BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Database Screenshots Gallery Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 102d, 18h, 35m | CPU: 66% | MEM: 6912MB of 12287MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 5:31 pm 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:44 pm

Posts
83
How predictable. Y'know, I don't see why they can't stick with the codenames. They're so much cooler than 95, 98, 2000, 2003, 2008, etc, etc. NT, XP and Vista are exceptions, but you've also got the Office releases that follow the 'boring' naming convention too (Office 95, 97, 2000, 2003 (XP)).

Longhorn, Neptune (yea I know it wasn't released - but the name is still cool), Memphis, Hydra, Whistler, etc. So much better imho.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:38 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am

Posts
1915

Location
New Zealand
i prefer longhorn than vista


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 10:22 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
There's now a logo out for Server 2008 - pretty much the one you'd expect, it's in the same form as all the other current MS logos:

Image


From MS TechNet France

Is it just me or is it slightly strange how the new name is popping up all over the place before they officially announce it?

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 7:10 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
The logo doesn't look bad :D


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 10:59 am 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:16 pm

Posts
36

Location
Ohio USA
im going to download the beta. what version is the most powerfull? is it datacenter or enterprise?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 11:11 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
Datacentre is the flagship edition of Windows :) Though it's not actually that different to Enterprise. Standard, Enterprise and Datacentre are actually all on the same DVD image, like all the editions of Vista are on one disc, so by downloading one you will have them all - just request the key(s) for the version(s) you want to install from that image.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 3:59 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am

Posts
1115

Location
Germany
I like the Webedition most, becuse this Edition includes all I need.

_________________
"Theory is when you know something, but it doesn't work. Practice is when something works, but you don't know why. Programmers combine theory and practice: Nothing works and they don't know why."


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 5:37 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
Datacentre is the flagship edition of Windows :) Though it's not actually that different to Enterprise. Standard, Enterprise and Datacentre are actually all on the same DVD image, like all the editions of Vista are on one disc, so by downloading one you will have them all - just request the key(s) for the version(s) you want to install from that image.

After all, Datacenter x64 of Server 2008 might be the only edition to include Windows Virtualization, which might be a substantial difference for some... You don't have to use a key to install any of the editions, just don't enter one and select the desired :)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 6:04 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:40 am

Posts
1513
Standard edition is fine for me. Enterprise is nice, but I hardly even use 10% of the features. Datacenter is abit different from Enterpsie, but is a cool edition.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 6:40 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
empireum wrote:
After all, Datacenter x64 of Server 2008 might be the only edition to include Windows Virtualization, which might be a substantial difference for some... You don't have to use a key to install any of the editions, just don't enter one and select the desired :)

Is that any better than Virtual Server or VMware ESX then? But it's only in the 64-bit version? :( MS seem so keen to push everyone to 64-bit you'd think they owned stock in Intel or something :evil:

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 6:44 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
empireum wrote:
After all, Datacenter x64 of Server 2008 might be the only edition to include Windows Virtualization, which might be a substantial difference for some... You don't have to use a key to install any of the editions, just don't enter one and select the desired :)

Is that any better than Virtual Server or VMware ESX then? But it's only in the 64-bit version? :( MS seem so keen to push everyone to 64-bit you'd think they owned stock in Intel or something :evil:

It's something Xen-based, so quite different when talking abut paravirtualization but similar when it comes to full virtualization to ESX or VS. As for it being present in x64 only, (almost) all processors supporting VT are x64.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 6:53 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
So it's like Xen but for Windows hosts? Is the performance of this much better than hardware-assisted regular virtualisation then?

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 7:02 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Haven't really "used" Xen, so can't say much, but paravirtualization which is only possible with Linux, OpenSolaris (?) and *BSD guests so far (because it requires a special kernel and kernel modules) was pretty quick on my machine. Full virtualization (which uses Qemu's technology) was slower than VMware Server but I couldn't do much testing because Xen in full virtualization mode causes intermittent reboots on Apple hardware. This was all done on Linux as host OS, of course.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 7:23 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
So Xen runs *nix and Windows guests, but Windows ones perform poorly? So "Windows Virtualisation" will presumably be a very fast way of virtualising Windows as it'll be like Xen but with proper support for Windows guests? Although I doubt that virtualisation is going to be slow exactly, whatever you're using, if you're running it on a 64-bit DataCentre server... :P

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 8:47 am 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:44 am

Posts
98

Location
Port Orchard, WA
psiren wrote:
How predictable. Y'know, I don't see why they can't stick with the codenames. They're so much cooler than 95, 98, 2000, 2003, 2008, etc, etc. NT, XP and Vista are exceptions, but you've also got the Office releases that follow the 'boring' naming convention too (Office 95, 97, 2000, 2003 (XP)).

Longhorn, Neptune (yea I know it wasn't released - but the name is still cool), Memphis, Hydra, Whistler, etc. So much better imho.


Actually, Office XP and 2003 are 2 different products.


Top  Profile  ICQ  YIM
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 1:12 am 
My oppinion's to give Longhorn a chance. Some agree to Vista, some to Longhorn Server, why not? Who cares? But I for myself prefer Home Server. ;-)


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:46 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am

Posts
1915

Location
New Zealand
my beta 3 kit arrived (finaly)
Image
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:19 pm 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Mon Apr 16, 2007 5:44 pm

Posts
83
ToastyCheesy wrote:
Actually, Office XP and 2003 are 2 different products.


Spot the deliberate mistake! Yup, you're right. Should be 'Office 95, 97, 2000, 2002 (XP), 2003 and 2007'. But naming the office product the same as the OS is still unimaginative!


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:41 am 
Does it realy worth the download?
how much is it different from the previous betas?


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:59 pm 
i downloaded this 1st time useing server 2008 what do u think so far worth a look?


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:58 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am

Posts
1115

Location
Germany
i like it. Its very fast and stable.

_________________
"Theory is when you know something, but it doesn't work. Practice is when something works, but you don't know why. Programmers combine theory and practice: Nothing works and they don't know why."


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2019

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS