So. This is what I've been informed.  Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] (Pro 32-bit SP3) Microsoft Windows [Version 5.2.3790] (Windows XP 64-bit) Microsoft Windows [Version 5.2.3790] (Windows 2003 SP2) Microsoft Windows [Version 5.2.3790] (Windows 2003 R2 SP2) Am I the only person that finds it odd that three different version of Windows, sold as different products, one even sold as an upgrade to the other, should all share the same major, minor, build versions? Edward R. Joell MCSD MCDBA

Hello, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2003 R2 share the same kernel and all three products have the same version number 5.2.3790. Whats the problem? Thanks Zhang

Hello, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2003 R2 share the same kernel and all three products have the same version number 5.2.3790. Whats the problem? Thanks Zhang

I received no notification of the reply or the proposal as an answer. The first indication I have had that someone replied to this was today. The reason I have a problem is that this seem to directly contravene the observed Microsoft practice of providing at least a new build number for each alteration in an application. There are significant differences between Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 R2. In SQL Server there were practically no difference in the database engine between SS 2008 and SS 2008 R2. Yet it got not only a different build number but a different minor version. Another example, Window 98 4.10.1998 and Window 98 SE 4.10.2222 then 4.10.2222A then 4.10.2222C. So naturally I would find it odd and unusual that an edition of Window XP and Window Server 2003 would have the same Major, minor, and build numbers. If Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 both versions share the same kernal why did you have to pay full price to go from one to the next of each of the three OS? How is it that Windows XP can use either an FAT or an NTFS file system, but Windows Server can only use NTFS? It just doesn't seem logical.Edward R. Joell MCSD MCDBA

Windows XP (very important to note 32bit) and Server 2003 R2 are different kernels. When MSFT released XP x64 (not to be confused with the IA64 release), that build was based off of the Server 2003 kernel. Yes, there are significant difference between the client and server versions. It is no different from how it is currently implemented where both client and server share the same kernel (starting with Vista). Linux is no different. A client version of RedHat can easily have the same kernel as a hardened, "headless," non-GUI RedHat server. Its not just the kernel that makes a system a client or server, but the tuning of the entire OS as a whole. Yes, XP can use FAT or NTFS (NFTS was always recommend for resilience, journaling, etc). XP was targeted to everyday consumers, some of whom had FAT/FAT32 formatted volumes. Using FAT or FAT32 as a file system format for the OS drive is depreciated due to its limitations. The reason server would not have any support for using FAT formatted volume is because you would ALWAYS want to have resilience, performance, journaling, etc. on any server system running dedicated server versions of an OS. No one in his or her right mind would run a server running Server 20xx on a FAT formatted volume.

Its not just the kernel that makes a system a client or server, but the tuning of the entire OS as a whole. Which is why is seems to me that the OS version numbers should be different even though they share the same kernel. I guess MS is just going to do what they want. Regardless over whether it makes sense to us or not. Edward R. Joell MCSD MCDBA