Talk:Windows Server

message: Did Microsoft really ever refer to Windows 2000 Server as Windows Server? Josh 20:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Windows 2000

message: Why is Windows NT Server not listed in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.50.124 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 22 March 2014‎ (UTC
:There's no such thing as "Windows NT Server".  The article now mentions NT 3.1 Advanced Server, NT 3.5 Server, NT 4.0 Server, and W2K Server, although they didn't use the "Windows Server" brand, they just used brands that had both "Windows" and "Server" in them, but not consecutively. Guy Harris (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Windows NT Server

message: Paul Thurott depicted this as another Windows Server line: Windows MultiPoint Server 2010-Supersite Blog
And indeed, it does use Windows Server CALs. Can someone contribute because I'm on the fence on whether it's really Windows Server. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows MultiPoint Server 2010 

message: This is more like a category rather than an article.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. We already do have a category. If it looks like a category to you, it sure doesn't looks so to a person who looks for actual information and searches "Windows Server". It is a stub and should remain a stub. Fleet Command (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to category? 

message: It seems implicit that Windows Home Server is not part of the Windows Server brand, yet a clear proof of the distinction would be appreciated  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MessCoder (talk • contribs) 23:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Home Server 

message: I note "end of discussion" because this matter has been now fully settled. Windows Server, Version 1709, is part of a new line of Server products that are seperate from Windows Server 2016. In fact, Windows Server 1809 is slated to be have a LTSC variant that is Windows Server 2019. That's a new version, and yet, it's in line with a Windows Server SAC version. Windows Server 2016 license holders cannot get use and Activate Windows Server, Version MMYY and is part of a subscription service. You cannot "upgrade" from Server 2016 to Server, Version YYMM, but you CAN upgrade from an older Server Version YYMM to a newer one.
I noted the subheading as reference for a future reader of this talk page.
Tags: Warren Codename Lisa.
Best,
NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You have your information correct, but, as a friendly reminder: you don't get to decide that a discussion has ended. —  Warren. ‘ talk , 14:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Server, Version MMYY Are Standalone, Separate Products 

message: Is there any information on the licensing model anywhere? --Alien4 (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licensing 

message: Windows 2000 Server was the first server edition to include... DNS Server, DHCP Server,
This is absolutely hilariously wrong, as seconds of any search engine will show.
With love,
180.216.169.250 (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows 2000 was... 

message: Hey, on 27 October 2021 I've made a few changes, and one that was reverted with question why, was my removal of "Windows" from "Windows Hyper-V Server". I didn't notice up until today.
The answer is simple: The product is and always was actually called only "Hyper-V Server", no "Windows". All Microsoft pages and product lists refer to it only as "Hyper-V Server".
I'll leave the fix (or not) up to you all, I'm deeply tired of having everything everywhere here, even typo fixes, constantly reverted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.250.4 (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyper-V Server 

message: The IP user 189.248.71.56 is repeatedly linking to pages that do not exist. As the IP user seems to have done it a few times since I was last here, I gave them a level 3 warning because of this. Please explain yourself, 189.248.71.56. You got 2 warnings, Guy Harris got mad at you, and you *still* added that 404 page. Kindly explain yourself, or else you may be the subject of administrator attention. Mseingth2133444 (Did I mess up? Let me know here | Thank me here) 01:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The user has now been reported to admins. Mseingth2133444 (Did I mess up? Let me know here | Thank me here) 17:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon behavior 

message: The title pretty much says it, it says the latest version was April 9, 2024 but it says that was 0 days ago, when it is 2 days ago. I can't edit it because I just made this account and the article is semi-protected so if anyone can edit it to say 2 days ago that would be pretty nice. Veberet (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Veberet Appears to be a technical issue. I found where it is deriving from and when I edit it it is fixed but when I reload this article it isn't? Seems like a bug to me. Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia, and requests like these are called edit requests. Next time, when you have a request like this, please click "new section" on the talk page, then click "source", then type in , followed by your request so others can help you swiftly. Again, welcome. thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 01:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the info! And also thanks for telling me about edit requests. Veberet (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: At least when viewed in a non-mobile browser, there's a "More" drop-down menu to the left of the "Search Wikipedia" box.  Selecting "Purge" on the article, and then on the template for the latest release, seems to have fixed things; perhaps something got stuck somewhere. Guy Harris (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 9, 2024 listed as 0 days ago?