On to Windows 7 Server and other new Microsoft server releases in the pipeline

On to Windows 7 Server and other new Microsoft server releases in the pipeline

Summary: Windows Server 2008 has yet to be released to manufacturing. But that's not stopping Microsoft execs from starting to reveal glimpses of what's in some the future server releases due out in the next year-plus. These include Windows 7 Server, the newly named Windows Essential Business Server and "Cougar" Small Business Server.

SHARE:

Windows Server 2008 has yet to be released to manufacturing. But that's not stopping Microsoft execs from starting to reveal glimpses of what's in some the future server releases due out in the next year-plus.

First: We now know the codename for the next version of Windows Server that will follow Windows Server 2008. It's...Windows 7 Server. (Thanks to Bink.nu's Steven Bink for that revelation.) Until now, Softies and their slavish followers have been referring to this release as "Longhorn Server R2" or "Windows Server 2008 R2." No word yet what's in Windows 7 Server (other than the Direct Connect feature described by Bink), but if the server team sticks to its every-two-year timetable, it should be out some time in 2010.

In the nearer term, there are two Windows Server 2008 derivatives that are due to ship in 2008. Microsoft's mid-market server, code-named "Centro" -- and now officially christened "Windows Esential Business Server" -- is due in the second half of 2008. Beta 2 of Essential Business Server (which Microsoft is encouraging testers to run in production) should be out in the next 30 to 60 days, according to Russ Madlener, Director of Product Planning for Windows Server Solutions.

Essential Business Server will be a 64-bit only release and is aimed at users with between 25 to 250 PCs.

Essential Business Server will come in two editions: Standard and Premium. Standard will include Windows Server 2008, Exchange Server 2007, System Center Essentials; the next version of ISA Server and Forefront Security for Exchange. Microsoft is expecting customesr to deploy these components across three servers and buy a Client Access License (CAL) for each user or device connected to the Standard Essential BUsiness Server. The Premium SKU ads SQL Server 2008 to the mix. Customers are encouraged to deploy the Premium SKU across four servers.

Microsoft is planning to demo Essential Business Server on an Intel Modular Architecture system next week at its TechEd IT Forum in Barcelona, Madlener said. Other hardware partners, including IBM and HP, are building systems tailored for Essential BUsiness Server.

Microsoft also is readying its next version of Small Business Server, code-named "Cougar," for release in the early part of 2008. Cougar will package together Windows Server 2008, Exchange Server 2007, Windows SharePoint Services 3.0, SQL Server 2005 and System Center Essentials. Like Essential Business Server, Cougar will be 64-bit only.

In other Windows-Server-related news, the PowerShell team has made available to testers a first Community Technology Preview (CTP) build of PowerShell 2.0 (which, last I heard, was code-named "Aspen").

PowerShell is Microsoft's extensible command line interface (CLI) shell and scripting language that is built into Exchange Server 2007, Windows Server 2008 and a growing number of other Microsoft products. PowerShell will be part of Essential Business Server, as well.

Topics: Software, Hardware, Microsoft, Operating Systems, Servers, Windows

About

Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for 30 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

22 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • that's so micro$oftic!

    alpha code for near future and hot air for the distant future... just another flop while Red Hat is eating their lunch!
    Linux Geek
    • Some people think otherwise.

      Linux server adaption slows.

      http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201804059
      pmcgrath@...
      • You're asking for it

        Infidel.
        KTLA
      • Yeah, it's much better the MS way;-)

        A directory server that requires it's own hardware, another for mail, another for file
        services and web, and another for database. And the CIOs quoted using MS will not
        be deploying Linux, clearly they like server proliferation.

        Throw in CALs and MS has a real winner;-)

        3-4 servers for a 50 user site should be ridiculed, but not in today's IT environment.
        Richard Flude
        • Prepare for a shock

          Hate to break it to you, but 1 server can run all of those things for 50 users. The docs might recommend more, but with an eye towards future expansion. Of course you'd know this if you ever actually used Windows software. As it is, for some reason you get off on trolling ZDNET articles, inserting comments like you have some clue of what you are talking about. Honestly, what do you get out of this? Did Windows 3.1 crash on you in 1992 and you still haven't gotten over the document you lost? Get a life.
          jackbond
          • Be honest...

            If we didn't see posts like that, would ANY of us read any C/ZDnet talkback forums? I've been reading for that kind of amusement for almost 11 years at zdnn.com!
            KTLA
          • Really?

            "Hate to break it to you, but 1 server can run all of those things for 50 users."

            Actually no. It is "strongly discouraged". Of course you'd know this with your
            extensive windows server knowledge. For example:

            [quote]
            Although installing Exchange 2007 on a directory server is supported, it is
            strongly discouraged.
            [/quote]
            http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa996719.aspx


            Or checkout the Administrator Checklist for SQL Server:

            [quote]
            Never install SQL Server on a domain controller"
            [/quote]

            "The docs might recommend more, but with an eye towards future expansion."

            The docs actually "strongly discouraged" installing them on the same computer,
            except for windows SBS - and even here there are limitations (e.g. Terminal
            Server). Maybe you should read them sometime.

            "Of course you'd know this if you ever actually used Windows software."

            I will happily put my knowledge of enterprise configurations of windows server
            against yours, clearly from the above it appears your knowledge is lacking.
            Typically it doesn't take long to knock the MSCE off his pedestal, fortunately it is
            very low to the ground (required so they can reach it in the first place).

            "Honestly, what do you get out of this?"

            The enjoyment of seeing uneducated responses from the NBMers. Next;-)
            Richard Flude
          • tell that for all the SBS network owners out there....

            ISA SQL Exchange and LDAP/NTDS all on one box. These things are discouraged because being modular is good, but it isn't cost effective for small companies.

            you wouldn't run all those roles on a single server using any OS for a large company, why should windows be any different?

            - Sam
            JoeMama_z
          • You've forgotten.

            Linux can run a fortune 100 company on a single 233Mhz desktop pc with 64MB of ram.
            rtk
          • Windows SBS was mentioned in my post, this is not SBS

            It would help to read and understand my post. SBS doesn't include Exchange
            2007, it is a different beast to the one being put down here.

            Windows Small Business Server 2008 will include a version of Exchnage 2008, but
            will require firewalling (e.g. ISA Server) on a separate server. Really it is funny to
            watch. The best laugh is the new version will support on one NIC, only 64-bit
            processors and can't backup to tape! Single NIC for a server - hilarious;-)

            SBS 2003 does has it's own problems (e.g. Terminal Services).

            "These things are discouraged because being modular is good, but it isn't cost
            effective for small companies."

            No they're discouraged because they don't work very well, or not at all. This is not
            the case with *nix systems. It is the same reason VM market grew around windows
            servers.

            "you wouldn't run all those roles on a single server using any OS for a large
            company, why should windows be any different?"

            Actually we do all the time with *nix. It's call server consolidation.

            There appears to be a worrying, but not unexpected, lack of knowledge coming
            from the windows side. I thought us ABMers would be at a disadvantage;-)
            Richard Flude
      • So, you're saying most firms have already adopted Linux...

        This only counts the CIOs who are *not* current Linux users.

        That implies that the 40% who said they WOULD be upgrading in 2006, and the 13% of the remaining 60%, weren't polled, right? They don't give figures from previous years, but it sounds to me like this could just as easily that most CIOs polled already have some Linux servers, and the only remaining hold-outs are the hard cases.

        Meanwhile, the article says, [i]The penetration level of Linux among existing customers -- i.e., the portion of businesses' overall server resources represented by Linux -- remains low at around 8%, according to the CIOs surveyed, leading the UBS analysts to assert that "we still see room for a considerable uptick in penetration levels."[/i]

        So it's all in how you spin it. You read the article as saying Linux is in trouble. I read it as saying Linux is already ubiquitous.
        Resuna
        • No, I agree with your observation.

          Linux is ubiquitous. My point in posting the article was that fewer people are switching from MS to Linux. Linux has suplemented and now complemnts MS in many data centers. But it has by no means replaced MS and according to the trend as researched in the article, wont.
          pmcgrath@...
    • Linux Servers All The Way

      If the new Windows Server is anything like Vista, then God help them.
      chessmen
    • Ummm OK

      The only lunch Linux has ever eaten is the old UNIX market. I love how statistics prove MS owns the market but NIX heads say that is because MS lies and somehow has the people making these stats in their pockets. However, I never hear a Linux vendor dispute those stats.
      joe620
  • Microsoft....server

    Talk about two words that should never go together. *shudder*
    Chad_z
    • Chad_z is a tool

      What, you been ranting that same line for the last 10 years? Get a life, your mindless rhetoric is pathetic.
      jackbond
    • Bad Security

      Another two words that fit together while thinking of Microsoft Server.
      chessmen
  • So what are the new features?

    So what are the new features of Windows 2k8 server? Besides a text only system install what's the benefit of this release? Hmm?

    - John Musbach
    hexstar@...
  • Microsoft Promises For Future Software Releases

    Remember when Microsoft was telling everyone how Vista was going to have all these great new features, such as a new file system. Well, it doesn't. With Vista we got a poor knockoff of Windows Xp.

    Promises are cheap, and Microsoft promises are worthless.
    chessmen
  • This is how Microsoft pads server counts...

    Instead of one UNIX based server that performs all three jobs, Microsoft makes you buy three servers. You're not getting any more capability, or even redundancy, and they get to count three installations instead of one.
    Resuna