It's Official: An Unofficial Delay
|
Windows Server 2008 won't be coming this year after all. As the saying goes, you can reliably bet against Microsoft ship dates. |
Microsoft has been acting as if Windows Server 2008 would be available this year, and I've been saying that it was unlikely.
Two weeks ago, I reiterated my speculation and put the launch of the software as happening in February 2008. Today, at its annual partner conference, Microsoft announced a February 27, 2008 launch date. SQL Server 2008 and Visual Studio 2008 will launch same day.
Microsoft isn't characterizing the launch announcement as a ship delay, which is possible because of the "2008" nomenclature and the likelihood that the software will be released to manufacturing this year. My guess is that will happen around November, unless there are unforeseen development problems.
But for customers, it is an end of February launch—and why not use the leap year's 29th? Whatever they are calling it, this is a delay.
Analysts and some Microsoft customers talk about a "Big Bang" of infrastructure upgrades, including Office 2007 and Windows Vista, following Windows Server 2008's release. In fact, Windows Server 2008's launch could be more important to Vista upgrades than the Service Pack 1.
Allen Emerick, director of IT, applications and integration for Skanska USA Building, said his company, a construction group that employs 56,000 people worldwide, would move to Vista when replacing hardware.
"We want to take advantage of the operating system, and we think we need to have more powerful hardware to do that," Emerick said.
Skanska may be more typical than the companies waiting for Windows Vista Service Pack 1. The natural time for some companies to begin hardware upgrades would be release of Windows Server 2008 and the roll out of infrastructure upgrades.
A February 2008 Windows Server launch means that any potential sales pull will come about six months later than many previous analyst forecasts. It's a double whammy, whether you look at it from the Big Bang or Service Pack 1 perspective. Microsoft hasn't given much of a timeline on SP1's release, other than to promise a beta by mid-November.
Julie Giera, a Forrester Research vice president, said Microsoft's caginess on SP1 is indicative of a bigger Microsoft problem. The Vista launch, "isn't going as well as they expected," she said.
Previous analysts' projections had put early Vista deployments in the third quarter of this year, with mass deployments starting around the second quarter of 2008. But some of the projections assumed that Microsoft would release SP1 and Windows Server 2008 in the third quarter or a little later.
A Windows Server 2008 launch in second quarter puts some enterprise Exchange Server 2007, Office 2007 and Windows Vista deployments in question. Assuming the Big Bang theory is true, today's launch date announcement means many businesses will push back Office 2007 and Windows Vista deployments to late 2008 or early 2009.
From the perspective of deployments, the February 27, 2008 date looks like a delay.
Related Posts:
- Got IIS 7.0?, Microsoft Watch, June 27, 2008
- Uh-Oh! No Vista SP1 This Year?, Microsoft Watch, June 20, 2007
- Windows Server at the Core, Microsoft Watch, June 5, 2007
- 'Longhorn' Server Comes When?, Microsoft Watch, June 5, 2007
- 'Longhorn' Named Windows Server 2008, Microsoft Watch, May 15, 2007
- Microsoft's Big Bang is When?, Microsoft Watch, April, 26, 2007
- Viridian Delay Foreshadows What About Windows 'Longhorn' Server?, Microsoft Watch, April 12, 2007
- Windows Server Takes the Lead, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 16, 2006
Comments (8)
If Microsoft has been talking like Windows Server 2008 would be available in 2007 wouldn't they name it Windows Server 2007? Was there ever an official announcement that Windows 2008 would be available in 2007? I don't think this counts as a delay Joe...
Posted by evan | July 10, 2007 2:25 PM
There has really been 3 lines of Windows OS products in the past, the NT line, the 9x line, and the Server line based on the NT line. The 9x line, was really for home users, and since the last edition of 9x was a disaster, ME, it ended. NT started and was really meant to be for Businesses, not home use. Believe, it was even priced higher than the 9x line, but I could be wrong.
What has happened, was the death of the 9x line, caused people, home users to move to the NT line, which really is now the home users version. Some businesses are using server software like Windows 2003, even though they may not be using it as server software, only for the desktop.
The NT line, starting with XP, has become more for home users and less business apt. Vista, is not good business software, with just too many issues with the eula, wga, etc. So the server release maybe important to businesses, if, and only if, its different enough from the current Vista, to be useful on business desktops, instead of as a server. Doubt very much it will be.
Again, I am going post this link for those who have not seen it;
http://www.crn.com/white-box/200900857
It all about how mostly businesses and some home users, are buying new computers with Vista on them, and paying shops to wipe it off and put XP on it. This does not bode well for the future of MS, and they should learn from this.
Posted by chips b malroy | July 10, 2007 3:12 PM
Another non-story. MSFT has said for a while that 2008 would RTM in late 07 and launch in early 08. Feb seems like early 08 doesn't it Joe?
Posted by Rob | July 10, 2007 4:07 PM
Chips B Malroy: I don't mean to be rude, but your post was plain ass crazy.
DOS-based Windows was being phased out for being somewhat unstable (among other reasons), ME was always going to be its last iteration.
XP (an NT-based product) was always intended to be for home users AND business users (hence the Home & Pro editions). No one in their right mind is using Win server2003 as a desktop OS (that stuff's expensive!). XP Pro is clearly apt for business (the networking functionality being an example). The EULA has NOTHING to do with it being NT or DOS based.
Now I didn't bother reading your article, but why would a business buy Vista machines & then wipe them and put on XP? Why wouldn't they just buy XP machines?
What amazingly inefficient business do you work for that puts Windows Server 2003 on its desktops & buys more licenses of Vista & XP than they need? Can't blame that on the EULA!
I'm not even for or against any positions you have on issues, just pointing out that your post betrays the idea that you know what you're talking about.
Posted by Ben | July 10, 2007 10:43 PM
Hey Ben;
You should read the article with the link above about wiping out Vista and replacing it with XP. While I do agree, why not buy one with XP already on it, its not available everywhere. But the article is well written, and informative.
My other point was really that MS needs something else than Vista for many businesses to adopt it, as Vista is really more of a home desktop system. Perhaps it was not clear the way I discussed the different lines of Windows, NT (Nt4, 2000, XP. Vista), 9X (95, 98, ME), and the server line. The point of the EULA, was really made that many businesses don't like the Vista EULA.
Posted by chips b malroy | July 10, 2007 11:00 PM
Way to completely miss the mark on calling this a delay. Server 2008 is still set to RTM in Late 2007 as planned with an official launch date in 2008, hence it being called Server 2008.
Posted by James | July 11, 2007 4:31 AM
Hey Chips,
I read a little bit of the article. I don't doubt people are taking Vista off and putting XP on. I'd still point out that any business that buys 2 licenses and only uses 1 needs to fire someone in their IT department.
That said, I've got no love for Vista in the business environment. What amazed me most was the claim that people were using Windows Server 2003 as a desktop OS. That's not happening.
Also, what exactly do you think is missing from Vista that makes it unsuitable for a business environment?
The reason I'm holding off deploying it here is because it still lacks compatibility with some applications, a situation that will surely improve (and in fact, it already has improved by a HUGE amount since it was first released). Other than that, Vista Business is like XP Pro: Perfectly fine for the business environment. It includes same advanced networking functionality that XP Pro does with better security and works well with server2003.
Just because it has fancy graphics, doesn't mean it automatically has no business specific functions. I tried SUSE last month (nice, btw) and while it's not quite Aero or Aqua, it's still quite "pretty". No one would deny that that's a business OS.
As for the EULA, no one likes it. I'll give you that. Sweet Jesus, it's annoying. It's the amazing type of over-reaching that only a giant monopoly would have the balls to try and pull off, and it might help to be the death of that monopoly. So, from that perspective, it's almost a good thing!
Anyway, enough wabbling...
Posted by Ben | July 12, 2007 12:00 AM
It has been the same for years...but apparently people don't get it: MSFT's fiscal year starts in the middle of the "normal" year - that's why the next version of Windows Server is "2008" - although it RTM's in 2007... It's been the same with Exchange and Office 2007...
Posted by Christian | July 14, 2007 1:51 AM