OSNews

Anyone that has digital media or documents and wants to ensure they won't lose them due to a harddrive failure, tampering, mistaken deletion, etc., would benefit from a home server. It's largely a set-it-and-forget-it appliance that can provide a central location for your data, guards against data loss, monitors the systems on your network for security/reliability issues, makes it faster and easier to restore your systems, and enables remote access to them.

There's video here:
http://on10.net/Blogs/jesse/windows-home-server-will-live-in-your-c...

http://microsoftatces.com/archive/2007/01/08/microsoft-home-server....

Anyone that has digital media or documents and wants to ensure they won't lose them due to a harddrive failure[...]

Except of course if the server hard drive fails. ;-)

I guess the ideal solution would be a solid state HD, but with the kind of capacity you need for this type of device it would cost over 1500$!!

Except of course if the server hard drive fails. ;-)

The server can have multiple drives for redundancy, or the data can be both on the PC and the server ensuring the data exists in at least 2 places.

Edited 2007-01-09 00:32

Multiple drives is preferable (if more expensive), as having data in two different places can be a bit more complicated, especially for stuff that changes (home accounting data, for example). You'd need a versioning system, or at least rsync, to manage it. It can certainly be done, but it's a bit more complex.

I got the idea that the device is destined more for centralized storage than backup anyway (though it would certainly be useful for that as well).

Oy vey. Have you actually read any of the articles?

There is a lot of info on the redundancy available. From (http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/whs_preview.asp)

"WHS aggregates all of the storage attached to the server into a single store pool, regardless of whether that storage is internal, external, or a combination. As you add drives to the server, the available storage pool simply increases. [...] Data is mirrored at the shared folder level, so that two copies of a folder are always stored on two different physical hard drives. It's quite different from RAID, Headrick says."

I hadn't read through it when I wrote the first message, I read that part afterward. That's the only thing I saw that I thought was pretty cool about MS's offering...is it enough to stave off the competition? I doubt it.

The server can have multiple drives for redundancy, or the data can be both on the PC and the server ensuring the data exists in at least 2 places.

So? The client also can get multiple drives for redundancy - it can even become a "standard practice" when buying a pc - and it's way cheaper than a separate server. And local filesystems can also do internal backups and versioning and all that, without buying a extra server, you know.

And if you want to replicate your data...why replicate it in a "server"....when the other computers in your house could use their unused disk space? Vista could add techonoloy to enable other computers in your house to store encrypted backups of other computers in your home...*THAT* would be interesting

Aditionally, since the server needs to store backups from *ALL* the pcs it means it'll need to have enought storage capacity...your disks in your personal pcs may be half-void but hey, because WHS needs to do backups of the half-filled part for N different computers you may need to go to the store and ask for a extra disk for your WHS server. Weeeee.

Backup devices are certainly useful in many cases, I'd see why you'd want something like WHS in a office. But I don't understand why people would buy WHS for their homes at all, not even enthusiasts. The one useful idea behind it for homes seems to be the fact that you can access the files while the another pc is powered off. And frankly, I'm just not buying a separate and expensive server + pay a extra license OS for that.

Edited 2007-01-09 01:04

So? The client also can get multiple drives for redundancy - it can even become a "standard practice" when buying a pc - and it's way cheaper than a separate server. And local filesystems can also do internal backups and versioning and all that, without buying a extra server, you know.

This is a possibility with Vista's Complete PC Backup, but this isn't as good a solution as maintaining the data on a server because you replicate the same steps per PC, and you waste storage space because you duplicate data that is the same accross multiple PCs.


And if you want to replicate your data...why replicate it in a "server"....when the other computers in your house could use their unused disk space? Vista could add techonoloy to enable other computers in your house to store encrypted backups of other computers in your home...*THAT* would be interesting.

Again, one of the reasons is wasted storage space due to the redundant storage of data that is the same accross PCs and devices on the network. Assuming that isn't an issue, another issue is that those disks are in use as much as you use your computers, so they're probability of failure is higher. There's also the question of what happens when one computer or multiple computers don't have enough reserved capacity to store backups for other PCs or devices.

Aditionally, since the server needs to store backups from *ALL* the pcs it means it'll need to have enought storage capacity...your disks in your personal pcs may be half-filled but hey, because WHS needs to do backups of the half-filled part for N different computers you may need to go to the store and ask for a extra disk for your WHS server.

WHS uses volume shadow copy services/single instance storage for its backups. Files that are common accross PCs and devices (OS and application files, etc.) will only be stored once on the server. Also, when changes are made to the files, only those changes (along with the original) are stored.

another issue is that those disks are in use as much as you use your computers, so they're probability of failure is higher.

So? The "disk failure" is already happening in a replicated device in other computer in your home. Your data is safe, problem solved. Again, if you want to rely on "data replication" for doing backups in your home, the easier and cheaper idea (the idea that home users want) is to use unused space in all the pcs in your home to make encrypted replications, and save the 600$ that is going to cost you your "backup device". Dude, it's how P2P works, and it DOES work. If that's not enought for you, you aren't a normal user and you're considering proffesional backup solutions _anyway_. In fact, I don't know many people that has ever needed a "backup server". The recycle bin + the versioning build in vista is more enought for 99.9% of the rare home users that need "backups". And have I mentioned that hard disks just don't fail most of the time for most of the people?

This is a possibility with Vista's Complete PC Backup, but this isn't as good a solution as maintaining the data on a server

Sure. And Joe User has been able to buy complete and expensive backup solutions for a long time. I just don't think he is going to do it.

Guys, what I'm arguing is that I don't see WHY Joe User wants a backup server. I can see LOTS of uses for it - in offices and enterprises. You know, "backup" is not a new thing to the industry and lots of proffesionals use it because they actually need it. But WTF, do you really think Joe User is going to think "oooh, a backup device, i'm wasting 500$ on it just in case my hard disk breaks!"?? f--k, joe user doesn't _know_ that hard disks can fail, and he doesn't care.

Guys, what I'm arguing is that I don't see WHY Joe User wants a backup server. I can see LOTS of uses for it - in offices and enterprises. You know, "backup" is not a new thing to the industry and lots of proffesionals use it because they actually need it. But WTF, do you really think Joe User is going to think "oooh, a backup device, i'm wasting 500$ on it just in case my hard disk breaks!"?? f--k, joe user doesn't _know_ that hard disks can fail, and he doesn't care.

I've had at least 3 harddrives fail among Joe Users that I know. My dad is now running a mirrored RAID set after losing data to harddrive failure. I bought a Seagate Baracuda not long ago that was as good as DOA and had to be shipped back for replacement (Vista warned me the drive was failing not long after I installed the drive). Joe User likely doesn't know he needs a backup solution if he has never lost data. When he does, he'll understand the need for it. But knowing he needs it, doesn't mean he wants to spend a lot of time setting it up, thus the various options MS offers (Windows Backup, CPC Backup, OneCare, WHS, etc.). Take your pick depending on your needs or choose another solution if you care to manage every detail.

Guys, what I'm arguing is that I don't see WHY Joe User wants a backup server. I can see LOTS of uses for it - in offices and enterprises. You know, "backup" is not a new thing to the industry and lots of proffesionals use it because they actually need it. But WTF, do you really think Joe User is going to think "oooh, a backup device, i'm wasting 500$ on it just in case my hard disk breaks!"?? f--k, joe user doesn't _know_ that hard disks can fail, and he doesn't care.

Well, I think that Joe User does care about backups, but that on its own is not really going to make him shell out money for the server. He would probably just buy some sort of USB drive if he has only one machine.

I think what your argument is missing here, is the family case, where the household has two or more machines (there are three PCs at my house, all in use pretty much all the time). I think this is the market that MS is aiming for. Rather than having a separate backup unit for each one, then this would be a much cheaper and efficient solution.

You could also use one of those NAS drives, but the WHA can also be used to schedule automatic backups for each machine, so the family don't have to remember to save their important stuff. And it looks as if the server is smart enough to figure out the files which are the same on each box, and only save them once; no need to save three complete Windows installations; just the differences between each one. The server also supports versioning as part of the backups, so if Lucy has overwritten her school project folder, she can actually go to the backup, and pick up the individual folder from a given day, and just restore that.

The server can also administer accounts on the network. The network health check is a nice feature as well, you can get an alert when the kids of fiddled with the firewall settings on their machine for example.

Oh, and it allows you to remote desktop into any machine on your network, from any location with an internet connection; Microsoft will apparently be giving a free IP for any WHA owner with a Live! account.

The real question is cost. We're talking about a headless box with a ho-hum processor; I can't really see it costing that much more than a large NAS drive, but we shall see.

Could the same setup be done under Linux? I'm sure it could?

Could Joe User do it under Linux? That, I'm not so sure about.

Actually, redundent storage shouldn't be an issue. Home Server uses a technology called Single Instance Storage--SIS--which only stores one copy of each unique file. So if you have Office 2007 installed on three different machines, for example, the program files will only be back up once. Likewise, most of the things in the Windows directory shouldn't be copied more than once. Supposedly, this technology has enabled Microsoft to store as much as 19 TB of data in as little as 300 GB in some of there test data sets.

Perhaps a better description is here:

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/whs_preview.asp

Solid State drives fail too. In fact many flash-based devices have a certain number of writes they can execute before they start to get stale...

Physical degeneration occurs in everything; somethings just survive longer than others.

Solid State drives fail too.

True. I wonder which one would last longer if the server is always on and doesn't move...

You mean WHS will keep on 24h/365d, doing noise and eating power? Now that would be a good reason for *not* buying it.

"You mean WHS will keep on 24h/365d, doing noise and eating power?"

Most modern PCs are almost silent, and power consumption of a PC with no monitor isn't much more than a couple of lights. I leave my 2 workstations on 24/7, and it's maybe an extra 5 bucks a month.

Or just tuck the server away in a media closet somewhere?

Regardless, very flawed argument.

It is easy to set up mirroring (RAID 0), even without hardware RAID controler.

DG

There are a lot of NAS boxes already out there that do this simply by adding your own hard drive. Taking into account the cost of the MS OS and the beefy hardware needed to run it, finding people to fork over that extra cash is going to be a lot more difficult than MS would ever admit to.

There are a lot of NAS boxes already out there that do this simply by adding your own hard drive. Taking into account the cost of the MS OS and the beefy hardware needed to run it, finding people to fork over that extra cash is going to be a lot more difficult than MS would ever admit to.

I don't consider a 1.8GHz Sempron w/ 512MB RAM beefy (what the HP unit contains -- it's unknown what the minimum specs will be, but I imagine it'll be similar to Windows Server 2003). $500 puts it in line with many NAS units, and this can handle multiple PC's and devices on your network without duplicating data that is the same accross devices.

The NSLU2 goes for $100.

It's not the server itself I don't see the need for, its a special version of Windows for it.

An older (P-III) PC can be bought for ~$50 from eBay, a 400GB HDD for ~$100. Therefore you could easily set up a home server for ~$150.
Such a PC would likely be already licenced for Windows (even Win98 would work well enough) and a suitible Linux distro can be obtained for free.

I contend that the average person has no need or desire for a server, so those who want one will almost certianly have the expertise to set one up.

Why do we need a special version of Windows?

It's not the server itself I don't see the need for, its a special version of Windows for it.
An older (P-III) PC can be bought for ~$50 from eBay, a 400GB HDD for ~$100. Therefore you could easily set up a home server for ~$150.
Such a PC would likely be already licenced for Windows (even Win98 would work well enough) and a suitible Linux distro can be obtained for free.

It depends ou what you think "easy" means. The goal for WHS is to allow people to get the benefits of a home server without having to be an admin. If you know how to cobble together a server and don't mind doing so, WHS isn't likely targeted at you.

I contend that the average person has no need or desire for a server, so those who want one will almost certianly have the expertise to set one up.

When the average person loses the data he deems important because he didn't keep regualr backups or know how to setup a RAID array, etc., he'll wish he had, and probably will look for a solution such as WHS.

Why do we need a special version of Windows?

Because it's a purpose-specific product and will be priced according to the functionality offered and the market. It also doesn't need to be in lock-step with general Windows releases.

It depends ou what you think "easy" means.

"Easy" as in "connect the large hard drive as the secondary master or externally via USB, right click on the icon in 'My Computer' and set up sharing.".
Although with Linux it will be "install the OS, install Webmin and set up sharing from there", slightly more complex.

(Note that the box only needs a monitor for this short proccess. VNC or Remote Desktop can be used for maintanance.)

Even if you first have to install the OS it won't take more than an hour or two.

"Easy" as in "connect the large hard drive as the secondary master or externally via USB, right click on the icon in 'My Computer' and set up sharing.".

Average User: What's secondary master mean? You mean I have to open the box!? I just want to not lose my family photos. Can you install it for me? Oh, USB, that'll backup all my PCs right?

Even if you first have to install the OS it won't take more than an hour or two.

In that time, you could be well on your way backing up your systems with WHS.

Edited 2007-01-09 01:31

"Average user" has nothing to do with it, they have no need or desire for a server. Most of them only have one PC, if they want backup, a USB pen or external hard drive would serve just as well.

I re-iterate: I see no need for "Joe Average" to have a "home server". There is a strong correlation between those that want/need this sort of thing and those that could set it up.

I meant to connect via USB to the server (I thought that was obvious). Even connecting it internally is a simple matter of following the instructions that are generally provided with hard drives or are easily found on Google.

In that time, you could be well on your way backing up your systems with WHS.

If someone put together a specialized Linux distro for this sort of thing, which I'm sure they will if it takes off, the set-up time could be reduced to a few minutes (using a LiveCD-based approach). The backup is nothing special, nothing that a cron job or "Scheduled task" couldn't do.

If someone put together a specialized Linux distro for this sort of thing, which I'm sure they will if it takes off, the set-up time could be reduced to a few minutes (using a LiveCD-based approach). The backup is nothing special, nothing that a cron job or "Scheduled task" couldn't do.

And who will market this specialized distro so that average users can buy a box, plug it in, walk through a few configuration steps, and be done? A cron job or scheduled task would likely take more time and disk space for the backup, and backup is still only one aspect of WHS.

I re-iterate: I see no need for "Joe Average" to have a "home server".

At one time certain execs at HP thought there was no need for the average person at home to even have a computer. We all see how accurate that one turned out to be!

Joe User already has a server at home, a lot of people are sharing out music and videos over their home LAN using shared folders etc.

The fact that routers have become common place in the home shows that joe user is capable of learning and connecting the dots when the package is fairly straightforward.

Again, "Average User" has no need or desire for a server.

Those that need/want a server are the same people that know how to install a hard drive or set up a "Scheduled task" to backup their documents.

"Easy" as in "connect the large hard drive as the secondary master or externally via USB, right click on the icon in 'My Computer' and set up sharing.".
Although with Linux it will be "install the OS, install Webmin and set up sharing from there", slightly more complex.

Well, that's easy; but how about setting the large hard drive to automatically back up all the connnected machines at midnight?

Or getting it to only back up files that differ on each machine?

Or getting the hard drive to support remote desktops?

Or supporting versioned backups so that the wife can just look at the her backups and pick out one file from one particular date to restore?

Edited 2007-01-09 09:33

Does that whole idea not negate the actual reason for having digital rights management in the first place ?

I for one dont want people like you copying my new movie/new song/new novel onto a server anywhere !

I have a question, dunno if you can answer it or not.

The autobackup is a nice feature, but doesn't that mean leaving all the machines on all the time?

Same with the remote desktop function. When the average user takes his family, on holiday, he doesn't want to leave the other machines in the house switched on, just so that they can remote desktop in.

I think they must have just been looking at US markets and how Americans live... not everyone lets there kid have a computer when he's three, not everyone wants to play 'games' on a games console or media centre PC with the family all sitting round waiting for their turn. I can see Ökos wanting this - sitting amongst their wooden toys... this will be something for Assis.

@SK8T

And if he can deliver the features I want, he may get some of my money.

Well, let's hope you're not going to use that Home server to backup your data because you're formating your Windows O.S.....since that is probably what your Home server will be running ;-)

But you forget one VERY important factor in all of that: Windows has very strong brand recognition, especially when it will no doubt integrate much better (and easier) into existing Windows home networks. That alone will sell almost everyone on it, including someone like myself who would actually prefer a NAS based solution. But if it plays better with my Windows machines, why not?

I see this space heating up quite a bit. A good indication of this is look how popular consumer level NAS solutions are now...even just a year or so ago no one outside of a server room had ever even heard of NAS, now my grandma even knows what that means.

But you forget one VERY important factor in all of that: Windows has very strong brand recognition, especially when it will no doubt integrate much better (and easier) into existing Windows home networks. That alone will sell almost everyone on it, including someone like myself who would actually prefer a NAS based solution. But if it plays better with my Windows machines, why not?

Yes and no. Windows' name recognition won't necessarily translate into more sales, because it's not really a popular brand other than by the fact that it's installed on any PC out there. The only MS brands to do well in a *competitive* market are Xbox and Hotmail/MSN (but that's not really a consumer product).

As for making it work better with Windows than competitive product, this would mean that MS would take advantage of certain hidden protocols or APIs, which would open it wide to another anti-trust lawsuit. There's no reason why a Linux/BSD device with Samba couldn't do just as good a job (for cheaper in license fees). If there's one thing Unix-like systems are, it's storing data and serving it over a network, and that's exactly what this box would do.

As I said, I don't think it's a bad idea, and if MS can start the ball rolling I think it's another great opportunity for others to jump in with FOSS-based devices.

A good indication of this is look how popular consumer level NAS solutions are now...even just a year or so ago no one outside of a server room had ever even heard of NAS, now my grandma even knows what that means.

Maybe your grandma is thinking of something else. From the NAS disambiguation page on WP... ;-)

# Network access server, also known as a terminal server
# Network Application Support
# Network-attached storage
# Network Audio System

As for making it work better with Windows than competitive product, this would mean that MS would take advantage of certain hidden protocols or APIs, which would open it wide to another anti-trust lawsuit. There's no reason why a Linux/BSD device with Samba couldn't do just as good a job (for cheaper in license fees).

They don't need to take advantage of hidden APIs or protocols, just use APIs that are native to the Windows platform, like VSS.

They don't need to take advantage of hidden APIs or protocols, just use APIs that are native to the Windows platform, like VSS.

Yes, that's the point I was making. This doesn't give MS a competitive advantage. Serving files and providing other network services can be done by a competitor using FOSS software.

Yes, that's the point I was making. This doesn't give MS a competitive advantage. Serving files and providing other network services can be done by a competitor using FOSS software.

Functionality is only part of the solution. If they can't match usability and provide a packaged product that's easy to setup, and that people actually know is available, WHS still wins.

Functionality is only part of the solution. If they can't match usability and provide a packaged product that's easy to setup, and that people actually know is available, WHS still wins.

Why wouldn't they be able to match usability and provide an easy setup? It's not rocket science.

I know you're a die-hard MS supporter, but that doesn't change the fact that MS has a hard time penetrating new markets, and if there's any interest in this kind of device, it's only a matter of time before competitors jump in.

Why wouldn't they be able to match usability and provide an easy setup? It's not rocket science.
I know you're a die-hard MS supporter, but that doesn't change the fact that MS has a hard time penetrating new markets, and if there's any interest in this kind of device, it's only a matter of time before competitors jump in.

It may not be rocket science, but it doesn't always happen. Look at MCE vs similar solutions. How many competing solutions are marketed so the average user actually knows they're available? How many are available as a packaged product that allows the user to get started with minimal configuration? Many advanced users who have used competing products for their free cost of acquisition and/or tweakability have either switched completely to MCE or chosen it as the system they use for their family, in part, because it was less hassle, well integrated, and well supported. The same factors will apply to WHS vs its competition.

I know you're a die-hard MS supporter, but that doesn't change the fact that MS has a hard time penetrating new markets,

It's not a new market though is it? It's an extension of a market that they pretty much own; home users. Can't see how a Linux-based solution is going to get around that. If Linux was making any headway on the home desktop, then it would have a chance.

Using the APis is less than half the story; FOSS still has to come up with an easy to use system that covers the same functionality.

We're talking about a server here. All you need is a good web interface. As far as functionality goes, it's not rocket science. Please provide some actual arguments to support your unbridled enthusiasm for all things MS.

Please provide some actual arguments to support your unbridled enthusiasm for all things MS.

Dear oh dear ...

So, in other words, you *dont* have any arguments to support the actual statement?

Dear oh dear, indeed.

True, there has been lot of similiar smaller scale systems. Mostly they been network devices with HDD inside. But fact is that those lack several things that Home Server will have, mainly backup. Also i have tested few and found them hard to use and very buggy. It seems that many manufacturer takes FOSS solutions, throw them in to box and call it final product. Instead they should take time to develop and test systems

There are LOTS of distros that do this sort of thing....most with web-ONLY management interfaces that require zero command line etc...

ClarkConnect, and SMEServer for 2 good ones that I have experiences with.

This project recently crossed my radar:
http://www.nslu2-linux.org/

NSLU2 is the way to go. I run it and Twonky. A complete media center and home server for less than $200. Plus it is silent and draws hardly any power.

Haven't tried gmediaserver yet.
http://www.gnu.org/software/gmediaserver/

Maybe I can get rid of twonky and be 100% open source.

"There are NAS devices and routers that supports plugging in USB hard drives and acts as a server. I don't see how Windows Home Server has a large market."

You just answered your own statement...look at the size of the market for consumer level NAS devices right now, that space is exploding. If MS can get terabyte sized systems offered for under a grand w/ WHS running on it, they'll succeed and then some.

1 TB for under $400 US is too expensive for you?
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070105-8559.html

I seriously doubt that'll be the final name, it's much too simple compared to MS's other product names...perhaps something like "Windows Vista Networking/Storage/Backup/Bake You A Cake/ (Starter/Premium/Ultimate) Edition 2007" would better fall in line.

That was exactly my first thought. I don't think we or the environment really need to have more 24/7 machines running. In one room we replace all light-bulbs with energy-saving ones, in the other room we install a nice new server that someone wants us to have, and that perhaps improves our life a little... but probably not for the long run.

In the office we replace a dozen of servers and virtualize them because we realize the power, heat and environmental implications... and now we just move them to the homes :-(

I'm always wondering how much people *think* about running servers at home. Sure; you learn a lot from it, you have a bit of bandwidth so you can useful things as well... and the server itself was probably not that expensive - but it still consumes more energy (and 200/300 eur/$ a year?) than the average lightbulb you just replaced.

I don't really care about this if it's just the average geek doing this (could be me) - if MS wants every household to have this, I'm much more worried.

And they indeed make good botnets...

why does every post that n4cer guy makes look like an advertisement ?

Why does every other post look like an advertisement for Linux?

Because he has this undying belief that MS will provide a simple data storage/conectivity centre for the home that will be bullet proof and never need updating or management utilities. Much unlike any other product that Microsoft has released onto the market.

This is why it will not happen, that coupled with the high costs MS will demand and that given to average Jo it will become an abused/hacked POS in very little time. Computing can deliver such a device but Microsoft can not.

Because he has this undying belief that MS will provide a simple data storage/conectivity centre for the home that will be bullet proof and never need updating or management utilities. Much unlike any other product that Microsoft has released onto the market.

I actually believe it will require updating and management, but most of this will happen automatically via Windows/Microsoft Update. And of course, you can add storage as necessary, and it's much easier to slide in a hotpluggable drive bay than it is to deal with internal storage on multiple PCs.

Computing can deliver such a device but Microsoft can not.

Computing can't deliver such a device because technology changes, and the device would need to be updated at some point no matter who made it. Part of the value of WHS is that it can be updated to improve how it works and what it offers, and maintain compatibility as your client devices change.

(including FreeNAS for you Linux fans)

FreeNAS runs on FreeBSD. From the website:

Welcome to FreeNAS
FreeNAS is a free NAS (Network-Attached Storage) server, supporting: CIFS (samba), FTP, NFS, RSYNC protocols, local user authentication, Software RAID (0,1,5) with a Full WEB configuration interface. FreeNAS takes less than 32MB once installed on Compact Flash, hard drive or USB key.
The minimal FreeBSD distribution, Web interface, PHP scripts and documentation are based on M0n0wall.

Yes, I'm aware that the above sounds arrogant and flamebaity as f***. But honestly, I don't see the point of this.

Is it possible that it isn't being aimed at you?

That's a very good question.

how many PC's are allowed to connect?

10.

... must be insame or has to have too much dough. If I need a server in my home I use a Linux or a Solaris box.

No Windows, no Mac.

Thats neat but it has absolutely nothing to do with the article or what is being discussed.

Thanks for playing though.

Honestly though, an entry-level Mac Mini works like a charm as a home server. Small, silent and easily expandable by adding an Iomega MiniMax or a LaCie Mini.

Sounds like a pretty pricey server with limited storage space out of the box.

For the same money you could get a NAS (granted with more limited functionality) solution from someone else with prob 500 or more gigabytes.

$179. No DRM. Perfect.

To be fair, the device doesn't do everything that WHS does out-of-the-box, however it shows that Linksys and others do have a leg up on MS as far as this market is concerned.

You do bring up a good point, though. No DRM. Seeing as how Vista is crippled with DRM, it's a reasonably question to ask: will WHS also support MS' submissive stance towards Hollywood and the RIAA?