Talk:Windows Server 7

Name

I'm not finding any real evidence that this product is codenamed Windows Server 7, or that it will be released in 2010. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I haven't found any evidence that this release will be 64-bit only. Yes, Microsoft is on the record as saying that Windows Server 2008 is the final 32-bit operating system. However, they are also on the record as saying that there will be a "Release 2" of Windows Server 2008, that will be 32-bit. Since we don't know if "Windows Server 7" is that "R2" release (and, if I may be excused a little bit of WP:OR here, it's worth noting that the Windows 7 M1 release has a version number of 6.1, not 7.0, so.....), we can't authoritatively state one way or the other if this release will be 64-bit only. -/- Warren 22:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this article
[edit]

This article AT PRESENT does not add any meaningful and useful content to Wikipedia. There is always going to be a server variant of any Windows NT version however, unless Microsoft itself starts differentiating the naming and codebases and starts referring to the name AS IT IS DOING PRESENTLY WITH WINDOWS 7, I think this article should be deleted. It can be recreated whenever the any firsthand information on the next server OS becomes available, esp with the R2 release of WS2008 still impending. Administrators, what say? If anyone agrees, please add the delete tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.147.163 (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Now that the prod has been challenged, there cannot be any shortcuts taken en route to its deletion. The only thing you can do now is take it to AfD.

Personally, I do not think it should be deleted. Our idea of inclusion is notability and there is absolutely no questions on that front. Also, the existence of the product referred to as Windows Server 7 has been confirmed (see ref). Also the mainstream tech press has been referring to it as such. So, it passes all guidelines for inclusion.

The other question is of content. Lack of content does not meed an AfD tag but rather the stub tag. Because the features are more or less speculation at this point, there is not much we can add. --soum ^talk 02:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we can agree that this article will remain then. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Content

This blog post was recently made by a verifiable Microsoft employee and pulled shortly after, luckily the google cache caught it: http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:E3ARE2GZOWYJ:imav8n.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/welcome-windows-server-7-here-we-go-again/+http://imav8n.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/welcome-windows-server-7-here-we-go-again/&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

check it out at let me know if you think there is anything else worth adding (this is also the original source for the build number thats been added to the article already) (Blog: http://imav8n.wordpress.com/) -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]