Windows Server 2008 R2 by Any Other Name

One of the temptations of blogging—with all the pressure to post, post, post in Internet time—is to link back to some other reporting without checking for accuracy. Yesterday, I saw a post, since corrected, about Microsoft releasing Windows 7 Server. The correction was posted soon after I confirmed with Microsoft that Windows Server 2008 R2 would be the next release of the operating system, as previously announced.

I nearly blogged about Windows 7 Server yesterday. But in reviewing Microsoft's official statement in the other post and doing some additional Sunday afternoon research, I decided to wait. I wasn't convinced that Microsoft would skip over the interim, or R2, release.

"Windows 7 is the code name for the next version of Windows, of which there is a client and server version," said a Microsoft spokesperson I spoke with today. "The official name of the version is Windows Server 2008 R2."

GOT A TIP OR RUMOR?

I asked for clarification, wondering if there might be an R2 release sooner and Windows 7 Server later on. "R2 is a minor release in keeping with the cadence set down by [Server and Tools senior veep] Bob Muglia of a major release every four years and a minor every two years," the spokesperson said. "The official name is Windows Server 2008 R2," the spokesperson reiterated. Microsoft plans to release the next version of Windows Server in 2010.

Microsoft hasn't changed its plan for interim and major releases, which is consistent with the approach for Windows 7 desktop. The company already has indicated that Seven will be based on Windows Vista. There's not going to be any variation from the core, particularly with Microsoft's renewed emphasis on backward compatibility.

As for Windows Server 2008 R2, I expect that Microsoft will keep in place current licensing policies. If so, the interim release would be free to volume-licensing subscribers with upgrade protection via Software Assurance or Enterprise Agreement. Everybody else would pay.

Something else: This blog is purposely cautious about reporting on rumored new products. I occasionally will use unnamed sources, but always guardedly. My priority is to provide accurate information, which means Microsoft Watch doesn't always report juicy, speculative stuff that would generate lots of page views. Misinformation hurts Microsoft, its partners and its customers. I don't say that to fault the other blogger, because her Aug. 15 post is more an anomaly and she quickly and rightly put out corrected information today. That's commendable behavior.

I would rather be right than first. Sure, it's great to be first, but being accurate better serves the targeted readership and even Microsoft. I would like Microsoft executives to understand how important that priority is here. Sometimes, the PR folks invest their time elsewhere because the posts here are rarely huggy-kissy. But I will respond to Microsoft executives, and as much as possible.

Last week, Steven Sinofsky, senior veep of the Windows and Windows Live Engineering group, sent me an e-mail about something in my post about the Engineering Windows 7 blog. I wrote back and asked his permission to use an identified portion of the e-mail in my blog post. He gave that permission, and I updated the post.

I would encourage other Microsoft executives to be so proactive, even if it means sidestepping the PR professionals. Any discussion would remain between us until, or even if, there is permission granted to use the communication. My job isn't to embarrass you or snag the big scoop, but to provide readers with accurate information. Your participation makes that easier and helps cut through the mass of Internet rumors and gossip.

[Please send your tips or rumors to watchtips at live.com]