Talk:Windows Server 2008 R2

Screenshot is not of highest edition
The screenshot of Windows Server 2008 R2 is of the Standard Edition. This is against the grain of Windows screenshots. Normally the best edition would be the one the screenshot is taken of, but this is not the case. Can someone replace this bad screenshot with a screenshot of the Datacenter Edition? I suspect the current screenshot was taken by a Dreamspark.com participant. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I subscribed to TechNet, I'm planning on installing Datacenter after I'm done installing stuff on Windows 7, so I'll see if I can get a good replacement image from it. I can't guarantee it'll be up immediately since I'm taking a while setting up my Windows 7 installation (I reinstalled Windows recently; switched from Windows 7 Professional x86 to Ultimate x64), but I'll try to make getting a screenshot of Server 2008 R2 the first thing I do after it's installed. --Evice (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice!Jasper Deng (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The new picture is up. --Evice (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Evice (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually disagree, except for the About Box, the base desktop on each look exactly the same. I don't really see the need or significance for a change. ViperSnake151   Talk  23:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an editing convention for Windows screenshots. It's the caption of the photo that is different.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, not really. The edition convention is WP:NFC. Actually, the screenshot didn't need to be replaced. Fleet Command (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Actually, I think I know what you mean by "convention". You see that people post screenshots of the most advanced edition of a software product. That is because only these edition are available for trial. Try to download a trial version of Adobe Photoshop Standard, Adobe Acrobat Standard, Microsoft Office Standard edition or Windows 7 Home Basic edition. Well, you can't; they are not available for a trial download. Fleet Command (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The person who posted this screenshot had a TechNet Subscription. Actually, ANY edition of this operating system can be downloaded for a trial. This was true for all Windows Server operating systems back to Windows Server 2003.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? How? Fleet Command (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Search for Windows Server 2003 on the Microsoft Download Center website. Though the trial product keys aren't available anymore, the downloads are. The Standard, Enterprise, and Datacenter editions are available.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, did that. No results for trial version of Windows Server 2003 at all. Searched "Windows Server 2008 trial" and got four results: Windows Server 2008 Enterprise, Windows Small Business Server 2008 Premium, Windows HPC Server 2008 R2 Suite and Windows Server 2008 R2 HPC Edition. No search results for Foundation, Standard or Datacenter edition. Well, at least we've established that people like me could have never posted a screenshot of Datacenter edition of WS2008R2. Fleet Command (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * . That's Windows Server 2003 R2 Datacenter. It seems those other downloads were pulled.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fleet Command (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Logo should be replaced
the logo provided for windows server 2008 r2 is of low quality and should be replaced with a better version, even one that is not in vector form. I found a copy of the logo here, but can't upload it due to not being a registere user. could somebody please do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnclow13 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, a higher resolution is not required. Please read WP:NFCC. Fleet Command (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

some unuseful dates
In History: unuseful lot of dates on availability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.56.248.115 (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

differents editions?
W2008 came and 2008 R2 come on differents editions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.56.248.115 (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is already content covering this.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

x64 is more popular than x86-64
Wiki should use x64 (no x86-64). ref: []

Google counts

"Microsoft x64",   75 300 000 hits

"Microsoft x86-64", 51 600 000 hits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack007 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * x64 is slang, while x86-64 is the formal way to call it, in line with the x86-64 article.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is true. x64 is chiefly used by Microsoft and Sun. Others use x86-64. Wikipedia however, is not Microsoft and Sun. Of course, x64 is not a troublesome term, since x64 does not refer to anything else. (To get picture of what I mean, compare with x86: x86 a processor architecture family but Microsoft uses x86 to refer to IA-32.) Fleet Command (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem to me is that x86-64 seems like "x86 (32-bit) and 64-bit". I realize this is wrong, but I fear it is misleading to the lay user.
 * We need to be as formal as possible. We're not a how-to site.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I do not agree with Jasper Deng's reason but I think everything has the potential to be misleading to a lay user. In addition, x86-64 is intended to mean "x86 (32-bit) and 64-bit" because it is 32-bit plus 64-bit. Fleet Command (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

logo
Hi. The logo is not quite right. In R2 section on the product is a darker orange than the one on this article. Does anyone have a better version please? --JetBlast (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It'll be hard to do that with our strict NFCC policies :( .Jasper Deng (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

55555555555555 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.10.63.245 (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Itanium support date
The 2013/2018 end dates mentioned here are simply outdated; they were never specific to the Itanium edition. The end dates for Server 2008 were revised from 2013/2018 to 2015/2020 back in 2012. See. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It's getting relevant to know (e.g. for Itanium article that conflicts with this one), is Itanium support running out, that is tomorrow on June 10, i.e. last security updates last month or does it follow non-Itanium variants. comp.arch (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It seems "Server 2008 Windows Server 2008 R2 for Itanium-Based Systems" may have ended support in 2013(?), but without "R2", the older "Server 2008 Windows Server 2008 R2 for Itanium-Based Systems" is still supported up to 2020. I.e. was the support for the older version extended, but R2 neglected (or the former updated by accident by Microsoft?), as shown if the same official document. comp.arch (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The support lifecycle page can be very confusing, so I'll try to point out what's really going on there. Notice that it lists each of main editions of 2008 R2 (Standard, Enterprise and Datacenter as well as Itanium-based) as ending 4/9/2013 in the "Service Pack Support End Date" column. The other end date columns are N/A and there is a note saying to see the entry for the current Service Pack. There is a separate entry for "Windows Server 2008 R2 Service Pack 1" which ends 1/14/2020. Conclusion: those edition-specific entries only refer to the RTM or "Service Pack 0" end of support, and simply show when SP1 was required for continued support. The true end of support date for all editions of R2 is 1/14/2020. - Josh (talk | contribs) 14:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Windows Server 2008 R2 came also with Windows 7.
Windows Server 2008 R2 was released on the same day Windows 7 was released thank you! 2600:6C5E:6A00:7772:810B:55B1:D174:6B36 (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)