![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Did Microsoft really ever refer to Windows 2000 Server as Windows Server? Josh 20:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
This is more like a category rather than an article. Jasper Deng ( talk) 03:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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:
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
12:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
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.
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.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.
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.
"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:
If you've obtained this release from the Volume Licensing Service Center, you can activate it by using your Windows Server 2016 activation key.)
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.
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)
get a broader viewand
You'll end up committing Kremlinology if you do that. —Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 06:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
Is there any information on the licensing model anywhere? -- Alien4 ( talk) 19:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Did Microsoft really ever refer to Windows 2000 Server as Windows Server? Josh 20:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
This is more like a category rather than an article. Jasper Deng ( talk) 03:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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:
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
12:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
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.
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.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.
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.
"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:
If you've obtained this release from the Volume Licensing Service Center, you can activate it by using your Windows Server 2016 activation key.)
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.
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)
get a broader viewand
You'll end up committing Kremlinology if you do that. —Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 06:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
Is there any information on the licensing model anywhere? -- Alien4 ( talk) 19:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)