Microsoft launches entry-level Foundation Server 2008
By Joseph L. Flatley 
posted April 1st 2009 7:41PM
posted April 1st 2009 7:41PM
Microsoft has just announced the release of Windows Server 2008 Foundation. Codenamed Lima once upon a time, this release is being billed as a low cost alternative to Windows Small Business Server. Squarely aimed at the OEM set (Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Lenovo, and various Chinese software pirating syndicates have already have expressed interest), this licensing scheme limits the server to fifteen users (even as a member server on a Windows domain), doesn't include hypervisor, and does away with the need for Client Access Licenses (CALs). With today's announcement, Foundation is available in 40 countries in English, Traditional and Simplified Chinese, Japanese, Brazilian Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish.[Via ZDNet]
A large amount off topic, but why hasn't Engadget talked about Conficker at all?
Because it didn't do much of anything today worth mentioning. The April 1 date was just an scheduled update like the worm had seen before, and what security researchers predicted to happen. There was no special 'activation' or anything.
because cnn had enough coverage for everyone
technically, no one is sure what will happen. From listening to engadgets podcasts, they HATE being on the bandwaggon.
ex: Obama phone. They didn't like how all the news agencies were reporting about something that that administration had not confirmed, nor did the news agencies have any idea what was going on
Conficker.C may have deployed today, or the author may have waited. I think we'll truly see the damages next week if any, that occurred due to Conficker.C
Cause they're using Macs and it didn't do anything to em?
@arcticpenguin
You sir are completely wrong about the release of Conficker.C. In fact, Conficker.C was first detected on Feb. 20, 2009 and the newer updated Conficker.D was first detected early last month on March 4. The hype of the "April Fools Virus" is overblown by the news media. Yes, it is a nasty virus, even more nasty than the SQL Worm back in 2003. But for those who are smart enough to have anti-virus software and not too lazy to do your automatic update, will most likely never see it, even if it does mutate into strain E, F, G, etc. I had a computer earlier today in the shop and it was a fresh restore of XP Pre-SP1 and just by connecting to the internet and downloading automatic updates and service packs, became instantly infected, which prompts me to believe that something between the ISP at the shop and microsoft's servers is infected.
setnev: the correct procedure is to install antivirus before you download updates. It wouldn't even have to be a recent download either. the AVG on my thumb drive is from december and would have protected that computer just fine.
You just don't blindly put an unpatched machine on the internet, even to get updates. That's why microsoft releases newer versions of windows xp with sp2 and sp3 included.
yeah, this is what they need to make WHS ver 2
This is one "Foundation" we hope does not lead to an "Empire". The galaxy is not ready for Windows in space.
Can it run eMule?
as long as this is the first foundation and not the second foundation we're still safe.
Yeah, MS released this on TPB last week, right?
This is nothing but a gimped version of ordinary Windows Server. Nothing to see here; move along.
Yes this is nothing but another attempt from Microsoft, the biggest "me too" company on the planet, to steal market share from open community. Linux, Unix....
"the biggest "me too" company on the planet"
Yes. 90% market share in the computing arena... ME TOO!
lol
Steal from Linux and Unix? More like the other way around, Jubei. I wonder if your state of delirium will ever come to an end.
Engadget, I'm seriously disappointed by your lack of an april fools news story. I mean, what kind of blog are you??
i second this notion.
more jokes please.
I think we all have had enough of iPhone posts for the past... um... ever!
They should rename it the Isaac Asimov version for the geek set
The biggest difference between this and WHS is that this will enable you to serve pages, unlike WHS. Considering the price of Server 2008, this is a nice option.
Not true. WHS has IIS6 installed (WHS is based upon Win Server 2003, so it uses IIS6) and I serve up my family's web pages from my WHS box. The only limitation is how many simultaneous connections for web pages at a time is 10. There are many other differences, I used to run Server 2003, but when WHS was released I installed it, since it allows backup, media sharing, NAS functionality, etc.
My company already has 8 different versions of Windows 2008, not including small business server ones. Lets just pile on another.
Why? Please expand on that.
'cause it's all about you. Screw the 10 person shop. Let them do peer to peer and pay someone a fortune to manage it.
Sounds like your company needs to do some network/system consolidation.
I feel this is a great idea. The price of CALs and the price of SBS are too expensive for such a small company (that would use this product). This will allow them to get what they need at a reasonable price.
I'm all about some Linux, but face it, especially in a company this small, there isn't going to be anybody capable of establishing a *nix network infrastructure.
Because sudo make me a sandwich.
Agreed. SBS is becoming Windows Server and leaving small businesses in the dust. I was looking forward to SBS 2008 until I saw the prices. My SBS 2003 is doing fine just as it is.
This is hilarious.
Why not install any of the Linux/BSD/Solaris based server operating systems for FREE and have UNLIMITED USERS?