Next Microsoft Server OS
 

At one point I had Microsoft's OS cycles figured out fairly well, but that was a bit ago. Does anyone know what Microsoft's plans are for the next server OS release? Are they going to work on a modified Windows 2000 Server, or go back to a more specialized, NT system, or try to do something with Windows XP, or try something completely different? Is it supposed to come out next year, or in two years?

Thanks.

Re: Next Microsoft Server OS
 

Why to reinvent the wheel all the time. Stick with the old good stuff.

"Xenix 2002 XP built on somebody's better technology" sounds great. Standard flying jail windows logo, it must work ...

Seriously, even dude with wild imagination like me, can't think of anything micro haven't tried yet ;)

Sleepy Chef

Re: Next Microsoft Server OS
 

i am not sayin microsoft is that great or anything, but quit doggin on them all the time when we tryin to hold serious conversations.

Re: Next Microsoft Server OS
 

One PM is on the way for mr. serious

Re: Next Microsoft Server OS
 

better hope that that PM isnt to offensive now, Chef, wouldnt want to get in trouble with a Global Moderator.  Or Administrators for that case.  But chef wouldnt do that, now would he. ;)

Re: Next Microsoft Server OS
 

that's just not your damn business   ;)

have fun

Re: Next Microsoft Server OS
 

Well if Vee_Ess does take it offensively, i feel that it is all of our buisness here at NetSmog.  I dont think that it is right for fellow NetSmog members to be putting down there own members.  All im saying is to be cool about it.....i know you are capable of doing so!

Re: Next Microsoft Server OS
 

/me is tryin to work out why this is turnin into a flame  ???

btw, apparantly the next M$ OS won't be called windows, cant remember where i saw it (may of been /. ??? ) but i haven't seen anything official

Re: Next Microsoft Server OS
 

The next MS server OS will be Windows .NET Server. It is basically just Windows XP Server because it is based off the same platform, SDK Platform. I know for a fact that it is in the pipeline, and is now in their MSDN (MS Developer Network) phase, but I am not sure when it will be released. An educated guess would be around 6 months to a year, as that is usually how long it takes to get past the MSDN phase.

Sorry for the late response...I was tryin and still am to get to a site on msdn.microsoft.com that had all their beta's available, but I can't find it. If anyone knows, please post.

Re: Next Microsoft Server OS
 

This doesn't make any sense. Windows XP has fewer network (and basically other) features then Win2000, so it would be downgrade to make server based on XP platform (which uses simplified NT kernel) instead of original W2K.
W2K had promising start but still not very popular in networking environment, it doesn't have all the reasons to upgrade from NT4/6sp so few businesses go for it (and that was the goal of W2K development). Just needs time, ~2yrs

Cheerio

Re: Next Microsoft Server OS
 

Sorry, but you are wrong Chef...You must be following popular information...I have Whistler Beta 1 and Whistler Beta 2. For that, you have to install Platform SDK as part of the install (very hard one i might add, but any way back to topic). This is the Windows 2000 Platform virtually unchanged in many everyday aspects, but more advanced in web server operations and XML features. It is the basis of .NET. Hopefully, at this point you know what I am talking about. Windows XP has most of the networking options that 2000 has (although, Home Edition leaves out some of the big server type stuff), just it is not upfront like 2000 is because it is not only for the business market. It is also marketed for the home market (both Home Edition and Professional Edition). Windows XP doesn't have a simplified NT kernel. It is far, far more advanced and somewhat more advanced that Windows 2000. Start tweakin the kernel and you will see what I am talking about. Play with the services. It actually is based on the Windows 2000 kernel, and that is why it is only slightly more advanced. And I just want to emphasize this point: the server OS that will be coming out will not be based on XP (read what I said again), but it will be based off the same platform. You might want to be precautious of spreading mis-information like this on binarica.com.

If you want me to burn you a copy of the Whistler Beta 2 cd I can, so you are able to get the facts not the fables...

Re: Next Microsoft Server OS
 

Mr vee_ess described here several things pretty inaccurate so I would like to make things clear :

1. "Microsoft Windows Whistler" is codename of Microsoft Windows XP, it was used until 02/01. You're talking about "Whistler Server" b1,2,3

2. -> microsoft.com

Windows XP is NOT a pure NOS (network operating system) and cannot be compared to Windows2000 networking features as W2K is pure NOS

Windows 2000(NT5.0) is a follower of Windows NT
Windows XP is a follower of Win95/98/ME using several advanced features of Windows2000 (i.e. modified NT Kernel)

It is not compared to W2K by Microsoft either
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...de/compare.asp

3. -> microsoft.com

.NET servers can be compared to W2K servers without any doubt as they have very similar features. Similar (but not actual) sys reqs
http://www.microsoft.com/windows.NET...ng/default.asp

4. (vee_ess)

(Mighty Chef)

basically other is in doubt (although it is a good point for discussion), networking features obviously with no doubt since .NET is a follower of Windows2000.

You say :
WinNT kernel -> Win2K kernel -> Win XP kernel -> Winster Srv kernel

the thing is :
WinNT kernel -> Win2K kernel -> Winster Srv kernel

XP is on different production line.

5. (vee_ess

(http://www.microsoft.com/windows.NETserver/)

For a conclusion :
I cannot assume that mr vee_ess is 100% wrong but he is very inaccurate in his super-information spreading.

Personal note for mr vee_ess : You can behave here the way you want as far as moderators don't care about. But if you will show your disgusting manners at Binarytalk.com forums our moderators would take all legal actions & hunt your ass badly. Then you'll face some facts  >:(


Cheers
Mighty Chef

Re: Next Microsoft Server OS
 

tsk tsk tsk. Calm down everyone. Not worth the headache or heartache. No medals to be won, no trenches to crawl in. Just a board where we post.

Just breath and all will be well in the world.

Re: Next Microsoft Server OS
 

dude there just verbally jousting...let them go at it if they know what there talking about, im getting a whole tun of info from this conversation...its good!  And besides, Global Moderators cant let their fellow members be mislead, can they? So only if theres blood shall they stop...cool w/ u?  8)

Re: Next Microsoft Server OS
 

;D  Beats what's on the tele  ;D

Re: Next Microsoft Server OS
 

Uh oh!  I smell a pretty sweet comeback....dun dun...dun dun... ;D  Ding Ding! Let round 2 begin...and remeber i want a nice clean fight...now LETS GET IT ON!!!!!!

Re: Next Microsoft Server OS
 

No hitting below the belt. Doing so would result in an immediate "disqualification".  ;)

Re: Next Microsoft Server OS
 

First off, don't make it personal, I'm not.

[quote author=Mighty_Chef link=board=windows&num=1021904874&start=0#11 date=06/13/02 at 16:10:18]1. "Microsoft Windows Whistler" is codename of Microsoft Windows XP, it was used until 02/01. You're talking about "Whistler Server" b1,2,3[/quote]
It is actually not called "Windows Whistler" but simply "Whistler" or, questionably and rarely Windows "Whistler", and, also, there is no "Whistler Server" but "Windows .NET Server Beta[1,2,3]", only because it came after the June ending of the Whistler series. Whistler Beta 1 was the only one used til 2/01 as Whistler Beta 2 was actually entitled, by Microsoft, "Whistler February 14th Edition" (because it was released from mid-February til June) as stated in its packaging, documentation, and on the CD itself.

You quoted Microsoft, but the information stated was irrelevant thereby allowing for derivation of a different point. This is twisting of words.
-> microsoft.com

It actually never directly says what you are trying to prove, only that it has the best of both lines, but you somehow managed to derive the following false points:
[quote author=Mighty_Chef link=board=windows&num=1021904874&start=0#11 date=06/13/02 at 16:10:18]Windows XP is NOT a pure NOS (network operating system) and cannot be compared to Windows2000 networking features as W2K is pure NOS

Windows 2000(NT5.0) is a follower of Windows NT
Windows XP is a follower of Win95/98/ME using several advanced features of Windows2000 (i.e. modified NT Kernel)

It is not compared to W2K by Microsoft either
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...de/compare.asp[/quote]
These remarks can be disproved fairly easily...

You state that Windows 2000 is a NOS and that Windows XP isn't. Microsoft themselves exhibits the networking features and shows the advances from Windows 2000 at this page located at Microsoft.com. Further proof is coming very soon...

Windows XP is a "follower" of Windows 2000, as it's kernel is based on the Windows 2000 kernel.Microsoft
Therefore, it is impossible that Windows XP is based on a simplified NT4 kernel as that particular kernel is 16-bit based (besides the fact that MS says it is based on 2000). The Windows XP engine architecture is explained in further detail directly by Microsoft. This proves that the derivation of Windows XP being a follower of the Windows 9x line is quite false due to the fact that the 9x line is DOS based. They just state that it just has some of it's features. Looking directly at what Microsoft says, you've got it backwards. What it is:

Windows XP is a follower of Windows 2000 using several features of Windows 9x (including ME/98 third edition)

Microsoft does compare Windows XP to Windows 2000. You just stumbled upon a place where they were advertising directly to DOS based OS customers.

I don't know how to express this, but you need to comprehend what I have said, might I add, more than one time already:[quote author=vee_ess link=board=windows&num=1021904874&start=0#8 date=06/11/02 at 22:06:58]The next MS server OS will be Windows .NET Server. It is basically just Windows XP Server because it is based off the same platform, SDK Platform. [/quote][quote author=vee_ess link=board=windows&num=1021904874&start=0#10 date=06/13/02 at 01:34:13]And I just want to emphasize this point: the server OS that will be coming out will not be based on XP (read what I said again), but it will be based off the same platform.[/quote][quote author=Mighty_Chef link=board=windows&num=1021904874&start=0#11 date=06/13/02 at 16:10:18]You say :
WinNT kernel -> Win2K kernel -> Win XP kernel -> Winster Srv kernel

the thing is :
WinNT kernel -> Win2K kernel -> Winster Srv kernel

XP is on different production line.[/quote]Here is actually what I have been trying to get across:
[table][tr][td]NT4 Kernel[/td][td]NT5/2000 Kernel  [/td][td]Modified 2000 Kernel[/td][/tr][tr][td]Windows NT 4.0   [/td][td]Windows 2000[/td][td]Windows XP[/td][/tr][tr][td]NT Server[/td][td]2000 Server[/td][td].NET Server[/td][/tr][/table]

Click this if you still don't believe me that Windows XP and .NET Server are based on the same platform... They directly say:Then you go a to the next page talking about the platform and you read:(Notice that in each & every quote used Microsoft says it, not me)


[quote author=Mighty_Chef link=board=windows&num=1021904874&start=0#11 date=06/13/02 at 16:10:18]For a conclusion :
I cannot assume that mr vee_ess is 100% wrong but he is very inaccurate in his super-information spreading.[/quote]Don't be too quick to jump to conclusions. This information comes directly off of Microsoft.com and if you feel that Microsoft is inaccurate, I suggest that you directly get in contact with them and let them know you feel that they are wrong...
[quote author=Mighty_Chef link=board=windows&num=1021904874&start=0#11 date=06/13/02 at 16:10:18]Personal note for mr vee_ess : You can behave here the way you want as far as moderators don't care about. But if you will show your disgusting manners at Binarytalk.com forums[/quote]I just want to say again: Don't make this personal, I'm not. Also, you say I have disgusting manners, but at least I have respect. And maturity is just as important for that matter.
[quote author=Chef link=board=windows&num=1021904874&start=0#3 date=05/28/02 at 16:28:57]
One PM is on the way for mr. serious
[/quote][quote author=Chef link=board=windows&num=1021904874&start=0#5 date=05/30/02 at 10:20:11]
that's just not your damn business   ;)

have fun
[/quote]
If you call these manners, I guess mine are disgusting. There are more examples if you want, but I feel that continuing this bickery and set of personal attacks is pure nonsense.
[quote author=Mighty_Chef link=board=windows&num=1021904874&start=0#11 date=06/13/02 at 16:10:18]our moderators would take all legal actions & hunt your ass badly. Then you'll face some facts  >:([/quote]Threats aren't a good way of trying to convince someone of something. Also, I haven't heard of your forums til you told me, obviously - so, basically, stop pointing the finger (it is a blatant attempt at my credibility). Try keepin it clean ;)

adios !
 

That's it  ;)
I'm really too tired to continue this useless row between me and mr vee_ess (I didn't start it but I'll do stop for sure).
I see no reason to waste my precious time trying to settle personal relationships instead of having some quality "tech talk". Unfortunately, it seems for me like this place is loosing its charm turning from professional Tech Forums to "general computer stuff" forums and that's just sad...

One thing, however. Mr vee_ess claims : That's just funny because two days ago he suggested here his help in black/mass-mailing and virus-spreading against certain individual (http://www.netsmog.net/cgi-bin/yabb/...num=1024013865), I assume he was trying to help, but obviously picked the dumbest (& also not quite legal) way.

Can you actually say you care for your manners or dignity or professionalism after such suggestion ?
Don't you think you've compromised by that other respective forum members and moderators ?


I leave only because no longer want share this forum with certain member. I've tried things but seems like some people just too stupid not piss me off after I've nicely asked for that several times.

Thanks for all members for quality time. Hope to see you again some day later ...
I wish Keefe would get back his hijacked domain and things would be cool again.

Regards

Mighty Chef
Binarica.com

iIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIiIi

Re: Next Microsoft Server OS
 

Dude...no need to get "butt hurt" over this whole conversation...i mean cmon it obviously looks like vee_ess put alot of time into his response...and i took the time to read it and i feel that the information is one of the best that ive seen on this site..and the most thourough as well! I dont like the fact however that you know that he is right and choose not to corectly respond, but instead try to put him down and make others feel sympathetic for you.  His little "illegal" comment was obvioulsy put down on a formal, joking note...if u continue on reading that same thread you will find that many of us put down netwurx.net, and i feel that u shouldnt target a certain member in that case...as for leaving this forum...i feel that that is very cowardly...no offense!  But when i first joined these forums...i knew very little and got various amounts of remarks from almost everbody!  But that didnt make me want to leave this forum...it only made me stronger and more eager to learn more and show that i actually had something to say in ths site!  I wasnt about to let them drive me off...im not that kinda person...but if you are gonna let one person shoo you away from this site mearley because he was representing shear facts of Microsoft and that he knows disputing is obvioulsly going to be a part of this forum...i feel that you are doing a wrong thing...but then again i guess that is your call...and good luck at your site Binarica.com...im guessing that that was your last Cheers, so see you in the future....

Re: Next Microsoft Server OS
 

It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.  How do you really expect to track the efforts of a company that release their first OS and in actuallity have just wrote a very nice GUI for someone elses' OS?  Win 3.1 was a fancy verious of DOS with centralised print drivers (dos programs all came with there own printer compatable drivers) and mutli tasking ability.  If it was even that fancy.  I couldn't tell you the last time I used (if I even have).  Alot of their plans have changed with the DOJ and the antitrust proccedigns.  Not to mention a lot of companies refused to take up some of the .net software.  At least in it's first version, when you didn't but software or save your files on your harddrive.  You just bought a subscription to like "word" and went online and wrote your doc and saved them on the internet.  Or am I the only one that remembers that crap from last year?  

Re: Next Microsoft Server OS
 

wow, I just totally skipped over ve's and che'f post. Too much to read, brain can't handle it :pop:  :o

Re: Next Microsoft Server OS
 

no man u should read it...very usefull information...for the most part!  I dont feel that it had anything to do w/ chef leaving though!!!  I dont think that that is right...he needs to respond to vee_ess's post if he really has a point to prove...so i guess that he has moved on to binarica.com....you can see that under his closing name he has put binarica.com...im guessing that that will be his "preferred site" for now instead of Netsmog!  I feel that what he has done is wrong and that he should have came back with a logical explination to vee_ess's posts...but instead he wanted everyone here to feel sympathetic for him and his state of being...that in which i do not....IMHO!  I feel that threatening somebody and then running away from the crime scene is cowardly....just my sixty-three cents...

Re: Next Microsoft Server OS
 

First off, this whole debate got out of hand, vee_ees made an unneccessary and uncalled for remark to *.chef whom was only responding to the original post. Read the first 3-4 posts.

This is a public forum where by anyone can respond to any post anyway he wishes. If vee_ees disagrees with a post, he should address that aspect, not 'talk down' to a poster that made it, ofcourse *.chef defended himself, wouldn't you ?

Having been on the internet from the beginning, when there were only 2500 (twenty five hundred) pages and I use to flip them one at the time each night, and having used (or tried to) windows since the very first edition, I wouldn't take anything MS said as serious about anything.
But MS advertized XP as being the first non-dos version of Windows. All the previous vers were based on the 1984 MSDOS which Bill hijacked from IBM in 1982- read the history.

*.chef has contributed some highly accurate and very technical posts on here, as his experience reflected, I hate to see him leave under this condition.
*.vee_ees seems to feel too strong in his own convictions and should tone down his temper.

Guys , lets face it, you are not actually upset at each other ! but only at the topic !
Why not forget this whole episode and continue on ! This forum needs all the posters it can muster !

Re: Next Microsoft Server OS
 

I think what vee_ess was mearly trying to do is not let his fellow member be mislead...his information as well was to the point, true, and were the straight facts of of Microsoft's website...i dont think that he posted that long post just to create mayhem or retalitate against chef, but instead provide him with infromation directly off of the site, as i said.  Sure anyone would defend them selves in this situation...but i feel that chef was the initiator in this case.  When posting, i dont think that it is right to aim a certain comment at a certain individual, unless it is a compliment. Although both were quick to jump at one another...i doubt that threatening a fellow member is not a way of resolving an issue, or falsely accusing them of something that they never committed...in this predicimet, in looked like chef put time and effort into his combacks, generally very offensive and aimed towards getting vee_ess mad...i too took part in his put downs and although they didnt bother me at all...i feel that they were very unnecessary and uncalled for...

After all these...it would definetly tend to get a fellow person mad...you have to admit. Sarcasm took a major factor in this situation as well...will all of the uncalled for closures after insults such as...have fun, cheers, and  ;).  I am not trying to point out that Chef was the villian of this because it takes two people to argue and one person by itself just isnt enough...so.  It seems that it is too late to regain chef back...it looks as though he has permenently moved to posting on binarytalk.com.  With that being said...i suggest that keefe locks this thread before it upscales way out of our reach and ends up ruining this forum...