Talk:Windows Server 2016

Version history

Dear editors, first of all thank y'all for all of your individual contributions to this page and Wikipedia in general, but I need to call out that WP:NOTCHANGELOG clearly states that secondary and tertiary sources need be used when implementing version histories in this encyclopedia so when you add new entries on this website please use both Microsoft (like TechNet) but also non-Microsoft sources to fit WP:NOTABILITY, Thank you in advance.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello.

WP:NOTCHANGELOG says "Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources". But you exactly violated that. Your source is self-published.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Technical Previews in multiple installer editions

The Technical Preview packages seem to come in various different installer editions since at least TP3, including Essential, Datacenter, and Hypercore. It's not clear in our article what the difference between these is, and whether they're all needed for a complete installation, or are different installation options, or what.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi.

It is one of those cases that if it were clear, someone would have fixed it.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The three editions now appear to be Essentials, Standard and Datacenter, please can a section be added to the article.John a s (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

an 180 day evaluation

Shouldn't it be "a" instead of "an"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sin Jeong-hun (talk • contribs) 11:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

ARM support

Microsoft has demonstrated ARM support for Server 2016.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Kennedy|first1=Patrick|title=HERE IS THE DEMO OF QUALCOMM CENTRIQ RUNNING WINDOWS SEVER 2016|url=https://www.servethehome.com/here-is-the-demo-of-qualcomm-centriq-running-windows-sever-2016/|accessdate=9 March 2017|publisher=Serve the Home|date=9 March 2017}}</ref> While not generally available yet, this seems worthy of inclusion. However, I'm not sure how/where it should be included as it is not a feature of the available Server 2016 edition. Thoughts? Dbsseven (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. The development section is the appropriate place. —Codename Lisa (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The comma in Windows Server, version 1709

Codename Lisa is insisting on removing one, but not other instances of the comma in "Windows Server, version 1709". All reliable sources point to the comma being there, but she's insisting, so, let's hear some opinions on it. — Warren. ‘ talk , 06:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Warren: As far as I can tell, it should be Windows Server, version 1709 per here and all the other documentation on Microsoft's website, though this seems the most official. Has made me wonder if Windows Server 2016 should be its own page while Windows Server, version 1709 is broken into its own page, since it seems to be a different OS to Microsoft, so I've brought up the subject below. — Zzyzx Wolfe ^(TALK_CONT) 03:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Zzyzx: Hi. I could swear we had a full discussion about this with Warren. Was it my user talk page?

Anyway, like I said, Wikipedia has no obligation whatsoever to repeat Microsoft's grammatical mistakes. (I could swear Warren said something about music albums and I replied that from context, it is obvious that music albums intend an effect from it while Microsoft just has a history of being clumsy.)

I also said that secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself also feel no such obligation as well, including:

1. Neowin: [1]
2. VMware: [2]
3. Paul "Microsoft fan" Thurrott: [3]
4. Microsoft MVP Sander Berkouwer: [4]
5. Redmond Magazine: [5]
6. MSPowerUser: [6]
7. Two other random websites I've never heard of: [7] and [8]

Now, if it was the case that almost everyone wrote "Windows Server, version 1709", Wikipedia would have been obliged to follow. But they don't. Hence, we have no obligation to do the same grammatical mistake.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa:, there are other places that seem to stick with the "Windows Server, version 1709" moniker, and since it seems to be the official name of the product from the company making it, it seems like that would be more accurate. The closest thing I can find is MOS:TM which states: 'Do not "correct" the spelling, punctuation, diacritics, or grammar of trademarks to be different from anything found in reliable sources – the name should be recognizable as referring to the topic.'

1. ZDNet
2. Fujitsu
3. Argon Systems
4. DataON Storage]
5. ReadySpace

Perhaps this is something that would best be answered by a WP:RfC? — Zzyzx Wolfe ^(TALK_CONT) 10:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, great. Another other bad examples exist argument. I am sure there are lots of place on the Internet that write grammatically and typographically wrong. We don't work for them.

Also, you've started an RFC already. At least wait for Warren to reply before doing anything else.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The RfC I started is about whether Windows Server 2016 and Windows Server should be two separate articles, since Microsoft seems to have dropped 2016 from the name for version 1709, not the comma issue.— Zzyzx Wolfe ^(TALK_CONT) 02:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hence, the reason I said what I said. If the RFC was about comma, and there was no other RFCs, I'd have just participated instead.

I really do not understand some of you Wikipedians. Instead of doing actual contributions, you start a whole mess every time some Tom, Dick or Harry makes a grammatical mistake. We have MOS:STABILITY to stop wasting time and go about the business that matters.

—Codename Lisa (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC Windows Server 2016 vs Windows Server, version 1709

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For now, I have put the latest Windows Server 2016 version as 1607 build 14393.2097 because, according to Microsoft, 1607 is the latest version of Windows Server 2016. They distinctly named version 1709 as just Windows Server. I'm curious if the information under the Windows Server, version 1709 should be separated into a different article since Microsoft is now using Windows Server 2016 and Windows Server as two, distinct names, as can be seen here. It's not really accurate to say the latest version of Windows Server 2016 is 1709 when Microsoft say it's 1607 and that the latest version of Windows Server is 1709. Thoughts? — Zzyzx Wolfe ^(TALK_CONT) 02:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Microsoft is clearly treating it as a separate version from Server 2016, so it definitely makes more sense to separate them. timawesomeness ⟨talk⟩ 08:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Server 1709 is no longer considered part of Server 2016. Now it's part of the Semi-Annual channel and is in line with Windows 10 releases. Server 1803 is expected to arrive, followed by 1809. These are different versions. In fact, Server 1809 aligns with Server 2019.

My suggestion is to include these server releases with the Windows 10 Version History page. That page has a section for desktop and another for mobile. It makes sense to have a section for Server.

Best

NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Nothing to add to immediately foregoing. Sorry. JonRichfield (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment -- It isn't "Windows 10", "Windows Server 2016" or "Windows Server 2019", so the information on these releases shouldn't be in any of those articles. A new article titled Windows Server Semi-Annual Channel is required to house information about this new release track of Windows. — Warren. ‘ talk , 05:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyone else agree or disagree with creating the Server Semi Annual server article? For LTSC releases of server, such as 2016, 2019, etc, the classic approaches of a dedicated article per server release makes sense. But with the slated two new releases of server per year in the semi-annual branch, each with smaller number of new features, the approach of a version table, akin to Windows 10 version history, iOS Version history, makes sense, with all the releases under one article. I like this idea, but if anyone has a differing opinion, let us know.

NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment It is way it is going. Weird name though, is that what it is called? scope_creep (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Version 1709 is still a version of Windows Server 2016, regardless of what Microsoft are officially calling it. The only significant difference is that it's being released under the semi-annual distribution model. So I think it belongs on this page in its own section, as it currently is. -- Hux (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment @Hux That is incorrect. Windows Server, Version 1709 is not part of Server 2016. It is a separate product, sold separately, and cannot be licensed with Server 2016 product key. Windows Server 1803, likewise, is an upgrade to 1709, and 1809 (tentative name) is an upgrade to 1803. It is expected Windows Server 2019 will be feature equivalent to Server, Version 1809. So are you saying Windows Server 2019 is the same as Windows Server 2016. I know it's a bit confusing, but if you read the docs, it makes sense. The confusion arises because in the client side, Microsoft calls all these versions Windows 10, even though they are new OS upgrades, as Microsoft no longer intends to sell discrete copies of Windows. It's possible that 5 years later, we would still have a Windows 10, even if the version of Windows in 2020 will be more different from the original Windows 10 than Windows 7 is from XP. NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Invited by the bot. Articles need to be titled by commonly used names, and that's how people are going to look for them. It's hard to imagine Microsoft marketing this by the name "Server 1709". Suggest using whatever their general name for this is. All other specifics and distinctions can be covered in the content.North8000 (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.