Interesting article from Paul Thurrott outlining his thoughts on Windows 7 today, specifically with regard to Windows Home Server.
Here’s what we do know. Windows 7 can and should be considered Vista Release 2 (R2). In fact, I think Microsoft should market the business versions of the OS under that very name. Beginning with the release of Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008, Microsoft no longer forks its Windows code tree for new releases. So the next versions of Windows client (7), Windows Server (2008 R2), and Windows Home Server (WHS) will all be based from exactly the same code. Microsoft will simply combine the right components to create the Windows version it wants and ship it. It’s a much simpler system than before.
If you follow Paul’s thinking, we may never see a version of Windows Home Server based on Windows Server 2008, and instead, “Vail” (the codename for the next version of Windows Home Server) will leap over that release and synchronise with Windows 7 and Windows 7 Server (or whatever it will be called).
Whilst clearly this hasn’t been discussed publically or confirmed by Microsoft (although I generally trust Paul’s intuition) I think this would make a lot of sense.
Certainly life would be a lot easier for the Windows Home Server team who would be building on top of a “live” codebase and thus benefiting from greater support across the Windows Server organisation for their development goals (given that the Windows Server 2003 code is significantly locked down, all development has to be done on top of that codebase by the WHS team) – indeed, they’d have the opportunity to bake in requirements for WHS v2 now whilst the Windows 7 codebase is in development.
Secondly, if, as rumoured, we see some activity to help Windows Home Server and Windows Media Center work better together, this is likely to be more easily facilitated by the teams working off a common codebase, and who knows what new features are planned for WMC in Windows 7 (and indeed other features across the OS) which may enable easier DRM, media sharing (DLNA compliance, anyone?) and hardware support to make a more integrated solution easier to achieve?
If this did happen, however, the implications are that we wouldn’t see Vail until late 2009/early 2010 at the earliest, and bets are still being taken as to when we’ll see Windows 7 Client and Windows 7 Server released – my guess is we’d be looking at at least a 12 month beta for those releases (Windows Vista was 18 months), although from reading around, the Windows 7 Milestone builds are alleged to be very stable, which may lead to a shorter beta cycle.
So, Paul T is forecasting a Windows 7-based future for Windows Home Server. I can absolutely see the logic in that approach – what’s your view?
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
It sure makes a lot of sense.
September 24th, 2008 at 3:38 am
I’d be happy with that.
The organisation I work for is already testing Windows 7 Alpha code, we’re going to migrate straight from WinXP/2003 to Windows 7.
September 24th, 2008 at 5:42 am
Unless there is PP2 planned prior to that, I would be VERY disappointed. WHS still needs some basic functionality to be added “el pronto”: client backup database redundancy and external storage copy, file visioning support on WHS file shares, WHS to WHS backup … IMHO. At this point I don’t believe that ANYBODY can feel comfortable with a situation, where a disk corruption of the client backup database invalidates all backup history. This would mean that WHS is only half-backed. One still need some other tool (Acronis comes to mind) to provide some reliable client recover option - NO GOOD. But, these are only my humble 2 cents.
September 24th, 2008 at 9:01 am
@Boggy - I concur with this general opinion. WHS is a good product, but it’s a v1. It has some now glaring weaknesses which we can now identify. Besides the need for better WHS/MCE integration, it’s really in major need of some of the Windows6 kernel features such as file I/O prioritization and SMB2 which would greatly improve its performance in the role it’s designed to fulfill.
If it’s going to be based on Windows 7, then we can write off a 2009 launch; even if 7 makes it in 2009, MS won’t launch server products at the same time. So we’d be looking towards the end of 2010 if things go well, some 3 years after WHSv1 launched. This isn’t particularly long in the lifecycle of an OS, but WHS already started out being “old” when it launched in 2007 as a Windows 2003 derivative.
September 24th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
At the moment I’m very happy with WHS as it is, and if V2 truly going to be based on 7 then it’s great news!
Server 2008 is nice, but having one base means it’s much better integrated into eachother (worksstation, server, media center, etc) IMHO.
September 25th, 2008 at 4:17 am
@GaMeR, going for the “big bang” solution ALWAYS gets projects in trouble. Microsoft knows, anybody that worked on any product does too. So, why go there? Let’s not forget that PP1 WAS striped from many exciting features, why? Why wouldn’t WHS team wait to get the “perfect” product? As I already stated, WHS is indeed a GREAT product infected with some scary bugs, but … it is not complete. It needs to get BASIC functionality ASAP. I know that there are smart guys working for Microsoft, and I hope that they see the obvious need to get PP2 asap. All of the “undercover pluming” that makes easy for the software development CAN still happen in 2-3 years. Basic functionality is needed NOW (if not yeasterday).
October 1st, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Don’t expect much more functionality from the next interim release of WHS. You will get MCE integration in “Vail” when it releases in 2010.