Talk:Windows Server 2008

Active discussions

Dirty VolumeEdit

"In previous Windows versions, if the operating system detected corruption in the file system of an NTFS volume, it marked the volume "dirty"; to correct errors on the volume, it had to be taken offline."

I don't think this is quite right. A "dirty bit" flag does not indicate corruption. It means that the volume was dismounted ungracefully. In addition, a "dirty" filesystem does is necessarily taken offline since you can skip CHKDSK.
When a volume is mounted, the "dirty bit" flag is enabled. When the volume is dismounted, the flag is removed. If the volume is dismounted ungracefully, this flag is not removed and the filesystem is regarded by the OS as "dirty."
--Mister Tog (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested moveEdit

Rename this page to Windows Server "Longhorn". That's the official name right now as seen here: Microsoft Windows Server “Longhorn” Beta 1 --Akhristov 02:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to move it. If anyone is not happy with the move, they are welcome to move this article back. --Akhristov 06:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

As of [1], [2], and possibly other articles, the new name is Windows Server 200x, not Windows Server 2007 or Windows Server 2008. --Kkk 18:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read carefully the articles you linked to. "It was announced today at TechED 2006 that Longhorn Server would retain the year naming convention, that is, Windows Server 200x."... they're saying that the naming convention of using year numbers is being retained. The final name of the next Windows Server product is absolutely not "Windows Server 200x". It will be Windows Server 2007 or 2008, depending on what year it is released in. For the time being, the product is still referred to by Microsoft as Windows Server "Longhorn". When Microsoft makes an official announcement about the final name, then we rename this article. No sooner. Warrens 20:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello? There's no Version number mentioned in the Infobox. The version mentioned is incomplete. I think it has to start with 6.something. Someone please put the version number for this OS. There are 2 build numbers mentioned, yet surprisingly no version number. Look at the Wiki pages for Windows Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7 - their version numbers begin with 6.1. Even Windows Vista is 6.0. And delete this comment para of mine, but only after you've typed the correct version number.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


Shouldnt this line read "Windows Server will support x86 (64 bit), as well as x86 (32 bit) processors." instead of "Windows Server will support x64 (64 bit), as well as x86 (32 bit) processors."

-- 11:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

x64 is the name of the EM64T and AMD64 Architecture. You can view the article here: X64
Therefore that should not change.
Inari 18:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

2008 R2 ONLY Supports 64 bit. (talk) 05:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The line in question is about the original 2008. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Redirect Page "Microsoft Longhorn"Edit

I think the Redirect Page, "Microsoft Longhorn" should redirect here instead of Windows Vista. Just a thought...

- I disagree. Longhorn was the codename for the entire generation of operating systems, neither exclusively Vista *or* server. It makes more sense to direct it towards the Vista page though, since that brand-name is arguably more connected to Vista (which shipped with several UIs proclaiming it to be Longhorn) whereas the server product has always been paraphrased as being the Windows Server edition for Longhorn. -SteveGray

I see the original poster's intent. Microsoft Connect lists the Windows Server 2008 beta program as "Windows Code Name 'Longhorn'". I don't know how this would properly be handled though, and Longhorn has traditionally referred to Vista. - Neunon (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Windows Server 2007?Edit

There was no citation of the rename. Should the name be reverted? - 11:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Never mind. - 11:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:'s linksEdit

The links this user has added is valuble and reverts seem to be assuming bad faith based on the IP. The user doesn't have a history of spamming with links, and his/her contributions all appear to be useful. I'm adding the directory services link as a reference, as it explains in greater depth topics mentioned on the Longhorn article. If you have any great problem with these links, discuss it here before removing or reverting, please. njan 18:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the links have in-depth technical dscussion. Its not linkspamming. But they are better as refs than ELs. --soum (0_o) 18:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - all done converting them, they are now references rather than external links :) njan 18:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Adding 5 links in the period of an hour seems normal to you? I suspect this IP was hired to add links and improve Microsoft content. It's time to get the WP:TROUT. (Requestion 18:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC))
I have seen this users edits for a long time, he contributes using a dyn ip. So its hard to keep track of them but almost all of his edits were actually high quality contribution to various MS technologies related articles. Sift through the history of articles like Windows Vista and its forks (all his IPs are and nowhere has he tried linkspamming. He coalesces information from various sources and adds them to the articles with the references just like we all do. Sure there will be a high percentage of MS sites, but that is because MS publishes the most detailed technical documentation about MS technologies, not some third party website. Plus the content of the links added here are actually relevant. MS' technet and cable guy articles are too popular by themselves, they do not need to piggyback on Wikipedia. --soum (0_o) 18:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Funny, I was just scanning all contributions from that IP net mask. Like you said, almost every edit is Microsoft-centric, and well written too. I wonder if this individual is a tech writer? Any ideas or thoughts? (Requestion 19:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC))
Not necessarily. At some point in history my contribs history would have looked similar (though not as fragmented). And I am just an aspiring computer science researcher. :D --soum (0_o) 19:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
My guess is that (s)he just works in IT. The range of contributions are about what I'd expect from someone working with Microsoft technology - that's what I do, and the contributor in question makes contributions not dissimilar from mine. :) njan 19:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
As Soumyasch points out, these links are all high quality - as are's other three links, on the EAP and Visual Basic 6 to .NET Function Equivalents pages. I've checked out all three links, and I've put them all back because I think they're of value; if you don't, please explain why here or on the relevant talk pages and we can figure out what the best thing to do is.
I seriously don't think you're assuming good faith - all of these links should be being assessed based on their actual quality and benefit to wikipedia's readers, not simply removed because they're links. If the links make better references, great - turn them into references, or leave a note on the user's talk page pointing this out (or point it out to me - I'm happy to turn them into references if you don't want to). Just plain removing them is actually reducing the quality of wikipedia and discouraging contributors, however... njan 19:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Windows Server 2007 / Windows Server 2008Edit

A number of edits have been made to this article "announcing" a new name, including moving of the article. As yet, none of these nomenclature-related changes have had references worthy of encyclopedia-quality content. Please bear in mind the quality of the source material you use to reference your chances, and whether or not this simply constitutes a 'rumour' or 'hearsay'. Any chance made referencing naming (or any similar factoid) which has a less-than-authoritative source is unsuitable for wikipedia (see WP:NOT and WP:References) and is likely to be reverted. Thanks for your consideration and diligence! :) njan 02:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft is a source worthy of encyclopedic mention. See this link:|C|E) 03:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned elsewhere, this link isn't direct to Microsoft, it's to a blog advertised as I'm just an online pundit who's barely old enough to legally buy alcohol. The Microsoft references themselves, whilst compelling, aren't canonical, or overt - similar "leaks" in the past have proved to be little more than accidental changes, and until this "leak" constitutes something more than a simple change of the "longhorn" graphics for "windows server 2008" graphics (which is really all that this is), this isn't anything that can be more than commentated on accurately. If this is indeed the start of the official product naming, good references should be forthcoming very shortly - it doesn't hurt to wait the few hours that this should take. I'd also encourage building consensus on this issue, rather than just reverting to-and-fro; what do others think? njan 03:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
As an addition... I have added a reference to this in the opening paragraph of the article, which I think is a more than charitable compromise. See what you think. njan 03:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Note also that if you actually follow through on the MS France Beta Central Links, what you go through to registering for is not labeled Windows Server 2008 - it's labeled Windows Server® Code Name “Longhorn” Beta 3 (try it). Again, this is still on the level of 'marketing gaffe', and whilst compelling, isn't any more conclusive than the Mary Jo Foley article posted a few days ago. Ok, I'll stop replying to myself now. ;) njan 03:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC) now prominently displays "Windows Server 2008". I found a couple of blog posts, one from C|Net and the other from PCMag, that mention the name change announcement at WinHEC 2007. Are those worthy enough for you? I'm going to add a link to the PCMag blog to the main article. — EagleOne\Talk 15:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

ADFS is in Windows 2003 R2Edit

ADFS is actually already in Windows 2003 R2 - see e.g. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 14:19, August 1, 2007 (UTC) I was about to make the exact same comment. This should be removed from "being introduced" as ADFS was released in 2003 R2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Release Date / Launch DateEdit

First time here and I am not confident to edit the page so can somebody change this for me. This article currently says the release date is scheduled for 27th Feb 2008 whereas the reference specifically says it is the launch date. There is a difference, the launch date is when there is a big party to celebrate, probably around the same time as the release but not necessarily so. ~Mr_Wulf

The reference: "On February 27, 2008, Microsoft will jointly release Windows Server 2008..." So it does say release as well as launch. 15:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

beta templateEdit

I'm putting the beta template back on this page. The template just says "currently in development", which is correct, even if the term "beta" doesn't exactly apply anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Granburguesa (talkcontribs) 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If it is not beta anymore, we should probably use the existing [Category:Upcoming software]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Article is inconsistent regarding the date of RC1Edit

The text of the article says "Release Candidate 1 was released to the general public on 5 December 2007". The infobox says "Preview version: Release Candidate 1 (10 December 2007)". So is the date 5 December or 10 December? (The msft download page linked from the infobox lists the "date published" as the 12th). I have no idea what the right answer is, but I can't see any reason that the article shouldn't be consistent about it. Bobbyi (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed it back to saying December 5th in both places, with an appropriate source. The source that said December 12 was referring exclusively to the "special" version with Hyper-V. No idea where December 10 came from. - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Upgrade from windows 2003 server to windows 2008 serverEdit

Can anyone add info on Upgrade possibilites? Costs etc (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Phil Soady Perhaps this is a forums only type of detail. I just thought that since I came first to wiki for it. Others might. Short, to the point well edited info is nice to read. (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Phil Soady

Features splitEdit

IMO, the split was really unnecessary. the article isn't too long with its inclusion to warrant its split. Fragmentation of article is a bad idea. People now have to hop through one more article!!! Such sweeping changes should have been discussed in the first place. I am in favor of undoing it. --soum talk 19:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The features section was far too large compared to the rest of the article. Themodernizer (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
"Compared to the rest of the article" isn't enough an argument. An article ideally should list al facets. If one particular point needs more space, it gets it. Split is only performed when the whole article gets out of hand. Here it doesn't. But splitting out removes the most visible aspect out. I am reverting it. Please discuss it before making the change. --soum talk 06:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Command line tools?Edit

Can anyone add them? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpclient (talkcontribs) 18:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


There's a RC2 release of windows server 2008. download the enterprise x64 edition and look at the license agreement, it says "Windows Server 2008 RC2" Microsoft didn't say anything about a RC2. Even the download Center says it's RC1, but that's not true. I think is based on the Windows Vista Service Pack 1 RC Refresh. Techman224 (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Final release ?Edit

It is Feb 28th, but has no mention of win2008. In fact Windows Server related links are broken on their site. What's up ? --Xerces8 (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Concerns over advertisingEdit

The whole article is practically an advert. It's basically a feature list. Really needs sorting out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Create an account - anonymous flags of advert really don't help us Christopher G Lewis (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
By my reading, the article is overly negative POV. Wageslave (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Article needs to be updatedEdit

This Windows server is already launched and it says that the official launch will take place on Feb. 27 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Windows 2008 WorkstationEdit

What about addressing the Windows 2008 Workstation issue in the article?--Kozuch (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Wikipedia is neither a how-to guide, nor a user manual. --soum talk 02:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
My dear, I wouldn't be so tough with the answer. There might be 1000 ways how to address it without writing a how-to or a user manual. Actually, I had no good idea of how to add the one sentence it maybe summarized in to the article hoping someone will get a better one... But I see its not the case, unfortunately. Hopefully I will get an idea myself soon.--Kozuch (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think mentioning the use of server 2008 for personal use would necessarily be a how-to manual. It is notable if only because people are taking the trouble of converting a piece of server software to avoid the well publicized bloat of Vista. Squirrel9000 (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that "Windows 2008 Workstation" outperforms Vista in its own game is worthy of note. There are various independent benchmarks that can be used for citation. (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the topic I'm researching today: whether Server 2008 [R2] makes a viable workstation. I think it would be worth a short section on whether or not Server lacks anything, like multimedia capabilities or GUI performance, that a workstation needs. I don't think a how-to is necessary, just a yes or no on whether it's a good idea. Mcavic (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

IP over 1394 ?Edit

Does Win2008 support IP over 1394 networking ? --Xerces8 (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. It was done away with in Vista itself, and since they share the same DNA... --soum talk 14:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesnt appear so.
Wageslave (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Release Candidate VersionsEdit

Is that right: "Release Candidate 0 was released to the general public on September 24, 2007[3] and Release Candidate 1 was released to the general public on December 5, 2007." Shouldn't it say Release Candidate 1 and Release Candidate 2? --OpinionPerson (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. That would be incorrect. -/- Warren 03:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hard disk failure detection - S.M.A.R.T.Edit

As Windows Vista has S.M.A.R.T. hard disk failure detection built-in I guess we can assume Windows Server 2008 has it as well? Worth adding to front page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

External linksEdit

Hi Team,

       I am an IT guy that likes to write how to articles. I am wondering why Wikipedia won't accept my link--  ? I am not trying to spam or trying to sell anything nor make any money from my website.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by InfotechGuyz (talkcontribs) 07:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your link because it's to a website named and your account name is InfotechGuyz. It looks like a conflict of interests where you're promoting your own website. Whether or not you make money doesn't matter. Wikipedia is not a repository of links. If you want a link to a website you're associated with on a article, you bear the burden of proof in showing the community why it's a good add, and why it's such a good add we should have it even though you have a conflict of interests as the content's creator. You have an uphill battle in proving that to us because of the WP:COI issues. It looks like the kind of self-promotion of links that happens all the time here. If we let everyone who wanted to post thier own link do so, because it was a decent page and relevant enough, we'd have nothing but links for the whole site. You have to really show us why the link should be here, and you should do it on the talk page here. Another editor should feel strongly enough about your link to add it to the article. If you add it, it goes back to the self-promotion issue, and folks think you're running afoul of WP:NOTADVERTISING. It doesn't matter that the site's free. Lots of people have lots of reasons to promote their free sites. That doesn't make it any less self-promotion. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

list of server applications and their level of support in Windows 2008Edit

I was researching installation problems with pre-Windows 2008 server applications and found that the wiki page didn't include a link to the known incompatibilities with existing server based applications (like SQL Server older than SQL Server 2005 SP2). I have added the link to the proper Microsoft Support page.

Good idea... thanks. :) Warren -talk- 16:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Windows Server 2008 R2Edit

Windows Server 2008 R2 is a separate OS from Windows Server 2008 and it is its successor. Microsoft's website is full of information about it. So I just wonder isn't it the time to move the section "Windows Server 2008 R2" into a separate article? If we keep it here it would be the same thing as if there was no "Windows 7" article but instead just a "Windows 7" section in Windows Vista's article. So... am I right? :)

NOKIA 3120 classic (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no. Like Windows 2003 R2 it's not a separate OS; the core hasn't changed, it's just gained some new additions like Hyper-V. --Blowdart | talk 16:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
That is a good point but I'd collaborate a bit more with wiki project windows regarding a second article before conducting a split. Due to the Fact that Windows Server 2008 R2 is actually going to be the release name for windows server 7 --Koman90 (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Windows Server 2008 R2 (Release 2) is a seperate OS from and the successor to the first release of Windows Server 2008. Unlike the two releases of Windows Server 2008, Windows Vista and Windows 7 aren't marketed as two releases of the same thing, unless that thing is Windows. Our Microsoft Windows article covers all releases of Windows, but because there is a lot to say about different releases, that article is brief and links to separate articles. One article for Windows Server 2008 is enough as long as it does not get too long. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"Windows 2003 R2 it's not a separate OS; the core hasn't changed"

Wrong. it IS a seperate OS. Server 2008 R2 is based on Windows 7 NOT Windows Vista SP1/SP2. It also makes some HUGE changes e.g dropping support for 32 bit CPUs (R2 is 64 bit only as will all future windows systems after windows 7) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 05:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Windows Server 2008 R2 is a separate OS from Windows Server 2008 and it is its successor. Separate article for Windows Server 2008 R2 should be started! James Michael 1 (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I too think the R2 article should be separate. Unlike 2003 R2, which was a set of add-ons (on a separate CD) to be installed on top of a regular 2003 SP1/2 install, 2008 R2 is not a set of add-on services. Rather the changes are spread throughout the stack. Its not like you install 2008 SP2 and install something else to get 2008 R2. Its a new release. --soumtalk 18:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah! :) Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2 are not the same. But there are other, contrasting, examples in the history of Windows. For example, Windows 98 and Windows 98 SE. They are the same. Therefore, there is no need to separate "Windows 98 SE" article. But there is need to separate "Windows Server 2008 R2" article. James Michael 1 (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, Windows Server 2008 R2 is a separate only from the first release of Windows Server 2008. Windows Server 2008 R2 is also a release of Windows Server 2008. It is not separate from itself. Windows 98 SE is not the same as the first edition, hence the name "Second Edition (SE)", just like the name "Release 2 (R2)". - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Josh do you even OWN both Windows Sever 2008 and R2? If you do, please go and run Windows Update and you will see that they are different. You cannot install Service Pack 2 for Windows Server 2008 on R2. If they are simply separate only by "release numbers" then why do they have a DIFFERENT set of updates? It doesn't make sense. The name frankly means little. It is largely done for marketing purposes. It is the core that counts. When Service Pack 1 comes out for Windows 7, you will see because it will work for R2 and not 2008. Just as Vista's Service Pack 2 works for 2008 and not R2. I think you are confused because you are comparing Windows 2003 to 2008 which is why you think they are the same thing. However, I can install 2003 SP2 on BOTH R1 and R2 of 2003 as the code base is the same. The FORCE One (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You also can't install Windows XP Service Pack 2 on Windows 7. Yet XP and 7 are both listed on the Microsoft Windows article. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Windows 2008 is built on 6.0 (Windows Vista), the R2 version is built on 6.1 (Windows 7). So, they aren't really the same. Jupiter.solarsyst.comm.arm.milk.universe 13:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Windows Server 2008 R2 stansd for "Revision #2" or "Release #2" of Windows server 2008 by Microsoft's naming convention. It is similar to the difference between Server 2003 And Server 2003 R2. Microsoft Will selling it the same was Server 2003 R2 was sold. Splinting this article wlouddbe about as pointless as spiting windows 98 or 95 into their individual releases (ie 95A, 95B, 95C). The Only noticeable differences are in the client OS counterpart Windows 7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koman90 (talkcontribs) 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Windows XP is built on 5.1 (Windows XP), while the x64 version is built on 5.2 (Windows 2003). "So, they aren't really the same." Microsoft branded them as one, so they are one. - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Based on your logic, some person with the same name as you then must your twin brother. The two of you are seriously getting this confused with Server 2003. The difference is that Server 2003 and Sever 2003 R2 has the same 5.2 codebase unlike Server 2008 (6.0 codebase) and Server 2008 R2 (6.1 codebase). Just as all the 95 releases are simply UPDATES of the same 4.0 codebase. It is like Windows XP Professional 64-bit Edition is not really an edition of XP as its core is based on Windows Server 2003 (5.2 codebase). A lot of people got confused because of this reason as they wonder why they can't find XP 64-bit SP3. That is because you actually use the 2003 64-bit updates and downloads. So to tell me that XP and the x64 version is the 'same' because they have the same name does not make sense. If I wrote a program that worked ONLY for Windows 7, then it should work also for Server 2008 R2 but not 2008. After all Windows 2000 is 5.0, XP is 5.1 and 2003/x64 is 5.2. But not all programs that work for XP 5.1 works on 2000 and 2000 has a different set of updates to that of XP. Similarly, some programs that work on XP 5.2 or Windows 2003 does not work on XP 5.1 and they ALSO have different updates. Why else do you think Microsoft puts the .1 and .2 there for? Even the sub-number after x.x (the Service Packs) can signify significant changes like XP SP2 did. And if a program is built to work for XP SP2, it does not mean that it works for XP SP1 or XP RTM. Its still XP...but that's just a name. The FORCE One (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
No, it's more like President Washington and President Lincoln must both be President. You're only hurting your case comparing this to XP x86 vs. XP x64, seeing as the two also share an article (not to mention comparing this to XP SP1 vs. XP SP2.) - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.So we should split then! Good thing for us wikipedians the official web site of Server 2008 R2 has plenty of info explaining the new features... :) F.A.I.T.H.L.E.S.S (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. F.A.I.T.H.L.E.S.S (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Please specify what is done. Now 2 articles are separate , but article specified that the latest version of windows server 2008 is windows server 2008 R2 not Windows server 2008 SP2 , this is a controversy .

Okay. I have changed the date to include BOTH Windows 2008 and Windows 2008 R2 just like Wiki Windows 98 page has BOTH. Now people can all stop arguing. The FORCE One (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed featuresEdit

WinFS is removed, which i would say is pretty major Markthemac (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

WinFS wasn't present in working condition in any prior version of Windows. So, that doesn't count as a "removed feature". --soumtalk 02:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Current version of Windows Server 2008Edit

Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2 are not the same. And, therefore, they have different links. Despite that Windows Server 2008 R2 is a second release of Windows Server 2008 by name, in fact, they are different OS like Windows Vista and Windows 7. I think that Windows Server 2008 R2 is the successor to Windows Server 2008. It's not a second release, despite the name. James Michael 1 (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft decided that it is a second release of "Windows Server 2008", so that's what it is. Just look at what you get when you go to Microsoft's own Windows Server 2008 homepage. The name "Windows Server 2008" is less specific than it originally was, just like the name "Windows 95" (because of all the OEM service releases) "Windows 98" (because of the Second Edition), or "Windows" (because of every version since the first.) Windows Vista and Windows 7 both appear on Microsoft Windows because they are both versions of Windows. Likewise, 2008 R1 and 2008 R2 both appear on Windows Server 2008 because they are both versions of it. - Josh (talk | contribs) 08:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I mean that current version of Windows Server 2008 R2 is 6.1.7600, but current version of Windows Server 2008 is 6.0.6002. Windows Server 2008 article is only for Windows Server 2008, not for other OS (and, of course, not for Windows Server 2008 R2 too). Following your logic, we should write that current version of Windows Vista is 6.1.7600. But this is wrong! So, current version of Windows Server 2008 is 6.0.6002. James Michael 1 (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
No, not following my logic at all. No edition of version 6.1.7600 is named Windows Vista. The server editions are named Windows Server 2008. Windows Server 2008 R2 is Windows Server 2008 and not another OS, as much as Windows 2.0 is Windows and not another program. - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
No. Windows Server 2008 R2 is not Windows Server 2008. Like Windows 2.0 is not Windows 1.0, like Windows XP (5.1) is not Windows 2000 (5.0) and like Windows 7 (6.1) is not Windows Vista (6.0). And, of course, Windows 7 is not Windows Server 2008 R2, despite the fact that they both are 6.1.7600. But they are all part of the Microsoft Windows family. In fact, Windows Server 2008 R2 is Windows Server 2010 which has different name. Just don't look at the name, look inside OS. James Michael 1 (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Windows Server 2008 R2 is not Windows Server 2008 R1 like Windows 2.0 is not Windows 1.0, but both of each are respectively Windows Server 2008 and Windows. Microsoft says Windows Server 2008 R2 is Windows Server 2008; R2 is the focus of their Server 2008 page. We should not be making our own judgments about what the OS really is. - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, Josh. We really should not make our own judgments about Microsoft Windows. James Michael 1 (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

RTM Date?Edit

In the Windows Server 2008 R2 section, there are these three statements:

"A second release, Windows Server 2008 R2, was released on October 22, 2009." (The current version of the page cited has no dates, and the above was based upon the July 13th version)

"Retail availability was September 14, 2009." (based on a "broad timeline" in a July 22nd blog post)

"Windows Server 2008 R2 reached the RTM milestone on July 22, 2009." (this one is based on a real announcement on the date listed)

I have two suggestions: first, instead of vague terms like "released", use the terms from the Wikipedia page Software release life cycle. Second, when claiming "was" use only dates based on citations showing actual release dates. not on predictions of future dates. For those use "is predicted to be" or some such. (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"Computers with more than 16GB of RAM require more disk space for paging..."Edit

Both statements that start similar to that are completely unsourced. I've marked them with [citation needed]. If no-one fixes this I will remove it.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

And these statements are completely false, too ... you can even disable the paging file completely on any edition of Windows, no matter how much or little RAM you got. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

IA-32 or x86?Edit

Shouldn't there be some consistency as to how reference is made to the 32-bit editions of Windows Server 2008? i.e. reference to either the architecture of the processor upon which the Windows version runs (IA-32) or the instruction set (x86). Microsoft refers to the versions as x86, x64, and Itanium. For consistency's sake I would suggest x86.

Smbrannon (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing § x86 versus IA-32 and its following section, "32-bit and 64-bit". Fleet Command (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Recommended processor for Windows 2008 R2Edit

There's no info at MS site, that recommended processor for Windows 2008 R2 is 1.4 GHz, as stated in the article. The link lead to Windows 2008 hardware requirements and it's 2 Ghz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Any Ghz specifications are completely meaningless. A Core 2 Quad underclocked to 1 GHz will still run circles around a Pentium 4 clocked at 2 GHz ... -- Alexey Topol (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Indefinite articleEdit

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User: 109.77.xx.xx and the indefinite article and Talk:XMPP#Please discuss changes to the indefinite article. Andrewa (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

A second release, Windows Server 2008 R2, was released on October 22, 2009Edit

Windows Server 2008 R2 is NOT "a second release", contrary to what the naming implies. Server 2008 is built on the Vista-kernel and 2008 R2 is built on the 7-kernel -- the two are completely different OSes. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Return to "Windows Server 2008" page.