutively. Guy Harris (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Windows MultiPoint Server 2010

[edit]

Paul Thurott depicted this as another Windows Server line: Windows MultiPoint Server 2010-Supersite Blog

And indeed, it does use Windows Server CALs. Can someone contribute because I'm on the fence on whether it's really Windows Server. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to category?

[edit]

This is more like a category rather than an article.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. We already do have a category. If it looks like a category to you, it sure doesn't looks so to a person who looks for actual information and searches "Windows Server". It is a stub and should remain a stub. Fleet Command (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Home Server

[edit]

It seems implicit that Windows Home Server is not part of the Windows Server brand, yet a clear proof of the distinction would be appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by MessCoder (talk • contribs) 23:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Server 1709

[edit]

Hello, guys

It has been suggested that Windows Server 1709 is NOT a feature update for Windows Server 2016, but a major new version of Windows Server. What has given ground to this suspicion is simply the fact that Microsoft has not called it "Windows Server 2016 version 1709" as it does to Windows 10. (The reason Microsoft did that is common sense. This phrase is an oxymoron.)

I am afraid that is no correct. Please see:

  • Microsoft Lifecycle Policy database for Windows Server
  • "Installing Nano Server". Windows Server 2016 Center. Microsoft. 6 September 2017.
  • windowsserver.com
  • Microsoft Evaluation Center for Windows Server

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about this quote?

Windows Server, version 1709 is not an update to Windows Server 2016. Instead, it is a new release in a different channel with a different support model.

--Lonaowna (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lonaowna: I am surprised you actually asked this question. The very next sentences tell you exactly what it means:

To move from Windows Server 2016 (or previous versions) to Windows Server, version 1709 you’ll need to run a clean install. In-place upgrades are not supported as Windows Server 2016 is a LTSC release and version 1709 is a Semi-Annual Channel release and they have different support models.

This is exactly the case with different LTSB releases of Windows 10: To move from Windows 10 LTSB 2015 to Windows 10 LTSB 2016, you need to perform a clean install.
But then there is prose in that same page that tell you Windows Server 2016 and Windows Server version 1709 are the same thing:

Q: What editions are available in the Semi-Annual Channel?

A: Windows Server 2016 has different editions to support customers with different environments and sizes, such as Standard, Datacenter, and Essentials. However, because the Semi-Annual Channel focuses on very specific scenarios (listed above), the only editions available in the current channel are Standard and Datacenter.

Clearly, this snippet is talking about editions of Windows Server 2016 that are available in the Semi-Annual Channel. And from the previous prose, we know it is only Windows Server 1709.
The rule of thumb is: If one source gives you a lopsided view of its subject, don't stick to it. (You'll end up committing Kremlinology if you do that.) Move on to more sources to get a broader view. Especially, blogs and other news items get outdated.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Codename Lisa: "This is exactly the case with different LTSB releases of Windows 10: To move from Windows 10 LTSB 2015 to Windows 10 LTSB 2016, you need to perform a clean install." I completely agree with you here. It is just like with Windows 10, there are Windows 10 {1703, 1709, 2015 LTSB, 2016 LTSB, etc}. In the same way, there are Windows Server {2012 (LTSB), 2012R2 (LTSB), 2016 LTSB, 1709, ?}. With that reasoning, 1709 is *not* part of the "Windows Server 2016" brand, but of the "Windows Server" brand. Again, see [1], which clearly separates "Semi-Annual Channel (Windows Server)" and "Long-Term Servicing Channel (Windows Server 2016)" as two different products and says "the current Long-Term Servicing Channel release is Windows Server 2016".
"But then there is prose in that same page that tell you Windows Server 2016 and Windows Server version 1709 are the same thing". Please re-read that quote. It says no such thing.
You blame me of only looking at one source, while you don't provide a better one yourself. [2] is clearly the authoritative one as it was especially written to answer questions and clarify things. It is completely mind-blowing how you can ignore "Windows Server, version 1709 is not an update to Windows Server 2016." and make up your own story based on sources which are not that explicit about the subject.
If the Windows Server Team can't convince you with their FAQ, I think neither can I.
Their plan is clearly to keep releasing 1709, 1803, 1809 etc, and then to do e.g. bi-yearly LTSB releases, e.g. 2016 LTSB, 2018 LTSB etc. What are we going to do when they release 2018 LTSB? Also put in in the Windows Server 2016 article?
Lonaowna (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, to continue with my last though: if you think I'm wrong about their future strategy, leave it as-is and change things when they release 2018 LTSB or 2019 LTSB or whatever and we'll change things then. I won't touch anything in the meantime. Lonaowna (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lonaowna: Hi again. :)
Let me address the most critical point here: In my last message, I asked you to get a broader view and not commit Kremlinology of one source. Yet, that's exactly what you are doing. Now what's wrong with that? Well, expectations from Wikipedia editors are very much higher: "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." You are not even willing to see other sources and get a broader view, let alone dealing with the issue of them saying different things. You are assuming that:
  • The prose of the said blog post is exemplarily perfect writing
  • Eternally authoritative and not subject to getting outdated by the pass of time
  • Not subject to different interpretations by two different people (even though you and I are clearly interpretting it differently)
If you are going to do that, we will get stuck in this dispute forever, and I am certainly not planning to.
Things that make me think Windows Server 1709 is Windows Server 2016:
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Codename Lisa: Like I said before: I'm preferring the FAQ because it is very explicit about the subject. Your sources are not explicit about the issue. They are vague and you combine them with original research to let them say something that they do not actually say.
I don't understand how you can value a source which says nothing about the subject more than one that was explicitly written to answer our question. You act if I picked some fringe source just to prove my point, while it is the clearly the best one available.
"Windows Server, version 1709 is not an update to Windows Server 2016. Instead, it is a new release in a different channel with a different support model."
Please, point me to a source that says, with actual words in an actual sentence, that this is incorrect, instead of giving lists of pages that do not even mention the subject of the discussion.
Again, I'm focusing on this source because there aren't any other which are explicit about the subject. If you do not believe the Microsoft Server Team is "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", I give up.
And by the way, it's "Kremlinology" not "Kermlinology". (you misspelled it twice ;))
--Lonaowna (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't mention SAC/1709 once. Yes. It means no such thing as "SAC/1709" in the capacity of a new product version exists.
I don't understand how you can value a source which says nothing about the subject more than one that was explicitly written to answer our question. And I don't understand how can you explicitly read a source's statement and write something completely different. You read " Instead, it is a new release in a different channel" and write "it is a new version of Windows Server." But the truth is, silence sometimes speaks louder than ambiguous text.
Actually, why I am trying to prove anything to you? WP:BURDEN says the burden of proving beyond all doubt that Windows Server 1709 is a new major version of Windows Server is on you. And I am not convinced by your blog post. Show me a stronger proof!
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already said, that is the only source I can find that gives a clear answer. In my opinion, that page proves it without all doubt.
I will leave it up to you to edit the page once the next LTSB is out and you see that you are wrong. I won't make any more edits here.
Lonaowna (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, who's trying to say it's a major version? The real question at hand is whether version 1709 falls under the title "Windows Server 2016". That's what needs a strong proof. - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Josh the Nerd: Hi. Would a source that says both (2016 and 1709) are activated using the same license keys suffice?) —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Codename Lisa: Not really. Windows 10 accepts keys from Windows 7 and 8.1, and the whole point of Software Assurance is that your existing license continues to work on newer versions. - Josh (talk | contribs) 05:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was true for retail licenses of Home and Pro editions only. Also, the whole point of MSSA is making money, hence new old license key DO NOT activate new products, so that companies are forced to get new ones, which are offered only with a valid subscription. Wow. You guys are full of assumptions. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tell you what; "Windows Server 2012 R2" and "Windows Server 2003 R2" are completely new products with new support policy entries and all. If they can be covered in "Windows Server 2012" and "Windows Server 2003" articles, then "Windows Server 1709" can definitely be in "Windows Server 2016" article. —Codename Lisa (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm seeing here is a bunch of arguing over interpretations of primary sources, specifically Microsoft blog posts and support documents. Folks, that's offside. WP:PRIMARY is perfectly clear about this: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." It's time to take a step back from primary sources and go to the secondary ones. Are technology news publications describing "Windows Server, version 1709" as an update to Windows Server 2016, a "major new version of Windows Server", or something else? That is our guide, not measurements of our own choosing, like whether or not license keys work across versions. — Warren. ‘ talk , 06:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, I did say get a broader view and You'll end up committing Kremlinology if you do that. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Jo Foley's first impression was that it is a "feature update" for Windows Server 2016.[3] In Microsoft terminology, a "feature update" is the same thing as the various versions of Windows 10. Some of them support in-place upgrade. Some don't.
—Codename Lisa (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Foley later walked that assessment back when it became clear that it wasn't a feature update to Server 2016. So that's kind of a wash. Keep looking. What do other reliable secondary sources say? — Warren. ‘ talk , 07:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Server, Version MMYY Are Standalone, Separate Products

[edit]

I note "end of discussion" because this matter has been now fully settled. Windows Server, Version 1709, is part of a new line of Server products that are seperate from Windows Server 2016. In fact, Windows Server 1809 is slated to be have a LTSC variant that is Windows Server 2019. That's a new version, and yet, it's in line with a Windows Server SAC version. Windows Server 2016 license holders cannot get use and Activate Windows Server, Version MMYY and is part of a subscription service. You cannot "upgrade" from Server 2016 to Server, Version YYMM, but you CAN upgrade from an older Server Version YYMM to a newer one.

I noted the subheading as reference for a future reader of this talk page. Tags: Warren Codename Lisa.

Best,

NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have your information correct, but, as a friendly reminder: you don't get to decide that a discussion has ended. — Warren. ‘ talk , 14:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Warren Yes, you are right. As I noted on the original comment, I intended to imply by "End of Discussion" as this situation has been clarified, not as a command to users to end the discussion. When this discussion was happening, things were still not fully clear and even the press covering it weren't sure exactly how these things aligned. But a few months later, things are well understood. Looking back at this, I believe I should have titled it something like "Solved", or "Confusion Clarified", or something along the line. NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The comma in Windows Server, version 1709

[edit]

Codename Lisa is insisting on removing one, but not other instances of the comma in "Windows Server, version 1709". All reliable sources point to the comma being there, but she's insisting, so, let's hear some opinions on it. — Warren. ‘ talk , 06:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Warren. :)
Has it ever occurred to you that Wikipedia does not care about the English peculiarities of the so-called "reliable source"? We use source for verifiability, not anything else.
See Homeworld 2 article for example. The game itself writes it "Homeworld2". See Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children for another example. The film itself writes it: "Final Fantasy VII—Advent Children".
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, the Playstation Store, Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB all have it listed precisely and exactly as "Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children". Would you like to try again? — Warren. ‘ talk , 06:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! See? More example of people being intolerant of English peculiarities and not believing that doing so reduces accuracy. Thanks Warren.
Of course, people have not always been as open-minded as you are. That certain article was once called ... Well, see for yourself.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an "English peculiarity", this is a name of a product -- a proper noun -- and Wikipedia values getting those kinds of things right. 'Allelujah! Don't Bend! Ascend! is the name of an album. Notice the apostrophe at the beginning? Yeah, it's weird as fuck, but it's also accurate. I can pull tons of other examples of this. — Warren. ‘ talk , 07:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point about the product name. But it isn't. If it was a product name, it would have been "Windows Server, Version 1709". Also, what did you say above? Not synthesize and what-not on the primary source? Very well. See the secondary sources: A lot of them don't feel it is part of the name: ZDNet, Infoworld, IT Pro (formerly Windows IT Pro), Neowin, On MSFT, Petri. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing

[edit]

Is there any information on the licensing model anywhere? --Alien4 (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 2000 was...

[edit]

Windows 2000 Server was the first server edition to include... DNS Server, DHCP Server,

This is absolutely hilariously wrong, as seconds of any search engine will show.

With love, 180.216.169.250 (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper-V Server

[edit]

Hey, on 27 October 2021 I've made a few changes, and one that was reverted with question why, was my removal of "Windows" from "Windows Hyper-V Server". I didn't notice up until today.

The answer is simple: The product is and always was actually called only "Hyper-V Server", no "Windows". All Microsoft pages and product lists refer to it only as "Hyper-V Server". I'll leave the fix (or not) up to you all, I'm deeply tired of having everything everywhere here, even typo fixes, constantly reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.250.4 (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anon behavior

[edit]

The IP user 189.248.71.56 is repeatedly linking to pages that do not exist. As the IP user seems to have done it a few times since I was last here, I gave them a level 3 warning because of this. Please explain yourself, 189.248.71.56. You got 2 warnings, Guy Harris got mad at you, and you *still* added that 404 page. Kindly explain yourself, or else you may be the subject of administrator attention. Mseingth2133444 (Did I mess up? Let me know here | Thank me here) 01:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user has now been reported to admins. Mseingth2133444 (Did I mess up? Let me know here | Thank me here) 17:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 9, 2024 listed as 0 days ago?

[edit]

The title pretty much says it, it says the latest version was April 9, 2024 but it says that was 0 days ago, when it is 2 days ago. I can't edit it because I just made this account and the article is semi-protected so if anyone can edit it to say 2 days ago that would be pretty nice. Veberet (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Veberet Appears to be a technical issue. I found where it is deriving from and when I edit it it is fixed but when I reload this article it isn't? Seems like a bug to me. Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia, and requests like these are called edit requests. Next time, when you have a request like this, please click "new section" on the talk page, then click "source", then type in {{editrequest}}, followed by your request so others can help you swiftly. Again, welcome. thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 01:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the info! And also thanks for telling me about edit requests. Veberet (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least when viewed in a non-mobile browser, there's a "More" drop-down menu to the left of the "Search Wikipedia" box. Selecting "Purge" on the article, and then on the template for the latest release, seems to have fixed things; perhaps something got stuck somewhere. Guy Harris (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Windows_Server&oldid=1255453949"